Groklaw was more interesting...
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| cjcox Jan 12, 2007 8:10 AM EDT |
I used to like Groklaw. But this is hardly news. Way back (a long time ago) when Novell pointed to distrowatch stats, WE all knew that distrowatch merely watched clicks... this is hardly news or a "correction"... but more or less typical stuff IMHO. The main thing the article does is continue to support Groklaw's utter hatred of anything and everything that is Novell since Novell made their deal with Microsoft which included some protection for Novell customers against a Microsoft patent attack. There was a time when that kind of thing was interesting to Groklaw.... and I can almost guarantee you there would be a difference if Red Hat has made such a deal with Microsoft. Not saying that Groklaw is slanted toward any particular distro... but the fact is ... they are... Hating Novell is a popular thing to do... and Groklaw knows it and it milking it for what it is worth. Seek objective information from somewhere else. Groklaw is becoming just another tabloid of slanted editorial for tickling ears. |
| TPuffin Jan 12, 2007 8:28 AM EDT |
I don't think that's entirely accurate, Chris. One think that PJ is definitely slanted against is anything she percieves as a threat to GNU/Linux, particularly of the legal variety. PJ is hardly alone in her perception that the Novell/MS deal gives weight to Microsoft scare tactics, not to mention the "violates the spirit of the GPL" viewpoint. Yes, there would probably be a difference if it was Red Hat, and not Novell - because the two companies have very, very different histories. Yes, most of US know that distrowatch counts clicks and not downloads. PJ apparently didn't, and posted her theories about the "download" count in the news section before bothering to check the facts of Novell's press release. So, her correction article was to very publicly address her own earlier public but less-visible error. And she admitted to and apologized for not checking her facts first. You don't see tabloids and ear-ticklers doing that very often, do you? |
| bigg Jan 12, 2007 9:02 AM EDT |
I've got to agree with TPuffin. I've also seen sjvn, love him or hate him he's a big name in the Linux world, citing distrowatch statistics as a measure of popularity. |
| dinotrac Jan 12, 2007 9:14 AM EDT |
>You don't see tabloids and ear-ticklers doing that very often, do you? You do when the facts are easily determined and indisputable. Simple reason: you look like an idiot otherwise. Think about the black eye CBS got in the whole "RatherGate" scandal. |
| DarrenR114 Jan 12, 2007 9:37 AM EDT |
I personally agree with cjcox. When she first started spouting off about the MS-Novell deal, she said this was a definite violation of the GPL. After Moglen and Stallman came out and said that it was not technically a violation of the GPL, she and several others jumped on the "violates the spirit" of the GPL. In one of the threads here, where I was called a troll, I asked for a specific example of such a violation of the spirit of the GPL. I make the same call for evidence there also, but so far, no one has provided any proof of that claim. The GPL is a software license. In order for there to be a violation of the spirit of the License, then there needs to be a particular software package, covered by the License, that Novell is violating the spirit of that License with. No one anywhere has pointed such a package out. In my opinion, and the opinion of many others, PJ has become a shrill troll when it comes to Novell and the MS-Novell deal. She clamors on and on about SCO not being specific with its evidence, but is insulted when the same is demanded of her regarding her claims of "violating the spirit of the GPL." Without naming specific packages that are affected, revising v3 of the GPL will not prevent deals of a similar nature in the future. |
| tuxchick Jan 12, 2007 10:03 AM EDT |
Darren, you got jumped on because you rejected every response to your comments that you didn't like. The concepts of "letter of the law" and "spirit of the law" are well-understand by most folks, as are exploiting loopholes and technicalities, and are legal concepts that have weight in courtrooms. Jeremy Allison said it best: "The intent matters. As I tried to explain in my resignation letter, if you’re screwing over some of your major suppliers by following what your lawyers see as the letter of a license, not the good faith intent of the license, then you can’t expect those suppliers to say “well done, you really tricked us on that one…..”" Do you have any refutations for PJ's piece on Distrowatch, other than "it suxx"? I doubt it. I don't care if folks don't like Groklaw- I just think your reasons are bunk. |
| devnet Jan 12, 2007 11:10 AM EDT |
I stopped caring about a majority of stuff that is posted there in 2005 due to groklaw stomping on the "spirit of open source" with its deceptive post hiding tactics: http://linux-blog.org/index.php?/categories/10-Groklaw IMHO, anyone that doesn't practice what the preach should shut it. |
| DarrenR114 Jan 12, 2007 12:05 PM EDT |
TC - The problem with what Jeremy Allison says in talking about what Novell did is that little word 'if'. *IF* you're going to go against the intent .... His use of the word *IF* says a lot to me - that he can't point out *WHERE* or *HOW* Novell violated even the spirit of the license. If he could, then he should have stated it more like "Because you violated the intent of the GPL with software XYZ ..." This would have been better for all involved, because such a statement would give a specific problem for Novell to cure. As it is, they are being castigated for simply entering into a business deal with Microsoft that is similar in nature to deals between MS and companies like IBM and Sun. The GPL does not exist in a vacuum. Without software, the GPL is meaningless. Without software, there is no intent to the GPL. It is a software license. In order to be in violation of the spirit of that license, there *must* be some software package somewhere that is the core of said violation. Without pointing out at least one software package covered by the GPL that is impacted by the MS-Novell deal, there is no violation of even the spirit or intent of the GPL. And this is something that equivocating the GPL to a "gentlemen's agreement" does not answer. As for refutations about her piece on DistroWatch - yeah I do have a couple: 1. In the Newspicks section, on this same topic, she characterised Novell as "spinning" the numbers as an indication of downloads. When you follow the link to Novell's actual blog page, you'll find that they talk about "page hits" and not download counts as PJ implied. 2. Her entire piece was about "accurately" reporting on the numbers. Yet, at the very end of the article, she makes statements as if she represents the entirety of the FOSS community. She does NOT. For a person so concerned with the veracity of statements made, she most certainly did not meet that standard she set for others. 3. When I follow this link, http://distrowatch.com/index.php?dataspan=1 , I find that Fedora is indeed fallen to #5 as of today. Her indictment of the 11Dec06 blog entry by Kaven Barney came on 11 Jan 07 - a full *month* in which that dynamic page could have changed. And she provides no evidence that the blog mischaracterised any data found there on 11 Dec 06. But that lack of evidence didn't seem to deter her latest blast against Novell. 4. And beyond just this particular piece, I know for a fact that she's hiding comments from the general public - comments that definitely do not violate any TOS, but do not reflect her desired opinion. |
| devnet Jan 12, 2007 12:07 PM EDT |
Regarding your #4 you posted Darren, that's specifically what my link dealt with :D |
| bigg Jan 12, 2007 12:40 PM EDT |
Personally, I get scared when people start talking about the "intent of the license". It sounds more like a case of, "Well, I didn't say you can't do that, but anyway I didn't want you to, so stop." Kind of like being married. I also remember many of the same individuals complaining about the Kororaa live CD being discontinued. |
| devnet Jan 12, 2007 12:41 PM EDT |
But intent is a legal term bigg...so it shouldn't scare you because in the court it doesn't mean what it does outside of court. |
| bigg Jan 12, 2007 1:02 PM EDT |
I guess what I'm uncomfortable with is Jeremy Allison's statement that "I've spoken with Novell executives since I came out internally against the deal and their position on it has been 'if it doesn't violate the GPLv2 what is your problem?' The problem is I do think it violates the intent of the GPLv2 if not the letter...The intent *matters*...As I tried to explain in my resignation letter, if you're screwing over some of your major suppliers by following what your lawyers see as the *letter* of a license, not the good faith intent of the license, then you can't expect those suppliers to say 'well done, you really tricked us on that one...." Maybe I'm reading it incorrectly, but he seems to be saying there's an unwritten rule of conduct that Novell didn't follow. I like it better when you expect others to follow the written rules of conduct, and kick yourself for not writing down the rules in advance. Just my opinion/preference. |
| DarrenR114 Jan 12, 2007 2:13 PM EDT |
bigg - I agree with that sentiment 100%. The feeling I get is that some people, who seem to have appointed themselves as dictators for life over the FOSS community, representing themselves as speaking for me when they really don't, are railing against Novell for breaking some unspoken, unwritten taboo that I didn't even know about. I've been pushing Linux and FOSS in front of friends and family since 1995. I've tried most every mainline distro (slack, redhat, SUSE, OpenLinux, Debian) and a few of their derivitives. I use Linux and GNU on all of the machines I touch daily. I've presented Linux to my bosses over the years (even convinced a couple to give it a try.) For the last 6 years, I've been fortunate enough to be able to have Linux both at home and at work except for one year. Software I work on is FOSS, and as I am able, I do give back to the originators of the projects I modify (sometimes heavily.) I don't go in front of hundreds of people in some sort of pep rally, but I do try to do my part. I tried writing a regular online column back in '99 for a small magazine, but had to give that up because my day job was taking too much of my attention. I would like to revive that "Penguin Habitat" but I don't see it in the cards today. So if there was some "gentlemen's agreement" that was broken, it was well hidden even from some of the older members of the FOSS community. I don't need some snot-nosed newcomer to the FOSS scene telling me what the FOSS philosophy is - I was railing against declining shelvespace in Barnes & Noble before most of the people here even knew there was an OS besides MS-Windows. You can check Usenet archives in Comp.OS.Linux.Advocacy for that thread. That thread even made its way to Slashdot. Shortly after I started asking the questions of the store managers, the shelf space started increasing (in my area at least). I may not be always tooting my own horn like prominent gurus such as Bruce Perens, but I'll get darned pissy when people start questioning my sincerity and dedication to FOSS. I am a strong believer in "The Power of One" and feel the most effective campaigns for the progressive spread of FOSS is face-to-face and person-to-person. I've gotten some good mileage by simply wearing my baseball cap with Tux on the front, from thinkgeek.com. This stupid fsck campaign of smearing Novell because of the MS-Novell deal does not do a darned thing for the good of spreading the benefits of FOSS to the rest of the world. It is a distraction and danged destructive one at that. When you have specific evidence against Novell, either regarding the intent or letter of the GPL, then start shouting for their head. I'll be right there with you in the chorus. Until you can point to at least one software package by which Novell has violated even the intent of the License, please cease with the cacophony of presumed guilt. |
| Abe Jan 12, 2007 5:10 PM EDT |
Quoting:His use of the word *IF* says a lot to me - that he can't point out *WHERE* or *HOW* Novell violated even the spirit of the license.I totally disagree with you and please don't throw a “Clinton” at us. Jeremy Allison being the diplomatic non-confrontational person he is, already decided to leave Novell after he realized it was too little too late to do anything. He chose not to enter into a debate with Novell's management since he realized nothing he could have done that would change the situation. There is no reason to second guess him and it is not appropriate to put words in his mouth. We really don't know what he knows and what kind of non-disclosure he had signed with Novell that prevented him from saying anything. If you have first hand information, please speak up. Quoting:The GPL does not exist in a vacuum. Without software, the GPL is meaningless.Duh. so what is your point? Quoting:In order to be in violation of the spirit of that license, there *must* be some software package somewhere that is the core of said violation.Wronggg. Let me explain what the “spirit of the GPL” is. It is really very simple. In the letter of the GPL, everyone is granted and guaranteed software freedom for any GPLed code. Everyone is free to use, copy, change, distribute any GPLed code under the condition to give back to the community any changes made if you intend to distribute (including sale) of the code. So the spirit and intent of the GPL is total software freedom, and any restrictions, other than what the GPL calls for, are violation of its spirit and intent. Now, does this make sense to you? If not, then you should not be supporting or advocating FOSS but you are more than welcome to just use its applications as an end user only and according to the license released under by their copyrights owners. From what we have seen and heard from MS, and with the blessing and agreement from Novell, FOSS users other than Suse's, are being restricted and their Freedom is being taken away from them. That is a violation of the GPL spirit and intent. Novell, like all others, has all the right to enter into any business agreement they wish regard their own software, but they have no right to enter with any other party into an agreement that covers software that is not theirs. Novell made a big mistake, a blunder by not consulting with the community before they entered into the patent agreement. Novell knows that FOSS is against bogus patents. Why the heck did they agree to include patents in an agreement that covers FOSS? I guess they must have been beyond desperation to do that. Quoting:I agree with that sentiment 100%. The feeling I get is that some people, who seem to have appointed themselves as dictators for life over the FOSS community, representing themselves as speaking for me when they really don't, are railing against Novell for breaking some unspoken, unwritten taboo that I didn't even know about.GPL3 will soon be released, if you or anyone else don't like it, suit yourself, you don't have to use it. Again, like Novell, you don't own the code, and consequently you don't have much to say about it, it is up to the developers and the copyright owners to decide and chose which license they want to release their code under. And all the people who are expressing their views and opinions against Novell, they are just like you, they have the full right to do so. |
| jimf Jan 12, 2007 5:25 PM EDT |
> I agree with that sentiment 100%. The feeling I get is that some people, who seem to have appointed themselves as dictators for life over the FOSS community, representing themselves as speaking for me when they really don't, are railing against Novell for breaking some unspoken, unwritten taboo that I didn't even know about. As far as I can see, the ongoing GPLv3 debate only confurms that, but, since it seems a done deal, I guess we'll just have to see what the developers decide. |
| DarrenR114 Jan 12, 2007 5:42 PM EDT |
Abe, without a specific piece of software to point to, it matters not one whit about v3 of the GPL. Without pointing even one package of software that the license was violated even just in the intent, all the modifiying of the license doesn't mean anything. And that is the bottom line. But that does bring up a related point - where is that promised revision that is going to kill the MS-Novell deal? To which software packages does it apply? Was it prudent for the Samba team to declare that they would adopt v3 of the GPL when it hasn't even been finalized yet? Sun issued a statement indicating why it was NOT prudent to make such promises at this point in time. This further indicates that the judgement of the Samba developers was knee-jerk at best and not very well considered. What's to prevent Stallman from including a clause in v3 that all users must sacrifice their first born child to Cthulu? This is why I don't think it is wise for any developer to use that 'or later' clause for any of their software. I absolutely agree that the people expressing their opinions against Novell have the right to do so - but they don't have the right to misrepresent the facts. To say that Novell has violated the spirit of the GPL without backing that accusation with proof is misrepresenting the facts. And one fact keeps sticking in my mind - IBM has no problem with the MS-Novell deal. They are partners with Novell and Redhat. They do not see the deal as hurting the Linux community. They have made public statements to that effect. And IBM is certainly no friend of MS. Abe - before I make a statement that I may regret later, let me just say that I have been a part of the FOSS community since before 1994. I *know* about the need for software freedom, the sharing of code, and the benefits of such. I do *NOT* need to be lectured on what the "spirit of the GPL" is. What you and everyone else who has been bashing Novell has *failed* to do is demonstrate in any way, shape, or form just how the MS-Novell deal has removed any software freedom from you or anyone else. And in that failure, you have made accusations without proof. |
| Abe Jan 12, 2007 5:51 PM EDT |
Quoting:As far as I can see, the ongoing GPLv3 debate only confurms that, but, since it seems a done deal, I guess we'll just have to see what the developers decide.I agree and that is why I chose not to continue posting about this subject until new development takes place. But DarrenR114 seem to be on a mission and he wont let go. I just felt compelled to respond and try to explain. I hope he finally gets it. |
| azerthoth Jan 12, 2007 6:28 PM EDT |
I think whats derailing the discussion is the definition of "Spirit" From Mirriam-Webster Quoting: Spirit: 11 a : prevailing tone or tendency b : general intent or real meaning Its not to difficult to read through the GPL and see that the general intent boils down to give back to the community at large what you get. Since Novell has gotten safety for its linux users from being sued by Microsoft and can not pass that along to the community, as would be required if there was any code involved at all, then that is the spirit that was violated. They took something that was not theirs, GPL'd code which is community property, and recieved legal protection for their users and their users only. Even though that the people who are not protected are using the same code. The letter of the GPL does not prevent this. The concept of the GPL on the other hand, the spirit if you will, easily reads what one gets and distributes must be distributable to all. Novell has distrubted a get out of court free card to a specific section of the world, those who use their product and their product only. Darren I hope that helps you see what the rest of us are talking about. Its not about a single package. That wouldnt be a violation of the "spirit" but rather a violation of the contract, the two things are different. Looking for a specific impacted package is not looking at "spirit" because spirit and intent dont work that way. |
| Abe Jan 12, 2007 6:47 PM EDT |
Darren, I thought I covered all of that but obviously didn't do a good job at it. Let me try again. Quoting:without a specific piece of software to point to, it matters not one whit about v3 of the GPL. Without pointing even one package of software that the license was violated even just in the intent, all the modifying of the license doesn't mean anything. And that is the bottom line.We are talking about a whole lot of software that is released under the GPL and when you violate one, you are violating all. Again, we are talking about violating the spirit and intent and not necessarily a specific application. I guess I did all I can trying to explain what is meant by the spirit and intent of the GPL. Sorry if I can't do any better. Quoting:where is that promised revision that is going to kill the MS-Novell deal?It is in draft and they are trying to come up with the appropriate text that will include and cover all aspects of the spirit and intent of the GPL. They are trying to be sure that FOSS doesn't have to go through the same thing again in few years down the road. They also are making sure that most if not all are in agreement with its new terms. Quoting:Was it prudent for the Samba team to declare that they would adopt v3 of the GPL when it hasn't even been finalized yet?The Samba team realized that there is a problem (a loop hole) in GPL2 and want to have it fixed because they are the one that will be impacted the most by this contract, that is why they agreed to have the terms in GPL2 be amended. If there is anything that RMS or any body else that they might add that is not acceptable, the Samba team have the full prerogative not to adopt it. There is nothing that RMS or any body else can force them to adopt if they don't agree to it. I believe their commitment to GPL3 is conditional on its terms and they are free to change their mind if they chose. I am sure they will not adopt some thing they don't agree to. Quoting:I absolutely agree that the people expressing their opinions against Novell have the right to do so - but they don't have the right to misrepresent the facts. To say that Novell has violated the spirit of the GPL without backing that accusation with proof is misrepresenting the facts.I thought I covered this part already. Quoting:And one fact keeps sticking in my mind IBM has no problem with the MS-Novell deal...I have covered that in a post on lxer before and wasn't able to locate it. IBM has $50 million invested in Novell, IBM needs Novell for their case against SCO, IBM doesn't see MS as a threat to them since they can defend themselves and their clients using their huge patent portfolio. IBM is being prudent about getting involved at this point since the agreement has no immediate impact on them. IBM has FOSS to use and doesn't care what happens to it as long as it is not going to be effected. IBM is a corporation and will only make a move when they feel their business is in danger and obviously they don't think it is. IBM has been friendly to FOSS so far but yet to prove to be a friend. |
| Abe Jan 12, 2007 7:27 PM EDT |
Darren,
You listed your credentials about supporting and advocating FOSS, let me list my credentials about supporting and advocating Suse I started using Suse Linux in 2000 (I think it was 6.0) and paid for every new version I downloaded. Over the years, I explored, investigated, and tried many different distros but Suse was my favorite and remained my primary distro all that time. My recommendations to my friends and in post on the net were for Suse. Until recently when Novell signed the agreement with MS, I decided to immediately move to something else. PCLinuxOS was it for a while then Kubuntu. I have four computers, two running Kubuntu and one PCLinuxOS and the fourth still has Suse 10.1. PCLinuxOS will be replacing the last Suse. To tell you the truth, currently Suse is no longer the best. It is still good as server, but as a desktop, Kubuntu and PCLinuxOS are superior in terms of speed, reliability, stability, package offering, ease of installation and updates, and most of all, future development. It is unfortunate that Novell messed up such a good distribution. |
| jimf Jan 12, 2007 7:48 PM EDT |
Abe, I don't think you understand where I'm coming from. I pretty much agree with Darren's frustration on this one. In the real world when you have a License, you are bound by the License and not by things that you 'wish' you'd said, or what you forgot to say, or meant to say. Letter of the law is meaningful and 'spirit' of the law don't mean diddly.... I don't use SuSe, nor will I, but, It's a very decent Distro, and, the Novell/SuSe bashers are acting like idiots in this issue. 'When' GPLv3 is released, and 'when' Novell releases stuff under GPLv3 then you'll have a legitimate gripe. Until then, it's all just FUD and personal dreams (or nightmares to me). Again, the Developers are going to be the ones who will decide whether any of this is relevant. |
| swbrown Jan 12, 2007 10:50 PM EDT |
> and I can almost guarantee you there would be a difference if Red Hat has made such a deal with Microsoft. Well, yes. We'd be hating Red Hat instead of Novell. |
| dinotrac Jan 13, 2007 1:30 AM EDT |
TC - >The concepts of "letter of the law" and "spirit of the law" are well-understand by most folks, Let's say that's true -- although I think they are well-misunderstood: The clearest problem case: A real law as passed by a legislature. After much debate and a series of modifications, it finally passes, 52-48. Is there a spirit to the law, or 52 spirits of the law, or 100 spirits of the law? If there is a spirit of the law, is it the same spirit that existed before the modifications? How would you know? Who would you ask? What if it were passed by a coalition of legislatures from several different positions because it contained pieces of importance to each of them? Same words for all. Different spirit. GPL is different. It is not the work of legislatures. It is pretty much the vision of RMS and Eben Moglen. They should know the spirit of the GPL. That's certainly a fair assumption. But what about everybody else? If they can't rely on the GPL itself, what can they rely on? Should we always have to ask RMS and Eben Moglen? Should it always be a matter of "Stallman says...". What if Stallman starts saying different things? Should the GPL turn into dust when the two of them die? Even if RMS could be everywhere at once like Santa Clause and were immortal, we'd still have a problem. The GPL may have been drafted by RMS, but was applied by thousands of copyright holders. Is the spirit of the GPL - or, rather, the one that matters - what the mighty oracle RMS says, or is it different for each project? Words on paper suck. We all know that they are less than perfect. But, at least they are there and there are rules of legal interpretation. The one thing about the GPLV3 brouhaha that I can agree with completely: If V2 doesn't do what you want, by all means, change the license. But getting all fanboy spazzed because somebody follows the current license instead of same magical picture you have in your head is just stupid. |
| Abe Jan 13, 2007 7:34 AM EDT |
Quoting:don't think you understand where I'm coming from. I pretty much agree with Darren's frustration on this one.Jim, I fully understand where you stand on this issue, I was only agreeing with your statement "I guess we'll just have to see what the developers decide.", nothing else. I have been saying that all along and from the very beginning. How could I forget all your previous posts in this regard?!! |
| Abe Jan 13, 2007 8:53 AM EDT |
Quoting:>The concepts of "letter of the law" and "spirit of the law" are well-understand by most folks, Dino: I think there is a fundamental difference in the understanding of that. As a lawyer, you are convinced that the law and the letter of the law is what grants freedom & justice. Nothing wrong with that, you are just being practical and pragmatic and I am sure we all agree. But the law is a man made tainted conveniences. There is a higher power than the law which grants us, as human beings, Liberty & Rights in addition to Freedom and Justice. Liberty is the spirit of Freedom and Rights collectively is the spirit of Justice. That, my friend, is what most people fully understand and strive for, not a complicated jumble of text. |
| dinotrac Jan 13, 2007 11:52 AM EDT |
>you are convinced that the law and the letter of the law is what grants freedom & justice. I think it would be more correct to say that I have some understanding of the practical problems of the law. The law is, more or less, a blunt instrument, constrained by the limits of what people can do together. A license is a legal document, and, especially in the case of something like shrink-wrapped software (which includes free software) is something not individually negotiated on a user-by-user basis. You have to go with the letter. It is, of course, to say that somebody is circumventing the real intent of the license, but, it's rarely as clear as complainers think. |
| dinotrac Jan 13, 2007 11:54 AM EDT |
>From what we have seen and heard from MS, and with the blessing and agreement from Novell, FOSS users other than Suse's, are being restricted and their Freedom is being taken away from them. Out of curiosity, can you explain what nobody else can: Exactly what freedom is being restricted? |
| azerthoth Jan 13, 2007 12:46 PM EDT |
Its not a freedom per se, see my post above about the get out of court free coupon that Novell has offered to some users of GPL'd code. |
| Abe Jan 13, 2007 1:52 PM EDT |
Quoting:The law is, more or less, a blunt instrument, constrained by the limits of what people can do together.You keep restricting the GPL interpretation to the letter of the law. We all know by now that this was already established by Moglen. Legally, Novel-MS agreement may not have violated the GPL, what we are talking about is, again, the spirit, the intent, the merit, the whole purpose of the GPL. That is why it was determined that it needed to be amended for its letter to fulfill what it was intended for and cover what wasn't before. Quoting:Exactly what freedom is being restricted?Suse is GPLed software. MS has made it clear that, those who use any FOSS code other than paid for Suse are candidates for law suits for patent infringement. That was known to Novell in advance and agreed to it simply by signing and blessing the contract. What is being restricted is, those who use FOSS are better not do that without paying royalty to Novell and indirectly through the agreement to MS. Also, they better not copy it, distribute it, or modify it. These are all rights that the GPL grants to its users. Suse is GPLed code that has its copyright holders and it is not Novell's or MS's. If MS believe they have IP in FOSS, they should sue. When Novell is bound by the contract to pay MS part of Suse royalties, that is an indication that they agree with MS. |
| dinotrac Jan 13, 2007 2:38 PM EDT |
>What is being restricted is, those who use FOSS are better not do that without paying royalty to Novell and indirectly through the agreement to MS. Also, they better not copy it, distribute it, or modify it. Care to explain just what about the Novell-Microsoft agreement has that effect? And what does it mean "better not do"? Are you claiming that Microsoft was some kind of benevolent angel prior to the Novell agreement and suddenly, because they signed an agreement with Novell, have decided to go after free software users? If that's what you think, check your water. Somebody's been spiking it. Microsoft was a nasty SOB company long before they signed the deal with Novell. They were a major force behind the SCO lawsuit and were already making threatening rumbles with regard to IP. They sure haven't collected a major patent portfolio so they could hang the certificates on the office wall. The Microsoft-Novell agreement has not restricted anybody's freedom at all. Nada, none, not at all. It doesn't because it couldn't. GPL'd software is GPL'd software, and most of what SuSE packaged is stuff for which it doesn't own the copyright. Neither Novell nor Microsoft has the right to restrict those freedoms. You're just mad because the M-word is involved. |
| jimf Jan 13, 2007 2:48 PM EDT |
> just mad because the M-word is involved. That's what I'm seeing ;-) |
| swbrown Jan 13, 2007 5:31 PM EDT |
> Out of curiosity, can you explain what nobody else can: Exactly what freedom is being restricted? It's a restriction it's violating, not a freedom. The GPL uses restrictions to prevent situations that will lead to a loss of freedom. E.g., collective action problems and prisoner's dilemmas, removing the motive to harm the group for the benefit of one. That's why it's said to be less free than BSD, but leads to more freedom. That's why we use it way more than the BSD - ensuring that freedom is extremely important to us, and it stops the stupid games and backstabbing. That's what's happened here - Microsoft and Novell found a loophole that lets them bypass such a restriction that prevents such a motive, which threatens the freedom of the software. That's not welcome. At all. It's beyond unethical behavior. I hope they both die a horrible corporate death. |
| dinotrac Jan 13, 2007 7:16 PM EDT |
>It's a restriction it's violating, not a freedom. You are, as usual, wrong, but you are less wrong than the others. It's not violating any restriction, as RMS and Eben Moglen will attest. If, however, you believe RMS and Moglen, it does something that they wish they had restricted and plan to restrict in V3. It certainly doesn't take anybody's freedom away. As to whether you like what they've done or consider it ethical, you are free to believe as you wish. |
| devnet Jan 13, 2007 9:00 PM EDT |
Dino, Let's look at how this spirit is violated shall we? Microsoft is offering patent protection to Novell's customers...from the Suse FAQ: "The patent agreement signed by Novell and Microsoft was designed with the principles and obligations of the GPL in mind. Under this agreement, customers of SUSE Linux Enterprise know they have patent protection from Microsoft in connection with their use of SUSE Linux Enterprise, further encouraging the adoption of Linux in the marketplace." The GPL is incompatible with "patent protection". From the GPL Preamble: "Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software patents. We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all." So, any patent protection Microsoft offers must be licensed for everyone...anyone using the GPL code from Novell or it shouldn't be licensed at all...and more from the license itself: "If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program." So Novell shouldn't be distributing GPL code...because it's getting a patent shield...but of course, they found a loophole didn't they? They're not actually violating the articles of the GPL...they're just whizzing on the spirit of it. So that makes everything ok? Quoting:Exactly what freedom is being restricted?See next quote and answer below... Quoting:The Microsoft-Novell agreement has not restricted anybody's freedom at all. Nada, none, not at all. Wrong. Here's an excerpt from the Samba letter to Novell: "The patent agreement struck between Novell and Microsoft is a divisive agreement. It deals with users and creators of free software differently depending on their "commercial" versus "non-commercial" status, and deals with them differently depending on whether they obtained their free software directly from Novell or from someone else." That is restricting use of GPL code based on commercial and non-commercial status my friend. They're restricting freedom. |
| swbrown Jan 14, 2007 1:42 AM EDT |
> You are, as usual, wrong, but you are less wrong than the others.
It's not violating any restriction, as RMS and Eben Moglen will attest. Which is why I continue to call how they get around section 7 a loophole, and a violation of the spirit of the license. As RMS and Eben Moglen will attest, given the re-draft of the GPL3 to close the loophole. Novell managed to find a convoluted and sleazy way around the language of the restrictions that try to prevent a prisoner's dilemma situation by removing the motives for betrayal. Once found, Novell then acted to betray. That undermines the protections intended for a huge amount of software and opens the door for self-destructive behavior. |
| dinotrac Jan 14, 2007 3:50 AM EDT |
>We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program proprietary Can you tell me the number of a single patent that has been licensed? Can you tell me a single GPL'd program that can not be distributed under the same terms they were distributed before? No. You can't. Spout all the philosophy you like, you can't make the facts fit your anger. It is the M-word that has your goat, not any specific action. |
| azerthoth Jan 14, 2007 6:19 AM EDT |
We can not tell you about patent numbers. Does this mean that they dont exist? No. In fact MS has repeatedly stated for years that those patents do exist. Now they even go so far as to say that every one of us is guilty of patent violation and could be taken to court. Everyone that is except SUSE users who Novell garnered protection from MS patent lawsuits for. We cant produce patent #'s because MS wont say which they believe are pertinent, and you know that already. That doesnt mean they dont exist. Just as you know, having been a lawyer, you do not need a body or a weapon to get someone convicted of murder. You also know that intent and spirit CAN be fought in court and won. The issue is, is it worth it financially to take Novell and Microsoft on in a court battle? Getting either of those folks into court means needing some failry deep pockets, have you thought that this might just be a case of how much justice can you actually afford? That however is a side issue. |
| DarrenR114 Jan 14, 2007 6:33 AM EDT |
Quoting: We cant produce patent #'s because MS wont say which they believe are pertinent, and you know that already. That doesnt mean they dont exist. Just as you know, having been a lawyer, you do not need a body or a weapon to get someone convicted of murder. So the major piece of evidence against Novell in this case is the statement from a corporation that is known to lie, cheat and steal. Now let's take it from that point - if the MS-Novell deal didn't exist, how would any freedom for FOSS users be restored? The enigmous sword of MS patents would still be hanging over their heads. |
| azerthoth Jan 14, 2007 6:41 AM EDT |
The issue is, Novell has secured protection for its users that can not be extended to cover any other users. Remove the MS deal and the litigation threat is still there. Replace the MS deal and the litigation threat is there for everyone else but SUSE users. Is it sinking in that the GPL is about equality across the board? That no one user is "more" equal than any other? |
| DarrenR114 Jan 14, 2007 7:23 AM EDT |
I don't believe that the GPL is about ensuring equality across the board. In fact, the GPL is very restrictive in how software under its license is treated. There is nothing in the MS-Novell deal that puts further restrictions on how users may treat software that is licensed under the GPL, and I'm talking about all users, not just SUSE users. As a license, the GPL is not about furthering protections to all users - it is about defining conditions for distribution and modifcation of software. There is nothing in the MS-Novell deal that changes the conditions under which GPL'ed software may be shared or changed. That a certain segment of users have a further guarantee against being sued changes nothing of the freedoms granted to all users of GPL'ed software. Since the freedoms have not been changed or further restricted, there is no violation of the spirit or intent of the GPL. |
| dinotrac Jan 14, 2007 7:34 AM EDT |
>The issue is, Novell has secured protection for its users that can not be extended to cover any other users. So -- is the guiding principle that it's not ok to protect yourself or others? Is that what freedom is about? What if I, as a Linux user, and fearful of suit, made a deal with Microsoft not to sue me? Would that be ok? If I wanted to give a copy of Linux to a friend, could I? Could I ask Microsoft not to sue my friend? |
| azerthoth Jan 14, 2007 7:47 AM EDT |
Step back and look in context, with the GPL if any single person has such a freedom from litigation then it defaults to all users of the same have the same freedom from litigation. There is no need for me to strike my own deals, or for you to have to either. Not so with this deal. |
| DarrenR114 Jan 14, 2007 7:52 AM EDT |
Freedom from litigation is NOT one of the software freedoms granted by the GPL. |
| azerthoth Jan 14, 2007 8:00 AM EDT |
No, just that any freedom that is granted to one is granted to all. |
| dinotrac Jan 14, 2007 8:26 AM EDT |
>No, just that any freedom that is granted to one is granted to all. Sorry, that is too imprecise. The GPL is limited to the freedoms it grants. You could as easily say that American Linux users cannot distribute to North Koreans because we are free to vote and free to criticize our government. If I negotiate my own deal with Microsoft, the GPL has nothing to say about it. If I give my friend a copy of Linux, I give him all of the rights and all of the freedoms I received under the GPL. That excludes any right not to be sued by Microsoft because that right did not come from the GPL. If I wish to extend my protection to my friend, I am free to do so and the GPL cannot stop me. |
| azerthoth Jan 14, 2007 8:44 AM EDT |
Correction, if you wish to extend that protection to your friend you must also have permission from Microsoft to do so. And therein lies the rub. |
| dinotrac Jan 14, 2007 9:20 AM EDT |
>Correction, if you wish to extend that protection to your friend you must also have permission from Microsoft to do so. Absolutely, because Microsoft is the true source of the protection. But that has nothing whatsoever to do with the GPL. My friend is as free to enjoy his copy of the Linux, including all of the rights granted by the GPL as I am, and as any other Linux user is. |
| swbrown Jan 14, 2007 7:18 PM EDT |
Dino and Darren (well, Darren obviously given AFAIK he's arguing for his employer) love avoiding this issue by talking around it. Here's the deal simplified: - The GPL attempts to prevent situations where this is a motive to act in a way that benefits you while causing, or allowing, harm on others. Collective action problems and prisoner's dilemmas. Money for biting the hand that feeds you. It does this through restrictions to your freedoms. E.g., section 7. - It's an attempt to force a "We must all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately." (Benjamin Franklin) situation. - This is what prevents situations like what happened with BSD a decade or two ago where distributors acted in their own self interest in a way that betrayed others, which eventually led to them collectively self-destructing and the rise of GNU. - This is the difference in the spirit of the GPL. - This is why the GPL is strong. - This is why a huge number of people use the GPL. - Novell acted to enhance its position by finding a way to cover the GPLed software in its distribution with an effectively non-transferable agreement with the attacker, leaving its users without the rights Novell used to distribute the Free Software. This is the "most assuredly we shall all hang separately" path, as now they not only do not need to act to protect the freedoms of the Free Software they distribute, but Novell would profit from attacks on the freedom of Free Software as customers would be driven to their distribution for protection from their partner's attacks. - If it wasn't for the convoluted legal loophole they apparently used to work around section 7, this would not have been allowed. Novell would have not had the right to distribute the software under such an agreement, so they would have had no profit motive to see Free Software attacked. It is against the spirit of the GPL, and was obviously intended to be against the language of the GPL. - This undermines the key spiritual difference between the GPL license and the BSD license, and opens the door to a repeat of the BSD disaster. - This is why most people whose GPLed software Novell distributes are furious. Ximian excluded, obviously. - It doesn't matter who did this - if it was Red Hat and IBM rather than Novell and Microsoft, the reaction would be the same, as it's the same attack on GPLed software. The hate is justified, and you can cry and argue about it all you want, but that won't make it go away. Novell has arranged to profit from attacks on the Free Software it distributes, so is an enemy of Free Software. |
| dinotrac Jan 15, 2007 3:51 AM EDT |
>Dino and Darren (well, Darren obviously given AFAIK he's arguing for his employer) love avoiding this issue by talking around it. Here's the deal simplified: I don't avoid any issues. You just can't stand reality. The problem here is Microsoft, and all of your tap dancing can't get around it. >The hate is justified At least you admit it to your emotional state. You don't like what Novell did. Fine. Microsoft is the Boogeyman. I get it. But... 1. There is no GPL violation. The folks at the beginning of the GPL food chain say so. 2. There is no patent license with regard to GPL'd software. Nobody in a position to know claims that there is. And, by the way, that follows from number 1. If you understood the GPL as you claim too, you would know that. 3. Nobody's freedom has been restricted in any way whatsoever. Neither you nor anybody else has been able to point out a single piece of software that cannot now be used or distributed just as it was before. |
| DarrenR114 Jan 15, 2007 5:51 AM EDT |
I am *NOT* employed by Novell, IBM, or any other entity that has ever been mentioned on LXer.com. I don't work for any entity that is partnered with, or contracted by such, either. Such an accusation is an indication of a weak justification for one's own position - implying that I *must* have some ulterior motives to my reasoning and stated position. |
| Abe Jan 15, 2007 6:27 AM EDT |
Quoting:3. Nobody's freedom has been restricted in any way whatsoever.Strongly disagree. Quoting:Neither you nor anybody else has been able to point out a single piece of software that cannot now be used or distributed just as it was before.I believe it was reiterated many times already and by many people, but you keep drifting away to come back to the same question again and again. It is not a matter of can or can't, it is a matter of severe consequences if you do. It is scare tactics by a 1000 lbs. bully. Yes, MS is the problem, but by Novell agreeing, it became an integral part of the problem. You can spin it any way you like, but it remains a restriction in any way you look at. It is not hate, it is being careful and protective of what we were granted and possess. |
| Abe Jan 15, 2007 7:02 AM EDT |
Quoting:I am *NOT* employed by Novell, IBM, or any other entity that has ever been mentioned on LXer.com.Darren, I think the reason some of us think you work for Novel is because there is a profile for Darren R who works at Novell. A question was posed to you on LXer.com few weeks back asking if it was you and I believe you had no answer. May be you want to clarify that. See the link below. http://www.novell.com/coolsolutions/author/1342.html Quoting: A Bit About Darren R. |
| DarrenR114 Jan 15, 2007 7:20 AM EDT |
Abe - Thank you. I had actually missed that question before on LXer, otherwise I would have answered it then. Is there a pointer to that post so that I may belatedly address the question now? And to swbrown, I apologize - I was unaware of that profile, and the unanswered question on LXer. To put the whole thing to rest, if my previous post in this thread here did not already do so, that Darren R is not me. I don't really want to put my full name here in the open, but if you follow the clues I've left here in recent days, you should be able to discover it. Also, there is someone with the same name as me working for MS - as a manager, no less. At least I think he still works for MS. |
| devnet Jan 15, 2007 7:35 AM EDT |
Ok...Let's stop for a second Can we all agree that the GPL is about complete liberty and freedom (free as in free)? If so, then you've just stated that the Novell-MS deal violates these freedoms. It restricts the use of GPL software by differentiating between commercial and and non-commercial contributors. It also differentiates between WHERE you got your software from...because protection is not extended to anywhere else besides Novell. When choice is limited it is no longer free as in free. It becomes free as in free as long as you follow these restrictions. Swbrown said it well...that Novell is: Quoting:leaving its users without the rights Novell used to distribute the Free Software and Quoting:Novell would profit from attacks on the freedom of Free Software as customers would be driven to their distribution for protection from their partner's attacks. The Novell-MS deal attempts to LIMIT CHOICE and take away freedom. As for Dino: Quoting: 3. Nobody's freedom has been restricted in any way whatsoever. Neither you nor anybody else has been able to point out a single piece of software that cannot now be used or distributed just as it was before. See above...this is the second time I've explained this. Freedom has been limited...because now, since I don't use Novell Linux, I have to think twice about WHERE I get my software. I have to think about being sued. I have to protect myself by only getting software from Novell. So my freedom has been limited. It's no longer about choosing the software that fits me...the Linux that fits me...now I can only choose Novell...else I be sued. Can software that is GPL still be used and distributed as it was before? Yes it can...and it can do so with FULL fear of being prosecuted in accordance with this deal....because the only 'authorized' distributor is Novell. Very simple dino...your choice is limited if you want to safely use the GPL software in discussion...you can only get it from one source...all other sources you're up in the air and might be prosecuted one day. The GPL is not about limiting choice or freedom. Novell, by agreeing with this deal, has set itself apart from all other linux vendors because it benefits from the restriction of freedom and choice. |
| dinotrac Jan 15, 2007 7:39 AM EDT |
>it is a matter of severe consequences if you do And again, you are avoiding the question completely: What did the Novell deal do to change anything in that regard? If there are severe consequences, those severe consequences exist with or without the Novell deal. For a group that seems to pride itself on logic, a lot of folks here are arguing religion, not fact. |
| dinotrac Jan 15, 2007 7:41 AM EDT |
>Very simple dino...your choice is limited if you want to safely use the GPL software in discussion.. So...let me get this straight... Users of free software were in grave danger, and Novell did something evil by protecting some of them? OOC -- Would you consider cancer drugs evil if they can cure only some cancer patients? Police officers worthless if they can capture only some criminals? Etc, etc, etc. |
| DarrenR114 Jan 15, 2007 7:49 AM EDT |
devnet - Even if the deal didn't exist, you'd still have to worry about where you get your software from. The GPL is not about freedom from worry of litigation - you won't find that in any of the software freedoms listed by RMS. GPL is about making sure that you can do with any GPL'ed software the same things that the entity who provided you with the software. In that context, the MS-Novell deal has removed none of the freedoms provided by the GPL to you, or anyone else using such software. And there is where we will have to agree to disagree. It seems to me that the same people railing against Novell are using the statements of MS as support for their position. And there it seems to me also that putting such stock in any statement by MS is a foolhardy proposition. Because MS is known to lie, even in court, we can't trust any pronouncement by them. |
| bigg Jan 15, 2007 7:57 AM EDT |
> Can software that is GPL still be used and distributed as it was before? Yes it can...and it can do so with FULL fear of being prosecuted in accordance with this deal....because the only 'authorized' distributor is Novell. If it were the case that Novell agreed in the deal that Linux is violating MS patents, and MS could take that information into court as a tool for prosecution, I agree that the deal is evil. Given that MS has said Novell is making no such claim, I don't think the deal affects the probability of being prosecuted. Purchasing an auto insurance policy is not an admission that you are planning to get into an accident and kill several people, though that might happen through no fault of your own. |
| Abe Jan 15, 2007 8:33 AM EDT |
Never mind this post, I just realized that you were asking for the post not the link. If I find it, I will post it.Quoting:Is there a pointer to that post so that I may belatedly address the question now?The link is in my previous post, here it is again. It has a picture too which makes it easy for to prove it is not you. http://www.novell.com/coolsolutions/author/1342.html |
| Abe Jan 15, 2007 8:48 AM EDT |
Quoting:What did the Novell deal do to change anything in that regard?Novell agreeing to the patent part of the agreement gave a lot of credibility to MS claims. Otherwise, what did Novell agree to include the patent part for????? What is the purpose of the Novell's royalty payments to MS for every Linux license purchased from Novell??? Why does MS have to be involved with Novell in granting licenses to customers for Linux??? Novell never answered these questions. They just did the Square Dance around them . |
| DarrenR114 Jan 15, 2007 9:00 AM EDT |
Abe - Thanks for looking to find the link to the LXer post asking if that Novell bio was about me. BTW, my initials are D J R - that guy's are D R D. Darren |
| dinotrac Jan 15, 2007 9:13 AM EDT |
Abe - >Novell agreeing to the patent part of the agreement gave a lot of credibility to MS claims. If that were true, I would agree that the deal has been harmful. I don't believe it is true. If MS claims had no credibility before, the deal wouldn't matter to anybody. Who cares about insurance for something that's not going to happen? For example, it wouldn't make me pay an extra dime for a car to know that the warranty covers damage caused by spontaneous levitation into outer space. For that matter, it wouldn't bother me to know that the warranty doesn't cover that. What gives this whole thing traction is that Microsoft is a known bad actor with TONS of money. I don't think the deal gives MS any credibility at all. I think MS's reputation gives the deal value to some. |
| bigg Jan 15, 2007 10:31 AM EDT |
A statement from Ron Hovsepian: "Importantly, our agreement with Microsoft is in no way an acknowledgment that Linux infringes upon any Microsoft intellectual property. When we entered the patent cooperation agreement with Microsoft, Novell did not agree or admit that Linux or any other Novell offering violates Microsoft patents." And the statement from Microsoft: "Novell is absolutely right in stating that it did not admit or acknowledge any patent problems as part of entering into the patent collaboration agreement." At least for me, it doesn't follow that the agreement helps Microsoft's case. |
| Abe Jan 15, 2007 11:10 AM EDT |
Quoting:I don't believe it is true.I hope you are right, but my experience is different. I know couple companies that think differently too, especially after the shadow that SCO casted on Linux in their suit against IBM. Those two companies sent e-mail to their employees warning them not to even think about using Linux or any related software. Quoting:If MS claims had no credibility before, the deal wouldn't matter to anybody. Who cares about insurance for something that's not going to happen?Let us be realistic Dino. There are companies that think that MS is the most ethical best technical IT company ever existed which brought us most advanced IT innovation. In their eyes, MS is their IT salvation. Quoting:I don't think the deal gives MS any credibility at allThe only time I would believe this is when SCO case is thrown out and some other company challenges MS in court against Ballmar latest claims. Otherwise for now, any company that cooperates with MS the way Novell did should be treated as an outcast from the FOSS community and the GPL should be amended to stop any such agreements. Quoting:I think MS's reputation gives the deal value to some.I believe you are right on this one. I impersonally used it to enhance Linux credibility. But that should not make us forget how sour the lemons where the good tasting lemonade came from. |
| dinotrac Jan 15, 2007 12:15 PM EDT |
Abe - Bottom line for me, I guess, is that it's rational to argue that the deal may not be in the best interest of free software. I don't believe that to be the case, but I consider that to a reasonable position. I just get tired of the hysteria. |
| Abe Jan 15, 2007 1:26 PM EDT |
Dino, Fair enough. I appreciate and respect your point of view and you could be right all along, but in my view, I see more danger to FOSS in this agreement than good. Losing Novel as a FOSS supporter can't be good, but it wont be as bad as losing FOSS all together. I don't have an idea what drove Novell to do what they did, but I am sure they could have done a better deal. Time will tell, and I am sure you and I, like many other, have the best of interest for FOSS. |
| dinotrac Jan 15, 2007 6:06 PM EDT |
> I see more danger to FOSS in this agreement than good. Maybe, but FOSS is a lot more robust than people seem to give it credit for. Microsoft and others have been trying to kill it for years, and yet it continues to grow in quality, quantity, diversity, and influence. Wary is ok, but don't be frightened. FOSS is good stuff, the people behind it are smart and -- believe or not -- it's enemies are badly outnumbered. |
| devnet Jan 15, 2007 8:15 PM EDT |
Quoting:Even if the deal didn't exist, you'd still have to worry about where you get your software from. The GPL is not about freedom from worry of litigation That's not what I'm saying...I'm saying that making software protected from litigation more appealing to software that isn't...is twisting the freedom people have to choose. They will feel obligated to 'protect' themselves from big bad MS by getting ONLY Novell Linux. That craps on the spirit of the GPL...free as in free...and if you think for a second that Novell gives two squirts about the little guy and him being sued or any other company being sued for using the SAME CODE THEY ARE in their products, you got another thing coming. Quoting:GPL is about making sure that you can do with any GPL'ed software the same things that the entity who provided you with the software. Can you give protection from Microsoft to other people who use the same code Novell does? If you were to download all sources from Novell and roll your own today and release it as something new...would that guarantee that you can do the same thing with your GPL code as Novell is doing? Hell no. Microsoft wouldn't have it because the agreement is based upon Microsoft and their stance...they must agree. Therefore, you CAN'T do the same things as the entitiy that provided you with said software...you're limited by the agreement...oh sure, you could do it...but make no mistake that given the track record of Microsoft, you might think twice about doing it or the patent lawyers and eye pee lawyers would be knocking on your door. Quoting:It seems to me that the same people railing against Novell are using the statements of MS as support for their position. And there it seems to me also that putting such stock in any statement by MS is a foolhardy proposition. Because MS is known to lie, even in court, we can't trust any pronouncement by them. If that's the case, this whole argument is moot. And we shouldn't be having it. The fact of the matter is that statements that are made by Microsoft must be taken for face value at the very least...it's like the kid that threatens to shoot up a school...you can say "aw, he always says that" or you can take what he says as a real statement and possibly avoid a huge problem later on. I'm of the preventative maintenance crowd. If I can fix a problem before it becomes a reality, I've saved time and effort on said problem. Perhaps instead of saying that people are using MS statements for support of their problem, you can rephrase to "treating Microsoft Statements as possible litigious enactments on Linux and its user base". Remember that no one put stock into anything that the boy who cried wolf did until it was too late. Do you want it to be too late? |
| dinotrac Jan 16, 2007 1:34 AM EDT |
>That's not what I'm saying...I'm saying that making software protected from litigation more appealing to software that isn't...is twisting the freedom people have to choose. They will feel obligated to 'protect' themselves from big bad MS by getting ONLY Novell Linux. Why? Red Hat promises to protect you in the event of patent litigation, up to and including paying for licenses. So, that makes it sound like companies will protect themselves by buying only Red Hat. After all, Novell has only secured a temporary promise from a single vendor. Red Hat's promise applies to all vendors. |
| swbrown Jan 16, 2007 2:06 AM EDT |
> You don't like what Novell did. Fine. Microsoft is the Boogeyman. I get it. It doesn't matter who did this - if it was Red Hat and IBM rather than Novell and Microsoft, the reaction would be the same, as it's the same attack on GPLed software. > Users of free software were in grave danger, and Novell did something evil by protecting some of them? Novell has arranged to profit from attacks on the Free Software it distributes. |
| hkwint Jan 16, 2007 3:16 AM EDT |
I'm sorry to intervene, but there's something I wonder / want to say: WC counted the words in this discussion, and found it to be about eleven thousand. Obviously, you people put great effort in discussing the topic of the patent-deal between Microsoft and Novell. Also, you are focusing on the differences between your viewpoints, instead of concentrating on the enemy we have in common. That enemy isn't Mircosoft or Novell, but software patents. I wish you people put the same amount of efforts and words into an attempt to write to your (mainly US) politicians that they should declare all software patents, which aren't related to physical innovations in a technical sense (i.e. pure software patents) invalid, instead of disagreeing with each other. Without software patents, almost all the IP-problem and threats Linux faces would be void. Efforts in Europe have shown this is possible, we stopped stronger IP laws once, though that still doesn't mean software patents are invalid in the EU. Nonetheless, it seems (even EU-) politicians listen to us when we tell them software patents are bad for economic growth*. This, even when the BSA hires people to lobby in favour of software patents and says they are good for our economy, and even while that people pose as representatives of small and medium business. Even when some politicians of the EU are bought by the BSA. OK, I only wish you seriously consider what I just said. After that, please ignore this message, and go on with your discussion about Microsoft and Novell. *To make this plausible to politicians, point them to the report http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/ict/policy/doc/2006-11-20-flo... the United Nations University - MERIT made. For example: page 11, first paragraph, last point, and second paragraph, fourth point. |
| dinotrac Jan 16, 2007 6:53 AM EDT |
>That enemy isn't Mircosoft or Novell, but software patents Yes. In fact, properly viewed, the Novell deal is less a problem than a symptom of the greater problem. |
| devnet Jan 16, 2007 7:24 AM EDT |
One last line of contention for Dino,Quoting:So, that makes it sound like companies will protect themselves by buying only Red Hat. That's the kicker...companies can protect themselves. Can the little guy? Can I go out and run Red Hat and be covered under their indemnification clause? If so, no worries and I'll agree with you...but if not, then this agreement forces differences in commercial vs. non-commercial status of GPL code and coders. That makes the agreement exclusionary because it doesn't guarantee the same freedoms between both commercial and non-commercial users. BTW, the problem is patents...but talking about this subject should open the eyes of people to see that even an 'open source friendly' company like Novell (mixed source now) will operate with their own concern and for the greater interest of their company and the bottom line instead of with the GPL and software freedoms...even when their business is dependent upon the GPL and its supporters. |
| Abe Jan 16, 2007 7:46 AM EDT |
Quoting:That enemy isn't Mircosoft or Novell, but software patents I agree. But do you have any idea what it takes to get some controversial thing like this through a government that is so bogged down with so many major issues? The US government is basically paralyzed these days. Iraq war, Health Care, Social Security, Escalating Budget Deficiet, High Unemployment, etc... The whole thing is a mess. I don't think the government needs or wants one more thing to worry about. |
| bigg Jan 16, 2007 7:52 AM EDT |
Yes, but you might wish to check out this, already in progress... [url=http://news.com.com/Senator Expect data privacy and patent law rewrite/2100-1028_3-6143520.html]http://news.com.com/Senator Expect data privacy and patent l...[/url] |
| Abe Jan 16, 2007 7:57 AM EDT |
Quoting:That enemy isn't Mircosoft or Novell, but software patents Actually, I take that back. The enemy is MS and patents are nothing but weapons that MS would be using. Even if we take the weapons away, MS will stay the enemy and will find something else or some other way to destroy FOSS. IBM has more patents than MS, but never threatened FOSS, on the contrary, they granted FOSS permission to use its patents. A safe IT Ecosystem is one without MS. |
| hkwint Jan 16, 2007 8:30 AM EDT |
OK, I might have rabbited on a bit. I am also sure, LXer readers are the most active ones in the world when it comes to lobbying with governments. Some LXer members lobby far more than I could. And true, Microsoft still is our enemy anyway. But, even if Microsoft wouldn't exist tomorrow for some reason, still other companies (think: patent trolls, wanting to make money without selling anything) could threat Linux. Moreover, a combat against software patents is like a combat against Microsoft and the BSA. But I always find it sad to see 'our' people trying to focus on differences in viewpoints, and wanted to stress there's also a viewpoint we have in common. I should have said it in a more positive manner maybe (I seem like a grumbler above). So, there I go: Please don't forget we have a lot in common, don't matter if we think Novell is 'guilty' or not! Also, I'm a bit frustrated since I can't make up my mind what I think about Novell: Are they traitors, or did they intend to help free software, but didn't think about it to well? In most comments above, there's always some lines where I think: Yes, they're right about that, no matter what the viewpoints they express. |
| dinotrac Jan 16, 2007 9:13 AM EDT |
>Actually, I take that back. >The enemy is MS and patents are nothing but weapons that MS would be using. No. The enemy is patents and monopolies and anything else that puts companies in a position to pervert the market. Microsoft is nearly the baddie du jour because they are so big and so powerful. Twenty years ago, the big baddie was IBM. It is a mistake to personalize structural problems too much. I am convinced that Oracle would gladly be every bit as bad as Microsoft if it got the chance. A number of other companies as well. Note: The following statements are not meant to imply that all companies are the same, although they must be similar. Some companies, like IBM and General Electric, have a tradition of striving for excellence and being good corporate citizens. Others don't. Even so... Even a "friend" like IBM isn't so much a friend as a it is a company whose business is compatible. People within and people running companies definitely matter. IBM has lots of folks within it who are friends of free software, but IBM itself isn't. Not a knock on IBM, but its' a company, not a person. IBM exists to make money for its stockholders. Period. |
| jdixon Jan 16, 2007 10:33 AM EDT |
> Some companies, like IBM and General Electric, have a tradition of striving for excellence and being good corporate citizens. The folks concerned about PCB's in the Hudson river might disagree about GE. They stalled on the cleanup for years (yes, there are arguments on both sides). Of course, this merely illustrates the validity of your point. |
| Abe Jan 16, 2007 12:58 PM EDT |
Quoting:No. The enemy is patents and monopolies and anything else that puts companies in a position to pervert the market. OK, You are generalizing while I was specific. IBM might not be a friend but they are not an enemy either. Let us just say that they see more business opportunities in FOSS. That is not so bad since FOSS is for all to benefit from within the rules established. MS are the biggest monopoly, the worst enemy, and about the only one company who have no or don't want to have any interest in FOSS so far. Not only that, they even don't want anyone else to benefit from FOSS. Greed, Greed, and nothing but Greed. Again, A safe Ecosystem is one without MS. |
| jimf Jan 16, 2007 2:15 PM EDT |
> Some companies, like IBM and General Electric, have a tradition of striving for excellence and being good corporate citizens. Keep in mind that this is only reliative to less glowing examples. > exists to make money for its stockholders. Period. With virtually no exceptions, this is true of 'any' corporation. > A safe Ecosystem is one without MS. The only safe Ecosystem is one without Corporations ;-) |
| dinotrac Jan 16, 2007 3:50 PM EDT |
>The only safe Ecosystem is one without Corporations ;-) There is no safe Ecosystem. Vultures rush into any power vacuum, whether they be corporations, politicians, or the military. |
| dcparris Jan 16, 2007 3:56 PM EDT |
Dino, I have to agree with you on that point. We do not live in a safe world. ;-) |
| jimf Jan 16, 2007 4:23 PM EDT |
> Vultures rush into any power vacuum A valid point. |
| swbrown Jan 16, 2007 7:31 PM EDT |
We need an American FFII for patents in addition to DefectiveByDesign for DRM. |
| Abe Jan 17, 2007 6:05 AM EDT |
Quoting:The only safe Ecosystem is one without Corporations ;-)Corporations are essential, they create capital for large projects, they employ people, corporation can cooperate according to well established laws. BAD Corporations should be eliminated in accordance with the laws. The issue is making sure the established laws are good, and if not, they need to be changed. Worse yet is not enforcing the laws (Like the case of MS abusing its monopoly power) and those who are responsible but don't enforce the good law should be removed. We need Consumer Activist Groups. Leaving Supply and Demand alone to control the market is no longer working and no longer an option. The FOSS community with GPL as a law is one of them. |
| hkwint Jan 17, 2007 8:17 AM EDT |
Quoting:The issue is making sure the established laws are good May I add: The biggest problem is the worst established laws are issued by companies. DMCA is just an example. |
| dinotrac Jan 17, 2007 9:10 AM EDT |
>worst established laws are issued by companies. The worst established laws are issued by lawmakers. It's easy to rail at special interests and fat cats, but voters have an obligation to pay attention and express their displeasure, preferably at the ballot box. Lawmakers who think we aren't paying attention don't care what we think. Voters who don't care, get what they deserver. In the end, politicians care about power. They love it. They lust for it. They love its perks. But - They don't want to lose it. |
| Abe Jan 17, 2007 10:15 AM EDT |
Quoting:Vultures rush into any power vacuumFOSS/GPL doesn't leave a power vacuum, it levels the fields so all can compete on same or equal footings. That is what scares MS so much. I don't hate MS, I just despise them too much and you can't blame me a bit. |
| jdixon Jan 17, 2007 10:15 AM EDT |
> Lawmakers who think we aren't paying attention don't care what we think. Lawmakers who think you won't donate to their re-election campaign also don't care what you think, whether you're paying attention or not. Or at least that's my experience. |
| Abe Jan 17, 2007 10:32 AM EDT |
Quoting:Lawmakers who think you won't donate to their re-election campaign also don't care what you thinkwhen you present your opinion to them, they will definitely care, even a single vote becomes important. Collective opinions in organized groups have the most influence. Companies are collective opinions, so is FOSS. Unfortunately, we haven't been active enough. May be this is what could be the approach we need to take to exsert influence on local and federal governments. Public organizations (schools and what have you) are also good candidates. |
| jdixon Jan 17, 2007 10:51 AM EDT |
> even a single vote becomes important. Not everywhere Abe, not everywhere. In some states having the right letter after your name is all that matters. |
| dinotrac Jan 17, 2007 11:13 AM EDT |
Abe - FOr all the corrupting influences and all of the bad things that happen, the voters are what matters. One reason that things are so crappy now is that lawmakers don't think we're paying attention. In the US, the civil rights movement of the 40s-60s is a great model for the power of well-issued votes. At a time when blacks were maybe 10-12% of the vote, they got tremendous legislative clout by understanding the power of coalition politics and delivering a cohesive block of voters who could be identified by key issues on which the general population was more or less evenly split. In that case, even a 5% block can wield enormous power. |
| Abe Jan 17, 2007 12:17 PM EDT |
I certainly agree. Then again, an organization like OSDL could have been very appropriate, but unfortunately they are not as strong as they used to be. Or may be they didn't think it was appropriate for them to take on the responsibility of leveraging FOSS's interest since its members were reps from various companies who mostly were in favor of patents and more concerned about their companies' interests. I wonder what the LUGs are doing in that respect? I can't tell since I am not a participant of any although I should be. Like you said in a previous post of yours about FOSS's advances and progress . FOSS should have proliferated more and I really don't understand why governments are not pursuing FOSS more than they have so far. I am currently disappointed. |
| jimf Jan 17, 2007 12:33 PM EDT |
> FOr all the corrupting influences and all of the bad things that happen, the voters are what matters. Certainly true, but way overly simplistic. The bad guys are far better organized, prepared, and equipped these days. Not that I'm gonna give up, but, I have limited expectations since I'm to old for a full on revolution ;-). |
| dinotrac Jan 17, 2007 12:49 PM EDT |
>The bad guys are far better organized, prepared, and equipped these days. And who's fault is that? It doesn't take as much organization and equipment as you might think. It does take caring and being willing to talk about things with an ear to those around you. That last, by the way, is an area where FOSS folks tend to fail miserably. You need only look down any number of discussion threads to see references to sheeple, lemmings, lazy users, yada yada yada yada. No wonder we don't get traction! People think we're nuts and we're not going to win them over by calling them names. |
| jimf Jan 17, 2007 1:30 PM EDT |
> And who's fault is that? Unfortunately, blame is irrelevant. You've worked with Chicago politics Dino. Few Citizens are involved, or aware of issues. Fewer still even care. It's not even a matter of 'winning them over'. Face the facts, overall, voters are simple to manipulate. |
| hkwint Jan 17, 2007 1:49 PM EDT |
Well, I didn't want to start a rant on US democracy, but let me say this: If somebody would ask me, who has more influence in the US, the companies or the voters, I would know my answer. If you know think-tanks and where their money comes from, and the work they do, you don't have to know more. Just visit ExxonSecrets.org, search for the graph representing the links between Exxon and the Bush administration, and things become clear. Even then, Exxon is only one example. |
| dinotrac Jan 17, 2007 3:13 PM EDT |
>Just visit ExxonSecrets.org, search for the graph representing the links between Exxon and the Bush administration, and things become clear. Even then, Exxon is only one example. And then wander over to the Drudge Report and read about what Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has planned or the assorted Democrats who now control the Senate, etc. Doesn't sound like Exxon had enough clout to keep the Republicans in control, does it? |
| hkwint Jan 17, 2007 3:27 PM EDT |
That's just an example of what's happening all over the place everyday, and it will continue for the coming time I'm afraid. The real people with influence are from defence / military business as far as I know. |
| dinotrac Jan 17, 2007 6:32 PM EDT |
>The real people with influence are from defence / military business as far as I know. Methinks those folks just took a licking, too. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!