well, yes they can
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| tuxchick Feb 06, 2007 9:57 AM EDT |
The FSF controls the GNU toolchain. If they license it under GPL3, and GPL3 is written in a way that does not let Novell use Linux the way they want to, they're hosed. Then they either have to fork their own toolchain, or change their business practices. I'm not having any opinion on how likely this is, or if it would result in good or ill for Linux and FOSS in general. I'm just saying that the FSF does control some key elements of Linux, and wields a good bit of power because of it. Novell is dumber than they already look if they don't realize this. |
| dinotrac Feb 06, 2007 10:07 AM EDT |
TC - Well, no they can't. 1. Currently, the GNU toolchain controlled by the FSF is GPLV2 or later. If need be, Linux distributors -- and I seriously doubt Novell will be alone here -- can pull an X.org or a Joomla. The X.org and Mambo folks might be able to share their experiences with you. If V3 makes life difficult for Novell, it will almost certainly make life for difficult for Red Hat, whose indeminfication includes a promise to license patented code if they can't rewrite infringing code in a way to meet customer's need. It's sure to make life difficult for a number of others. The toolchain will be, at most, an inconvenience. 2. Ain't no indication the Linux kernel is moving to V3, which might make it a teensy bit harder to strand Novell. The FSF is dumber than they already look if they don't realize this. |
| DarrenR114 Feb 06, 2007 10:16 AM EDT |
TC- Actually, no they (the FSF) can't. If push comes to shove, Novell could maintain a GPL v2 tree of software forking from the FSF maintained versions that we expect to go to GPL v3. A grant of license under v2 would not be revoked by v3 for current versions of any GPL'ed software. And we already know that Novell has not infringed on copyrights for any software licensed under GPL v2. Would this be practical? Hard to say, but considering that there are still a lot of users out there running on the 2.4.x branch of the Linux kernel, it may well be. From my POV, the FSF have painted themselves into a corner: When GPL v3 comes out, they'll *have* to take legal action or it will show that they were just "blowing smoke" with regards to the MS-Novell deal. And in order to take legal action, they will have to be very specific with regards to what infringements Novell has committed. If they make some sort of announcement to the effect that "Novell's infringements have been cured" and we don't see any sort of change in the MS-Novell deal, then that will raise the question: "How exactly has the situation been resolved?" My prognistication: Pamela Jones, Mr. Moglen, and Mr. Stallman will end up with egg on their face over this whole thing. |
| hchaudh1 Feb 06, 2007 10:39 AM EDT |
I agree with tuxchick that I don't know either whether this will be good for Linux in general or not. Also, I think the FSF can do some damage if it wants. Like someone commented about problems for Red Hat, I would respond that this has happened before also where Internet Explorer was made to change its activeX behavior but Firefox, Opera were spared from that patent (sorry at work and a bit hazy on the details). Could happen again. Just saying..... FSF does not have to sue anyone if they release under GPL v3. Novell just won't be able to continue operations in its current form. Although I must admit that I like the fact that the the sell outs (yes, I call them sell outs just as from time to time I write M$), are on the defensive. How did that quote go, "Where Zen ends, ass kicking begins". |
| bigg Feb 06, 2007 11:24 AM EDT |
I think it's a question of practical vs. possible. The jury's still out as to whether it would be feasible to continue selling Linux. My guess is that tuxchick is correct but whatever. > Red Hat, whose indeminfication includes a promise to license patented code if they can't rewrite infringing code in a way to meet customer's need As far as Red Hat goes, I don't understand how that wouldn't violate GPLv2 if it ever happened. A Google search returned no helpful information on the topic. |
| jimf Feb 06, 2007 11:51 AM EDT |
The reality is, history is full of predictions, and, few of them end up being correct. This issue is convoluted enough so that I think that I'll wait for the realtime outcome. |
| Sander_Marechal Feb 06, 2007 12:50 PM EDT |
Quoting:If V3 makes life difficult for Novell, it will almost certainly make life for difficult for Red Hat, whose indeminfication includes a promise to license patented code if they can't rewrite infringing code in a way to meet customer's need. Possibly, but not necessarily. There's one big difference between the Novell and Red Hat situation. With Red Hat, it's Red Hat doing the indemnification. With Novell, it's MS doing the indemnification. So it all depends on how FSF is going to formulate it. FSF's best course would be tp write a clause that would extend MS's indemnification to all of Free Software land. In that case it's MS that would want to end the deal swiftly, leaving Novell relatively unscathed (except for some scorch marks) |
| Koriel Feb 06, 2007 1:04 PM EDT |
Must say I agree with tuxchicks assessment, i believe life can be made very difficult for Novell regardless of whether the kernel moves to GPL3 or not, Linux is a whole package not just the kernel if the rest of it goes GPL3 and kernel remains GPL2, IMO Novell will have no choice but to maintain a completely GPL2 based fork and folks that is a very big enterprise for one set of developers its certainly possible I have no doubt about that but just how likely is it? In the case of FSF and Novell, i think its a case of Dumb and Dumber and could actually hurt linux more than SCO ever achieved, i believe based on the unlikeliness of Novell managing their own GPL2 fork that both sides will actually eventually sit down and talk regardless of the current dissing going on from both camps. Legal: All opinions are my own unless they are wrong in which case they belong to my brother. |
| tuxchick Feb 06, 2007 1:55 PM EDT |
>FSF's best course would be tp write a clause that would extend MS's indemnification to all of Free Software land. In that case it's MS that would want to end the deal swiftly, leaving Novell relatively unscathed (except for some scorch marks) That would be sooo fun! Then Novell could continue blundering along its merry way, collecting fresh new scorch marks. |
| swbrown Feb 06, 2007 11:11 PM EDT |
Dino, you actually think Novell could handle the costs of forking the entire GNU base and maintaining it forever after, including fixing all the incompatibilities in software that will arise due to their base diverging, and still be competitive? And that RedHat would help them do it? What color is the sky in your world? What Novell+Microsoft will do is just change their deal to exclude 'covering' GPL3 code. And hey, that's what we wanted them to do. |
| dinotrac Feb 07, 2007 4:04 AM EDT |
>With Red Hat, it's Red Hat doing the indemnification Makes no never mind with regard to the license. Red Hat promises to secure patent licenses, an act that is squarely in violation of GPLV2. Besides, nothing in any language I've seen cares who does the indemnification...and it shouldn't. The actual indemnifier in business is most often an insurance company specializing in such things. |
| dinotrac Feb 07, 2007 4:06 AM EDT |
ino, you actually think Novell could handle the costs of forking the entire GNU base and maintaining it forever after,? Hey Einstein, last I looked, Novell wrote and maintains its own operating system, and has for years. Besides, they won't have to. If things are bad enough that Novell will need a fork, they will have plenty of company. |
| swbrown Feb 07, 2007 4:18 AM EDT |
> Hey Einstein, last I looked, Novell wrote and maintains its own operating system, and has for years. And if they're basically back to having to write and maintain their own operating system like with Netware when RedHat is getting a huge amount of development done for free and doesn't have compatibility problems brought about from using wildly differing software.. how does Novell compete with RedHat? I don't even know why I'm having to point this out, given the idea of Novell forking and maintaining the entire GNU base forever after is ridiculously stupid when they could just add a "except GPL3 stuff" to their deal. Microsoft isn't going to want to kill its wedge against RedHat (yet) so will be perfectly fine with that modification. > If things are bad enough that Novell will need a fork, they will have plenty of company. Hey Einstein, who other than Novell is in the patent agreement with Microsoft? Did you forget the issue? |
| dinotrac Feb 07, 2007 5:17 AM EDT |
>how does Novell compete with RedHat? Any license the FSF creates that will keep Novell from distributing Linux will cause the same problem for Red Hat. Added in an edit: The FSF faces a real problem here. How do they stop Novell without threatening IBM, Oracle, Red Hat and others? I think there is a real threat of forking the tool chain -- or some combination of contributing non-GNU tools and forks -- under an open project counting IBM, etc among its contributors. Major players have invested too much in Linux to see it all go up in smoke. And..they wouldn't have to fork everything...just a subset of the enterprise stuff. For all of RMS's bluster about GNU/Linux, lots of that stuff isn't GPL'd. Apache isn't, Postgres isn't. I serously doubt that QT will move to V3 if it's a Novell killer, and if QT doesn't mover, neither will KDE, etc, etc, etc. Look on the bright side...If the FSF insist on doing something stupid, we might finally get that court test everyone's been waiting for. |
| DarrenR114 Feb 07, 2007 12:41 PM EDT |
According the FSF, there are currently only 5,273 "free software" packages indexed. Not all of those are actually GNU packages, meaning they are not controlled or owned by the FSF, such as Samba and the Linux kernel.
http://directory.fsf.org/all/ Out of that 5,273, there are *only* 365 GNU software packages. And many of those are LGPL, as are many of the GPLed packages that are not GNU. http://directory.fsf.org/GNU/ In that list of GNU packages, I'm not certain that even all of them are under the control of the FSF, such as gCompris. Something to think about when you say "Novell couldn't possibly fork all this stuff." |
| dinotrac Feb 07, 2007 1:05 PM EDT |
>Something to think about when you say "Novell couldn't possibly fork all this stuff." Absolutely. Novell would most certainly have help from others, and lots of that stuff won't be GPLV3. If FSF wants to craft an improved license, more power to them. Cleaning up the language and dealing with international problems that weren't considered before is great. Making a real move for more freedom is also great. I suspect one reason why V3 is so long in the birthing is that FSF wants to increase the freedom available to everyone and, contrary to what many believe, would desperately like to do so without killing free software in the process. |
| jimf Feb 07, 2007 1:12 PM EDT |
> would desperately like to do so without killing free software in the process. I find that cold comfort. History is so full of failed projects that began with good intentions. |
| Abe Feb 07, 2007 3:05 PM EDT |
Quoting:The reality is, history is full of predictions, and, few of them end up being correct.Right you are Quoting:This issue is convoluted enough so that I think that I'll wait for the realtime outcome.I am doing the same. |
| swbrown Feb 07, 2007 7:47 PM EDT |
> And..they wouldn't have to fork everything...just a subset of the enterprise stuff. Which is what everything is built on. So then all the rest of the software they distribute starts using new features in the 'real' stuff as time passes, and Novell is constantly fighting to fix compatibility problems in /everything/, and having to make parallel implementations of all the features (and replicating the bugs) without copying the GPL3 code. You essentially end up with WINE for GNU. Couple that with new, exciting projects getting released as GPL3-only and.. wow, I'm still amazed you and Darren think this is feasible. Why do you think them adding "except GPL3 stuff" to the license is way less likely than them taking on a perpetual maintenance and compatibility nightmare for them and their customers? And if they did go the fork route, how could they possibly be competitive 5+ years from now? WINE for GNU. |
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!