Misunderstanding?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Libervis Jun 07, 2007 7:14 AM EDT |
I'm not sure that Kevin Carmony really understands GPLv3 all too well here and if not then this whole article is based on a flawed premise. Does GPLv3 really deny them to bundle proprietary and patented codecs? I thought that it merely denies making patent deals which apply only to some of the users of covered software. I thought that was the bug that was being fixed, not blocking patented code being bundled side by side with GPLed code. So what is he complaining about? If GPLv3 doesn't deny this bundling then I really do think that only one other thing makes sense, that Linspire wants a deal with MS. Either that or they're afraid that the patent license they already do have with MS (for codecs) will suddenly apply to users of all GPLv3 code, not only Linspire users. Why should Linspire be any special? If you've got the license for your distro, one which wouldn't exist without all the GPLed code in the first place, why can't we all? It's exactly about playing by the rules, same rules which apply to everyone equally, why should Linspire be above that? |
| dinotrac Jun 07, 2007 7:26 AM EDT |
>Does GPLv3 really deny them to bundle proprietary and patented codecs? Well, duh. Let's try putting on our thinking caps for a moment. Hmmm... Company a pays to license use of proprietary (possibly patented) software so that it can be provide to its customers. Probably pays a per user/per copy/ per something fee, but may not. Power to determine scope lies in the hands of the technology owner...who controls the scope of licenses it is willing to grant. Owner either wants to control the scope or get so much money that it doesn't matter. Problem with 1 is that GPL won't allow it. Problem with 2 is that economics won't allow it. >Why should Linspire be any special? Who said they should be? Carmony wasn't asking for special treatment. He offers an opinion on the provisions that apply to EVERYBODY. Now, that wasn't so hard, was it? |
| Libervis Jun 07, 2007 8:17 AM EDT |
OK, well, didn't you just state the obvious? Linspire payed MS for a license to use proprietary software in Linspire and not get sued for it (obviously), but GPL extends the coverage of that license beyond Linspire's userbase. I knew that. I even said that. We're spinning in circles. I can see the problem from his point of view, and I realize it's his opinion. I also realize that it can very well be seen as a complaint about not being able to earn a preferential status by licensing proprietary code anymore. Well... I don't care for Linspire. I care for GNU/Linux and Free Software and for equality of everyone, hence I support GPLv3. So if you think bringing in proprietary code is going to spread the adoption of GNU/Linux (which Linspire and friends are so confident about), do it. Just don't complain about GPL not allowing you a special status for it anymore. What you license you license for everyone, not just some. Edit: Ok I see that such deals are made unattractive with GPLv3. Hmm well.. you know what? I don't care. I don't believe this is what pushes adoption. Most of the codecs and stuff can be bundled even without a license from Microsoft. Hmm, this whole thing is becoming quite boring. |
| dinotrac Jun 07, 2007 8:21 AM EDT |
>Just don't complain about GPL not allowing you a special status for it anymore You are really hung up on this special status thing, aren't you? Never mind that there is nothing there. |
| Libervis Jun 07, 2007 12:50 PM EDT |
I wouldn't say that there is *nothing* there. Maybe less than I initially thought, but if there is really *nothing* there then I guess Carmony and Linspire don't care about having a business leverage in the market, which by being the only ones with legally licensed codecs is what they have, to a point, or at least think they have. And now that such licensing deals are targeted... well.. I guess Carmony doesn't care. I mean.. that's why he wrote this article about "unforeseen consequences" he foresaw. I guess that has nothing to do with his business more than anybodies else business. In any case, I've no problem with what he wrote. What I was originally pointing to was simply a possibility that he didn't understand a license properly, thinking that it forbids bundling GPLed and non-free code together. I guess I have my answer though, it doesn't forbid this, but creates a situation in which some businesses have a disincentive towards doing deals which legally allow them to bundle this code, something which is mostly a problem for the US people. Here a GNU/Linux distro can be easily distributed with only Free Software which can play anything from DVDs to Windows Media files legally (libdvdcss and ffmpeg via vlc). |
| dinotrac Jun 07, 2007 1:33 PM EDT |
> which by being the only ones with legally licensed codecs is what they have, to a point, or at least think they have. That statement would impress me a whole lot more if Carmony and company were the only ones who could have legally licensed codecs. Your phrasing, however, is correct: they are the only ones who bothered to put forth the effort and spend the dough. |
| jdixon Jun 07, 2007 5:43 PM EDT |
> ...but GPL extends the coverage of that license beyond Linspire's userbase. Does it? Only if the provisions of the GPLv3 are triggered. I don't believe the provisions governing whether the GPL applies have changed significantly. If they have not, mere aggregation does not trigger the GPL. Nor does using the publicly available interfaces for interfacing with various programs. So Linspire should be able to include a proprietary DVD player, or include codecs which use publicly available interfaces, without triggering the GPL. |
| dinotrac Jun 07, 2007 6:01 PM EDT |
>I don't believe the provisions governing whether the GPL applies have changed significantly. If they have not, mere aggregation does not trigger the GPL. I've never been real clear on that -- and I wonder if the FSF would share your view. The DVD player, I think, is a non-problem. It is clearly a distinct piece of software that stands in its own right. It + GPL'd software = aggregation. Codecs seem trickier to me. Codec + GPL'd player = what, exactly? |
| jdixon Jun 07, 2007 6:20 PM EDT |
> Codecs seem trickier... Well, that's because they are. :) The key, at least in the kernel, has always been publicly exposed interfaces. Interfaces which are exposed to the public are intended for other programs to use, even proprietary ones. So, if a program (say, Xine) has a public interface which allows you to plug in a codec, a proprietary codec should be able to use it without penalty. The kernel now restricts some interfaces to GPL'ed only code. I'd think any program which wished to exclude proprietary software would have to do the same type of thing. Note: That's also one of the central points of the recent Microsoft/MVP fiasco, so it's not a GPL only thing. |
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!