What is Digg?109 Comments
- panique, on 10/12/2007, -15/+49Plain and simply, this is FUD. You cannot ban someone from redistributing GPL code, unless they have violated the GPL. I don't see how a side deal with Microsoft prevents them from distributing the source + source to their modifications.
- bieber, on 10/12/2007, -4/+33So, how many of you have actually _read_ the GPL? It doesn't just say that you have to redistribute source with binaries; there are also provisions on things like patent agreements, the violation of which counts every bit as much as not distributing source.
- stephbu, on 10/12/2007, -37/+62If only the FSF folk quit bickering amongst themselves about fighting Microsoft and focused on working together to move Linux forward. Great products compete much better...
- schestowitz, on 10/12/2007, -4/+26Moglen said that Reuters created "unnecessary waves".
Have a look at the real story: http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS6837365670.html - bieber, on 10/12/2007, -2/+23The FSF holds copyright on the GNU part of the GNU/Linux operating system, which people like to call just "Linux." In fact, though, the GNU part is _much_ more substantial than the Linux part (think orders of magnitude more). Linus and company may not care about Novell ***** all over the spirit of the license, but the FSF does, and if necessary they'll go to court to keep them from doing it.
- bieber, on 10/12/2007, -32/+52Yes. Because dirty dealing related to patents is something we should _totally_ accept as a community. Give me a ***** break. What Novell's doing is only _technically_ allowed under the GPLv2, in the same way that TiVO is able to distribute Linux while completely negating right #2; it's a loophole. People bitch and bitch about how "restrictive" GPLv3 is going to be, but aside from making it more compatible with other free software licenses, basically all they're doing is closing irritating loopholes like this. By no means should Novell be allowed to distribute _other peoples' software_ under the conditions they're currently distributing it (paying Microsoft for a "promise not to sue," as opposed to a straight-up patent license).
- sq377, on 10/12/2007, -3/+23They have attorneys who go after people who do things that violate the GPL and things like that. This sounds to me like they are just looking to see if they have violated anything they can go after them for.
- radu79, on 10/12/2007, -9/+26I don't think FSF can ban anyone from using Linux so long as it complies with the GPL license. Only Linus can tell them: "Hey, Linux is my trademark, stop using it, ktnxbye"
Now, what FSF can do is make a new GPL license that staes something like: "The traitors that make deals with MS can't use Linux". But then they would have to convince the kernel guys (and Linus) to move the new versions of the kernel under the new license, and Linus will most likely not do that.
On the other hand, Novell could just tell them: "***** you guys, we are going home", drop their whole Linux business and focus on other stuff, or maybe embracing *BSD which has a much less restrictive license (afterall, OSX is based on FreeBSD). - bieber, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18If they're found to be violating the license, then FSF can certainly ban Novell from distributing any of their software, at which point they wouldn't have GNU/Linux anymore. You wouldn't be very happy with Linux without GNU...
- IceZZ, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18There is a lot of discussion of patents in GPL v2, you idiot:
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. 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.
If any portion of this section is held invalid or unenforceable under any particular circumstance, the balance of the section is intended to apply and the section as a whole is intended to apply in other circumstances.
It is not the purpose of this section to induce you to infringe any patents or other property right claims or to contest validity of any such claims; this section has the sole purpose of protecting theintegrity of the free software distribution system, which is implemented by public license practices. Many people have made generous contributions to the wide range of software distributed through that system in reliance on consistent application of that system; it is up to the author/donor to decide if he or she is willing to distribute software through any other system and a licensee cannot impose that choice.
This section is intended to make thoroughly clear what is believed to be a consequence of the rest of this License." - aschmack, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15Oh no, a bomb!
- jbus, on 10/12/2007, -12/+24I certainly wont be shedding any tears for Novell if FSF rules against them. If Novell wants to make these kind of deals they need to switch to BSD and develop their own software like Apple. Right now they are putting thousands of non-Novell open source developers hard work in legal jeopardy by cutting back room deals with and accepting bribes from Microsoft.
- groggyboy, on 10/12/2007, -17/+27does FSF even have the power? they don't own linux. can they really ban people from selling it? i thought no one owned linux, no one controlled linux, that was kind of the point. linus torvalds has just as much claim to owning linux, if not more, than the loonies at the FSF. but I can't really see him getting his panties in as much of a twist over the Novell-Microsoft deal as Stallman and his fanatic friends. i call bullsh*t on this one.
- jm9206755, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9The article mentions that the FSF controls certain intellectual property rights concerning GNU/Linux. They can't ban Novell from selling Linux outright but they can make their job much, MUCH more difficult.
- ppan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Either way, it's about time this issue was given a much harder look. A Novell-Microsoft alliance is not good news for the open source community. At the very least Novell is now tainted and should be watched with deep suspicions.
- Redemption289, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9I think a lot of people are missing, or at the very least ignoring the point. The Novell/MS deal, far from increasing competition, limits it. The joint measures mean Novell and Novell ONLY has leniency when dealing with MS intellectual property. It is obvious that Microsoft controls a --major-- share of the market, and MOST consumers will be interested in interoperability. Therefore, the logical decision would be to buy Novell software. This effectively hamstrings other flavors of Linux who gain less and less support. This in turn is bad for research. Microsoft has never really been interested in helping the open source community, instead focusing on profits. I am not claiming that we shouldn't pay developers for their work (I'm a CS major after all), but I believe that if competition really does lead to better products as claimed above, then Linux is going to be the one that suffers. It is interesting to note that Linux developers have focused on interoperability between all kinds of OS's, while companies like MS and Apple have been very hush hush about what they do. I think the fact that linux has been proven time and again to be the more reliable (don't confuse this with ease of use) product proves that open source has a lot to offer in terms of technological advancement. The new "MS Linux" would effectively out-compete with other flavors of Linux that don't have close relations with Microsoft. Bottom line, this is a genius move by MS to make sure that any "competition" with MS is in fact within the jurisdiction of MS, and that is a scary thought.
- rpedro, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8@JonGalt
What part of "You shall redistribute this software under the same conditions under which it was received" don't you understand?
You might not like the idea, but it's no reason to call someone who inforces it a hypocrite. It's all right in the GPL. - BlackAdderIII, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"""***** the FSF. They don't represent me."""
In that case, run BSD. Or just run your Linux kernel without all that GNU-derived software, oh, and don't use GNU tools to compile it or anything either, you know, stick to your principles.
Enjoy your text files containing the kernel source and your binary copy of Skype.
Of course, the FSF never really says "don't use this" unless someone's violating the GPL/affecting other people's freedom, because the FSF believes you should have freedom to use the software how you want.
HOWEVER, Novell doesn't have a "software freedom" or mandate to admit or imply financial IP infringement liability on my behalf, your behalf or any FOSS community's - but you keep fighting for their freedom to do that. Let us all know how that works out for you.
Now explain how some people asking the FSF to look at how licensing affects/will affect Novell's patent deal leads you to say "***** the FSF", because I'm struggling to see what the FSF did wrong there. - shawnz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8for the last time, novell did not "team up" with microsoft. they simply went in to a patent sharing agreement so they can't sue each other for stealing one another's features.
- trogdoor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Never make it's debut? *nix runs most of the infrastructure of the internet, probably including the router you are using, and definitely including Digg which is run on Debian stable. Just because Linux hasn't made it's way into the desktop sector yet doesn't mean it hasn't made it's debut, look at the bigger picture, *nix is everywhere.
- AdamCo, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11Bieber;
Other peoples software that Novell greatly contributes to, maybe you should check out all the open source software novell contributes code/manpower or monetary funds to. - msgyrd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Installed Vista 2 days ago, I've bluescreen'd it 3 times doing nothing but playing MP3s via Windows Media Player while using IE7 to browse the web. I don't have crappy hardware and the only drivers I've used were the default ones from the Vista install disc. I haven't installed a damn thing onto that partition from 3rd parties and it bluescreens. "Superior product" my ass. This is their final release (business edition), and it's crashing. The same machine has run XP for weeks without rebooting, and prior to my test install of vista, had been running linux with 3 months uptime, performing tasks magnitudes more taxing on the system. Vista RC1 in a virtual machine was more stable than this.
Sorry, the only reason XP is even considered "good" is because they spent years fixing all the ***** wrong with it, then released SP2. Microsoft simply does not release quality products. - BlackAdderIII, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I love how TFA goes to great pains to avoid mentioning what Novell has actually done, just saying that it's "angered the community" for doing a "wide-ranging business deal with Microsoft" and only an ambiguous reference to "patent aggression" in the quote hints at what happened.
With this kind of studious attention to blurring the issues in the press, it's no wonder we get so many media-fed MOTP turning up on digg who are honestly under the incredible impression that we're this bunch of "linux zealots" upset for no rational reason.
I'm frankly disappointed with Yahoo. The reason so many of us FOSS types are working in technical fields and making great software is not because we're screaming premenstrual teenage communists with no aim in life, but because we're rational, hard working, responsible people with *beyond* marketable skills in the real, hard capitalist world.
The FOSS developer world has its newbies and its trolls like any other, but it also has its body of very good developers which understands the technical issues, it understands the copyright and licensing issues, it understands the world of professional computerin' (because many of work in it and our software lives in it) and it is by and large interested in doing the right thing by the end user, and there's no incentive to try and sell people BS - so it's about time media outlets stopped FUDding the living crap out of us when we have issues with technologically Very Bad Things For Everyone like software patents.
As it happens, there are a few people who are unhappy about the whole business who are Novell employees who are great programmers/advocates and pillars of FOSS, thank your lucky stars you're not faced with their situation right now, because I wouldn't like to be weighing my ability to feed, clothe and shelter my kids against the principles of my life's work.
"""Plain and simply, this is FUD. You cannot ban someone from redistributing GPL code, unless they have violated the GPL."""
You most certainly can. GPL's usage stipulations are an expression of copyright law, that's what makes it mandatory that you follow them.
The copyright owner(s) of a piece of GPL licensed software is(are) absolutely within their legal rights to do the following:
1. Relicense or dual license the software (as per Qt)
2. Withdraw the right to use the software under the terms of the GPL from anyone they like.
Of course, this is not usually practicable for several reasons. The first (and we're onto shakier legal ground here, I should mention this first) is that software like the Linux kernel has been contributed to by lots of different people, all of whom are copyright holders on their own work, some of whom are probably untraceable. This is the same reason of why under such dual licensing schemes you effectively BSD license all your contributions back to the project - if it were GPL then they're stuffed for dual licensing the whole product. It's my understanding that to drastically enact a new and specific copyright restriction like "for everyone except Novell", you'd need the consent of all of those people - legally and/or morally.
Also, changing the license is not much better - it doesn't on its own affect GPLv2 licensed stuff.
So in a sense you're right, but the GPL most certainly *doesn't* stop the copyright holder withdrawing the GPL rights from a party. - BlackAdderIII, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"""How are they putting non-Novell open source developers in legal jeopardy?"""
By placing a monetary value on the "IP infringement" in GNU/Linux and offering things in exchange for permission to do it - which is as tangible an admission of liability as you can get without being explicit about it.
They have in one fell swoop said "we believe our platform probably 'contains' Microsoft IP" for lots of money and made their "indemnification" exclusive - practically pointing MS's legal firing squad at other developers and pushing ammunition into their hands.
What Novell has done is approach the executioner, point the finger at their peers, take the cash and walk away alive themselves.
Maybe the word "Judas" is used too often these days, but it's probably be quite apt in this case. - Petronski, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7The extra "s" is for "*****."
- technobabble042, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6The article is highly inaccurate, and a quote was taking terribly out of context. Stop the FUD, please.
http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS6837365670.html - Redemption289, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9Do you use Linux, or know even a little about it? Linux has been trying to standardize for a while, the problem is that companies like Microsoft make it VERY hard to do it (Example: FAT32). The problem isn't standardization. The problem is the way in which these companies have decided to go about this deal. If Microsoft was generally interested in improving Linux then it would extend similar deals to all flavors of Linux, not just Novell.
On the part about a superior commercial product:
Umm. I have a few arguments.
1. Even pre-configured environments that can be found in distros like Fedora Core perform much better than the standard WinXP install both in reliability and security.
2. A VERY efficient system does require some insight into how Linux and operating systems in general works. However, I guarantee you that I could set up a very performance based Linux system, and I don't have a "Masters in Computer Engineering". Just because different flavors of Linux give you the option to set up a better system doesn't mean that it is worse (in fact its far superior). If you want an easy install, and I stress this part, just install something like Ubuntu or Fedora Core which are just as easy to install as XP.
3. Claiming that MS markets a superior product is just plain ignorant. Most of the very important systems that need long up times run Linux.
4. Its not like companies don't need large support groups for Windows either. Every large company I have heard of also relies on a big groups of engineers to maintain Windows. - GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5RoadWarriorX11 will never make it because people with social skills will just push the block button on him.
- GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5No they cannot stop Novell from distributing on a whim. They wrote the license and the code but they guarantee certain rights and it would be up to the courts to interpret the license. If fact RMS has admitted that Novell are not breaching the GPLv2. This is about GPLv3 and the possibility that the patent clauses do make the indemnification deal illegal. If the FSF move new code to the GPLv3 Novell can still ship and develop the old code.
//edit - also there are other userlands that could replace GNU and a userland is nowhere near as complex as a kernel (although GCC is more complex than Linux being a compiler).// - GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5No there are not provisions in place for this. It's just a few FSF zealots claiming powers that the license actually stops them from pursuing. Novell does not breach the license since there is no specific claim of patent infringement. If one came to light then Novell would have to stop distributing in spite of their deal with MS, if they did not they would then be in breech since they knowingly distributed code that could not be redistributed without restriction. This is why this isn't an issue, if MS do make a claim then Novell will have to stop distributing like the rest of us anyway.
- controlguy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Hmmmm.... this doesn't seem very "free as in speech" to me.
- bigtrouble77, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6In itself the agreement doesn't look too horrible on paper. But when you hear Steve Ballmer's interpretation of the agreement it's abhorant. I don't care much about what Novell thinks they got themselves into, I care about what Microsoft is try to get out of it... And Ballmer made that very clear a few months ago (sorry I don't have the link).
- sjvn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4The story's wrong.
Here's what was really said:
http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS6837365670.html
Steven - Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3For Microsoft, maybe.
- AdamCo, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10How are they putting non-Novell open source developers in legal jeopardy?
- mr804, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8maybe they'll drop supporting Linux and put their ***** on FreeBSD.
- AdamCo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4This is true, along with XGL there is also the linux kernel, OpenOffice, Gnome, KDE, Samba, Apache, Mozilla, MySQL, Wine and many others: http://developer.novell.com/opensource/
- AdamCo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Ballmer always makes outrageous claims
- radu79, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5And how does the above paragraph apply to the Novell issue? It just claims that you must distribute your code that is based on someone's else GPL code even if that would violate a patent. That's of course the spirit of the GPL license, that you MUST distribute the GPL code, under the GPL license.
But it doesn't say that you can't use patented code so long as it is not based on GPL code (like you can include your own programs in your Linux distribution, regardless of patents, as long as you don't modify the kernel). GPL 3 is more restrictive about patents, GPL 2 is pretty permissive. - AdamCo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Under their agreement, Microsoft and Novell can still sue each other, but Microsoft can't sue users of SLED/SLES.
- UrbenLegend, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Personally, I think Novell is a huge asset in the struggle to push Linux further in the tech industry, and Microsoft knows this. This deal they've struck up could be a very well-disguised attempt by Microsoft at turning the FOSS community against Novell in order to bring it down. After all Microsoft has done craftier deals than this. I think that the FSF's overreaction could actually hurt Linux rather than help it. Novell provides the corporate backing that Linux needs to survive in the market. Destroying Novell's capability to provide Linux as an enterprise product will backfire on the FSF and everyone in the corporate world knows this.
Frankly, although the FSF has done great things to ensure software freedom, they cling all too stubbornly to its principles and has not the flexibility to react to the real world. This is why stupid arguments like whether debian should go with Iceweasel exist. It's also why many Linux desktop users have to jump through hoops to get simple media playback on their machines. - GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4MS also thought they were going to dominate the web server market. Don't believe everything/anything that comes from MS. They are obviously going to spin the deal but other than a rack of SUSE licenses there is almost no benefit to them. The only possible benefit could be fear but it isn't aided when we run around as if the sky is falling.
The response needs to be clear. If you feel there are license infringements then prove it, come forward and show people where we are infringing. Perhaps the community should actually set up for legal action to force MS to either put up or shut up (they cannot legally make ridiculous claims and if they have cases of patent infringements they are supposed to pursue them by law).
Lets look at the positives here, we finally have got MS to budge on the virtualising Windows front and there is a stack of cash that can aid Novell in developing OSS. - CuCullin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@FKnight
Because many of us remember the statement.
"Novell pays us some money for the right to tell customers that anybody who uses SUSE Linux is appropriately covered," Ballmer said. This "is important to us, because [otherwise] we believe every Linux customer basically has an undisclosed balance-sheet liability."
Just google for "Ballmer undisclosed balance sheet liability". - BlackAdderIII, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2So what you're saying, AdamCo, is that Novell have made this deal so they can put so-called IP infringements in their software products - and that a side effect of this might be any GPL'd software in question being impossible (in practical terms) for anyone else to legally redistribute unless you were covered by Novell's deal?
So you could take GPL code, and change it in a way people couldn't freely redistribute, whilst still publishing it under the GPL?
I'm interested in the repercussions of the whole thing, so thanks for clarifying. You'd better make DAMNED sure nobody thinks you're going to do that if it's a real possibility, hadn't you?
I don't just want Novell to survive, I want Novell to give Microsoft a thrashing, and I want Novell to be seen as having integrity the world over, and overall to champion the platform of software freedom through doing profitable business on it - this deal can smash all of those possibilities easily, don't underestimate the idea. Yes I'm well aware of how hugely contributive Novell is when I say that.
I feel The Deal is a big mistake. It sets you at a point of tension between your business responsibilities and developers. Not good.
The very least it needs is loud, public elucidation. - drewskyjones, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I love OpenSuse 10.2. It is a really great distro (SLED also). Better interoperability with MS and AD means that my company will be more likely to try it as a desktop OS. Our CFO likes saving money. If we end up reducing our MS license count over time, we save money and the CFO will be all over that. So I don't see the agreement as "evil" (even though Ballmer said some things that are perceived as evil). I see it as a great opportunity to increase desktop Linux usage in the enterprise.
- shawnz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3AdamCo: those are those programs that novell's employees are contributing to, not software that they've actually written themselves (such as XGL)
- sanguinemoon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Yes they can.They can sue for than Microsoft is giving them-if Novell actually violated the GPL.Only problem is that Novell didn't actually violate the GPL.
- sanguinemoon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I dunno about all that. Increased Linux desktop usage because of Microsoft FUD about patents? That's what it will seem to come down to. When Walmart started using SUSE, from the statements by Walmart's spokesperson, they adopted /because/ of concerns about IP, ie Microsoft FUD. In the long run, this is not a good thing for Linux desktops in enterprise. Enterprise should check with Microsoft before using Linux about of concerns about IP? Very bas indeed.
- jbus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@AdamCo
No, AdamCo you have it all wrong. What Novell's deal does is it implies that Linux users are infringing on Microsoft's patents. Novell can't have it both ways, they can't say we don't believe that Linux infringes on Microsoft's patents and then turn around and make a deal with Microsoft to indemnify themselves and their users. That's like buying insurance for something you know is impossible.
What this does is gives Microsoft the leverage they want, if they do decide to start filing patent infringement lawsuits against other Linux distributors and users, they will then be able to point to Novell's deal as evidence that Linux is infringing on their patents. Which could open the door for many unfounded lawsuits against Linux distributors and users, most of whom can't afford to defend themselves against Microsoft.
Sorry AdamCo, you may like OpenSUSE/Novell, but they have been seriously tricked by Microsoft. The problem is that Novell is making decisions that will not only affect Novell, this will also negatively affect all of the GNU/Linux community. - BlackAdderIII, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Come back and tell us about what copyright restrictions should and shouldn't be imposed, or about how Linux is to use when you have ONE SINGLE BIT of understanding under your belt on the matter.
Nothing you said made any sense, you've just posted an admission of complete and abject ignorance on every single point you covered, and did it with an arrogant tone to boot.
I don't mean to be cruel, but it's laughable that you're trying to be the condescending "champion of capitalism" to a bunch of people who are probably quite a lot higher up the capitalist food chain than yourself. If you think we should all submit to totalitarian leadership by the whichever of the people present knows the least about the subject matter (in this thread, that's you), then you're the "commie" around here - at least the sort of Red Peril you're probably talking about.
I'm not even going to address your insane drivel about what standards are or any of the rest of it - nobody could fail to see how you're wrong anyway.
Most of the problems we have at the moment, domestically and globally are because we're all too tolerant of nasty half-wits, and I'm sorry, but your post is a perfect example of the hilarious results. -
Show 51 - 100 of 109 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is