What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Maybe The Best Tech Deal EVER--Give Computers To Whole Family view!
bestbuy.com - Geek Squad(r) installation, HP desktop, monitor, laptop & netbook, wireless router--all for $1,199.99!
66 Comments
- Animatus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+33Stallman is off the deep end? I will give you a little hint: Stallman's first priority is not market share; it is freedom. I know, it's such a crazy concept... The idea of keeping your freedom over certain conveniences or *ghasp* corporate acceptance is just way, deep out there.
Linus' priority is creating great software, he doesn't care so much about what happens to that software. This is fine because he is a kernel developer, not the driving force behind the GNU/Linux system.
Try to remember this the next time you read something by either of them and think "wow, corporate America won't like that one". - DawgDaze, on 10/12/2007, -0/+23@naio21
Had he patented it, you would never have heard of it. Linux would have died long ago w/o the community and freedom around it. - SmokedL, on 10/12/2007, -4/+26"If the linux kernel goes GPL3, you'll see a mass exodus of corporate america from the FOSS community."
You mean like Sun that has already said that they will be using it for Solaris?
"At it's core the GPL3 is just BAD news for coporations. It can be construed that if you even use the output from a GPL3 program in yours, your program MUST be released under GPL3..."
Your statements here can be construed as spreading FUD about GPLv3. If you actually knew about it, you would know that it is only bad for corporations that wish to remove the users freedom. I'm happy to accept that in return for keeping said freedom.
I think the freedom of the users collectively is more important than the `freedom` of the corporation to remove our freedom. I guess that would make me a god damned hippie or some such in your eyes? - schestowitz, on 10/12/2007, -5/+27Bruce Lowry is a salesman. He needs to instill confidence in the prospective customer's mind, so of course he'll say that Novell can comply. But the purpose of the licence is clear: get the Novell Martionette and Microsoft out in the cold and ensure this cannot recur.
- deeceefar2, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20I think he is far more astute then people give him credit for. He tends to look more toward the future of the movement and ensuring that it is always free, or libre as he likes to call it, unlike many FOSS community leaders. Regardless if you agree with his point of views on inter-community issues, his contribution to the community is undeniable. Few people realize that the genius of the FOSS movement is the license that covers the software. I see it as a bill of rights designed to protect our rights as the creators and users of free software; ensuring that at the end of the day no matter what is done to a piece of GPL licensed software that it is still free for the people, and that is a very important ideal. Were it not for the viral and forward looking ideals of the GPL license, the FOSS movement would have been assimilated into proprietary software long ago, and never would have gained the traction it has. I for one am thankful he played the profound role in FOSS that he has and I think it is mistake to trivialize his role in the future. FOSS is about community and regardless if you agree with all his ideals he is still a community leader that fights to maintain the freedom of software and that in my book makes him a powerful ally to the FOSS movement.
- SmokedL, on 10/12/2007, -4/+20"Linus is the only sane one among them. Stallman is off the deep end."
You are most likely confused or ignorant about the difference between Free Software and Open Source. Here's a link for you:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html
The FSF with Stallman as a spokesman have very good motivations for the positions they take. Feel free to disagree with them. Calling them insane on the other hand; that is both offensive and obviously incorrect.
Grow up. - baalzebub, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19i hope Linus decides to go with GPL-3...
- spudlyo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16@7of7:
Stallman is not an embarrassment to the FOSS movement, he is the reason there is an FOSS movement. - SmokedL, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14"That applies to everything, right? Of course you people don't want that option for everything, you want to impose your own idea of freedom onto everybody. I can do without your idea of imposed freedom, comrade!"
Believe me, I do not want to force you to join our community. In fact; Please do stay far far away from our community. We certainly will not try to make you join. If you don't care for the share and share alike concept, feel absolutely free to do without copyleft software in your own development. - SmokedL, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11"Under GPL3, could Google (for example) be required to release their source code if it inter-operates with GPL3 software?"
What code for what software? Is it distributed? If so, how is it distributed? What does inter-operate mean? Linked in or network?
Once more, if you had any idea how this license works, you would know that such a vague question is utterly impossible to answer.
And most importantly: It's 100% their own choice. They can absolutely freely choose to use software released under the GPLv3 or not. None of their existing software will be affected in any way what so ever unless they wish to move to use some new revision version of a component that is licensed under GPLv3.
You are free to join and benefit from the enormous amount of work that others have contributed, on the condition that you contribute your own improvements too. If you don't like that idea. Feel perfectly free to go it alone. - SmokedL, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13@UrsusMorologus
"Requiring other people to make their stuff free is not philanthropy, nor is it liberty, it is ideological militaristic imperialism, aka hard communism"
Utter nonsense.
If you don't like it; Don't use it. That's all. No one is forcing you to make use of this huge amount of freely available copyleft software.
Comparing it to dictatorships is empty fallacious rhetoric. Not to mention contemptible. - SmokedL, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8@jqp123
That's interesting.
I'd just love to hear which credible source claimed that server software that is not distributed would have to be disclosed. Would you care to point out the section of the current draft that is claimed to require this? Or perhaps you would prefer to continue playing the vague FUD game? - deeceefar2, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10"We are firmly committed to continuing the partnership with Microsoft and, as we always have, fully complying with the terms of the licenses for the software that we ship, including software licensed under GPLv3. If the final version of the GPLv3 does potentially impact the agreement we have with Microsoft, we'll address that with Microsoft."
That at least seemed to me to imply that should an issue arise with their agreement with Microsoft, that they would first attempt to rehash their agreement with Microsoft. I'm still skeptical, but perhaps we could see Novell become a powerful mediator between the FLOSS movement and Microsoft, instead of the sell out they are seen as now. - SmokedL, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8"So even though I have already authored multiple pieces of free software and contributed code to some very large projects, you would prefer that I stop contributing code to the free software pool, just so that your ideas of imposed freedom are not challenged? And this position of yours is going to improve things for the public how?
Looks like the hunt for counter-revolutaries has already begun eh comrade"
Imposed freedom. That's a good one. I had a nice chuckle. - baalzebub, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8@ UrsusMorologus, if you want to compare software philosophies to politics:
it is microsoft windows that is more like a totalitarian dictatorship without any freedom to do anything with it, try getting the source code to the windows kernel so you can rebuild it, try to get sourcecode to ms-office or internet exploiter so you can re-compile it to fit your needs (not going to happen with windows)...
GNU/Linux & FOSS is more like a democratic form of politics where if i don't like something about my install i can get the sourcecode and edit to fit my needs and re-compile it, and even fork it if enough developers & users find an interest in it, so far GNU/Linux & FOSS has been doing a great job and i have not needed to do anything to it other than set a few parameters when running ./configure... - SmokedL, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"I'm quite surprised that a GPL authority such as yourself has never heard of this before."
Oh I have. I've also followed the drafts, so I know that the idea was dismissed, removed, exorcised. It was not ever present, not even in the_first_draft.
You were talking about it as if it was a currently debated issue, while the FSF has never published a draft that could be interpreted that way without malicious intent.
It's in the "Do no harm" section of the rationale.
http://gplv3.fsf.org/gpl-rationale-2006-01-16.html
"The benefit I'm personally trying to derive is a better understanding of GPL3. Isn't that the point of any discussion? Unfortunately, I'm finding it difficult because the available authorities are quick with the rhetoric but somewhat lacking in terms of real insight."
Had you spent 30 minutes on the GPLv3 site reading you would know these things. You would certainly have achieved your stated purpose: "derive is a better understanding of GPL3" better than you will through implying false things about the license on digg. The information is readily available to everyone, It's an open process. No one is hiding the information from you. Go read!
- Zuggy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I think a lot of the bad press that Novell has been receiving lately isn't Novell but Steve Balmer's insistence that the agreement is because Novell wants to be protected from IP litigation. Novell time and time again has said that risk of litigation IS NOT the reason for the agreement, and that it is for interoperability between Window and Linux, which from a purely business prospective, makes sense.
After reading that, I also think Novell still values the opinion of the community, and they value it more then their agreement with Microsoft. - ThePict, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Please, UrsusMoronus! Save me from the enforced freedom! I don't want to be free!!!~1 //end sarcasm
Go read a book or something. Maybe start with the GPL license itself.
It's been awhile, but I seem to recall something in the student license for MS Visual Studio or whatever they were calling it that week, that said that I could not release any code that I wrote using their tools. WTF? Isn't that a license that gives them "intellectual control" over my code, by seeing to it that it never sees the light of day? - evilTak, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6jqp123 has been trolling all of these GPL3-related articles. I'm not quite sure what benefit people derive from doing so.
- Wyzard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@UrsusMorologus:
Please explain how "you may modify and redistribute this code as long as you're willing to contribute your changes back" is less free, or more imposing, than "you may not modify or redistribute this code at all, regardless of whether you're willing to contribute your changes back".
In no case is anyone "required to make their stuff free", and your comparison to Communism is pure FUD. - Wyzard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@bulltaco:
"So now you have patented code in your GPL'd base.
Is anyone there as a gatekeeper weaning it out? Is anyone there removing illegally absconded trade secrets? The answer to both questions is no."
Care to point to some "illegally absconded trade secrets" in a FOSS product that nobody's cared to remove? SCO's been bleeding itself to death trying to find infringement in Linux.
If you are a business and you discover that a FOSS product is infringing your patent, you notify them and they remove the infringing code. If they refuse to comply, you take them to court. It's the same way you'd handle infringement in a non-FOSS product -- except in a non-FOSS product you might never discover the infringement in the first place because you can't see the source code, so the product would just keep on infringing. (And do you think Microsoft does a full patent check on every piece of code their developers check in? Companies intentionally *avoid* doing patent checks because the penalties for inadvertent infringement are weaker than the penalties for willful infringement.)
In your hypothetical situation, btw, the employee who put your proprietary code into the GPL product did not have the authority to do that, so the GPL license that's been applied to your code is null and void. Unless the employee was authorized to act on the behalf of the corporation (which is the copyright holder) in releasing that code under the GPL, you do have recourse to stop it from being distributed. - matthekc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@bulltaco
Red Hat and VA Linux, both leading developers of Linux-based software, presented Torvalds with stock options in gratitude for his creation. In 1999, both companies went public and Torvalds' net worth shot up to roughly $20 million [1].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Torvalds
I think Linus did well for himself! I could probably live comfortable on 20 million its meager but with the right budget.
@UrsusMorologus
If you want to contribute and not give up as much control over your project there are other licenses to choose from I know firefox keeps rights over its name and likeness. The bsd license would allow you to release two versions free and commercial only needing to release source for the free version. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Please don't feed the trolls.
I already blocked naio21 months ago. - spudlyo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6I am the psychotherapist. Please, describe your problems. Each time you are finished talking, type RET twice.
"Linus is the only sane one among them. Stallman is off the deep end."
Do you know Stallman?
"Stallman is a clueless hippie and Torvalds is a naive idiot who lost the chance of making a truckload of money by patenting Linux."
Tell me about your feelings about him.
"I don't have to RTFA to say that Stallman probably spilled a bunch of crap."
Are you a friend of Stallman?
"Oh yay for Stallman the Saint... *rolls eyes*"
Does it bother you that Stallman is vivid?
"Stallman is not an embarrassment to the FOSS movement, he is the reason there is an FOSS movement."
I believe you are afraid of him. - epohs, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Linus' rhetoric is every bit as inflammatory though. Terms like "idiotic crap"?.. I mean, that may help to underscore just how opposed he is to GPLv3, but it is not really an effective way of bringing people who are undecided over to your side. At least, it doesn't seem so to me. Linus very often seems to disregard ideas he doesn't agree with as "idiotic" and "stupid", which I think is just a waste at best, and more likely counter productive to his arguments.
- BullTaco, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3>Torvalds is a naive idiot who lost the chance of making a truckload of money by patenting Linux.
Linux as a whole is not patentable subject matter.
One would have to patent a unique and non obvious aspect of its functionality.
I do not suspect that there was much of that in the early code because it was modeled after unix.
There might be now as MS claims due to extensive contributions over the years but these contributions would not be Torvald's to patent. - geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3as linux moves to gplv3, watch sun back away from adopting gplv3. They don't want solaris code like zfs going into linux. Not that I approve, just an observation.
Novell has a tough decision ahead. Maintain gcc or play nice? They have contributed things like evolution, which i use everyday, so I hope they continue contributing productively vs telliing me they own code I wrote. It's like they're smacking me and being nice to me at the same time. I'm hoping that Novell goes to microsoft with their hands up, balmer says, 'drats - you kids foiled me again' and novell gets out of that contract and novell plays nice again. Let's face it, that deal is about subverting the GPL, and that will never happen, people will adjust as holes are found. We can only thank them for finding the holes then we move on with or without you. - gyrfalcon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@UrsusMorologus
Just shut up comrade UrsusMoronloguls... - gyrfalcon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2That might be the case, but it might not be... Sun has a very well documented kernel and supporting technologies. They know they're going to lose longterm if they stay outside of the GPL world and keep the CDDL.
Moving to GPLv3 could help them direct the OS design. Right now Linus and his folks are the big dogs in kernel development. If Solaris goes GPLv3 they'll have a bit of competition to see who can make the best kernel.
And that's good for everyone. - wedesoft, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This article is still available at http://www.linux.com/article.pl?sid=07/03/29/0357254
- thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Good job, now do the Azile version...
I always liked that asshat better than Eliza - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I was very disappointed with the new draft of GPLv3. The FSF was on an excellent track, but has now officially sold out to Big Business.
- devfeed, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Good. Rubbish. http://gardentag.blogspot.com
- Doriath, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"as linux moves to gplv3, watch sun back away from adopting gplv3."
Did you miss all the "Sun considers GPL 3 license for Solaris" headlines?
"The server and software company is considering releasing Solaris under the forthcoming version 3 of the General Public License in addition to the Community Development and Distribution License that currently governs the Unix variant, Sun President Jonathan Schwartz said in his blog Friday." - gyrfalcon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You need to read the bloody article:
"Not everyone values freedom. When people are free to choose their own views, they're not all going to agree." At the same time, Stallman says he views a consensus on the adoption of GPLv3 as essential, because "GPLv3 protects users from new threats to their freedom. If GPLv3 is not widely adopted, or if there are many programs that stay with GPLv2, then those programs' users will be vulnerable to new kinds of attack. For instance, if Linus [Torvalds] doesn't move to GPLv3, then users of the Linux kernel will be vulnerable to TiVoization. That's a substantial problem.
"When the purpose of a program is to restrict you, making it more powerful and reliable at restricting you makes it worse. It's a mistake, therefore, to say that powerful, reliable software is the goal," as the open source viewpoint maintains. By contrast, "the goal of the free software movement is to put you in control of the software you use. Then, if you want to make it more powerful, you can work at making it more powerful." - JQP123, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4"I'm not quite sure what benefit people derive from doing so."
The benefit I'm personally trying to derive is a better understanding of GPL3. Isn't that the point of any discussion? Unfortunately, I'm finding it difficult because the available authorities are quick with the rhetoric but somewhat lacking in terms of real insight. - mythicflux, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Yeah, Novell salesman who no ones heard of just got some good filler
- JQP123, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4"Is it distributed? If so, how is it distributed?"
For the sake of argument, let's assume we're talking about Google's server software so the answer is no, it's not distributed.
"What does inter-operate mean? Linked in or network?"
From what I hear, Google has both.
"Once more, if you had any idea how this license works, you would know that such a vague question is utterly impossible to answer."
This is one of the basic questions that I expect business to have regarding GPL3. I've heard conflicting answers. But since you seem to be an authority and have studied the license thoroughly, I thought I'd ask for your interpretation.
- mythicflux, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0707 said:
So, 'all software patents are evil', 'living off of speaking engagement' Stallman could be considered a bit out of touch with a certain group of actual producers of innovation in this society.
Hell yeah, I was hoping a Randite was trolling this thread! Ayn Rand FTW!
// Sarcasm. In case you didn't catch it. - mythicflux, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0oops, that was bulltaco who said it.
- livester, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Well... Rubbish. I'd better go and drink some vodka
- gesturemaker, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Very strange. Is anyone able to open this link?
- najmo991, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0I hate Novell . Ever since I had to run a mock-server on their material (Systems Management class in University ) I've held a grudge against them for no apparent reason. Everything worked after some tinkering but it just hurt..
Mark http://www.seek-directory.com - http://www.seekdirectory.biz http://www.seeko-directory.com !
Duuuuuuged - bmartin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2From what I can tell, Novell's move makes a lot of business sense, but they're a bunch of ***** for what the did to FOSS.
Their target market seems to be companies who need a lot of MS/Linux interoperability. Don't shackle yourself down with licensing restrictions in the first place and you'll never have to worry about them. Judging from the problems we have at my workplace with licensing restrictions and explosive growth, using restricted licenses is an unnecessary burden that companies place upon themselves. - JQP123, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2"Go read!"
I have. So have lots of other people and they don't all agree. If only it were that simple, we wouldn't need lawyers. - JQP123, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2"If you actually knew about it, you would know that it is only bad for corporations that wish to remove the users freedom."
Since you seem to be an authority on it, how about answering a question?
Under GPL3, could Google (for example) be required to release their source code if it inter-operates with GPL3 software?
Your opinion please. - thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1doh!
- hackmyballs, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3Stallman and Torvalds are icons.
Lowry who?
Boycott novell!!! - ratbear, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2I love Linus' pragmatic view of FOSS software. Stallman's righteous philosophical grandstanding over 1s and 0s is annoying at best.
@SmokedL
"Utter nonsense.
If you don't like it; Don't use it. That's all. No one is forcing you to make use of this huge amount of freely available copyleft software."
LOL!!!!! Copyleft.....Using a Stallman-coined word in conversation calls for a slap right to your sanctimonious face! -
Show 51 - 67 of 67 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is