thelinuxlink.net

http://www.businessreviewonline.com/os/ ... inall.html

“What has happened is, Microsoft has not given Novell a patent license, and thus, section 7 of GPL version 2 does not come into play,” he said. “Instead, Microsoft offered a patent licence that is rather limited to Novell's customers alone.”

“It turns out that perhaps it's a good thing that Microsoft did this now, because we discovered that the text we had written for GPL version 3 would not have blocked this, but it's not too late and we're going to make sure that when GPL version 3 really comes out it will block such deals,” he added.

“Now that we have seen this possibility, we're not going to have trouble drafting the language that will block it off,” Stallman said. “We're going to say not just that if you receive the patent license, but if you have arranged any sort of patent licensing that is prejudicial among the downstream recipients, that that's not allowed.”

Like I said in other threads, Novell is gonna have their asses toasted by GPLv3. Novell relies HEAVILY on Samba, and the Samba project is on the GPLv3 discussion committees

Plus I don't see why Sun wouldn't release OpenOffice.org under GPLv3.

Tsuroerusu wrote:Like I said in other threads, Novell is gonna have their asses toasted by GPLv3. Novell relies HEAVILY on Samba, and the Samba project is on the GPLv3 discussion committees

Plus I don't see why Sun wouldn't release OpenOffice.org under GPLv3.

My thinking is this kind of stuff is one more reason GPL v3 won't be quickly adopted. Version 2 is just fine, and people who don't know all the details will be scared off by a license that tries to control everything.

I guess we'll see.

Gomer_X wrote:My thinking is this kind of stuff is one more reason GPL v3 won't be quickly adopted.

Well, I've never thought it would be adopted quickly anyway, remember that in just one project, there may be hundreds or thousands of copyright holders, each of which is gonna have to relicense their contributions under GPLv3, unless of course they used the "GPLv2 or any later version" licensing.

Gomer_X wrote:Version 2 is just fine, and people who don't know all the details will be scared off by a license that tries to control everything.

When I read GPLv2, it took me about 45 min. to read through it and then 15 mins. to understand it fully, I doubt GPLv3 will be more difficult to read or understand.

Gomer_X wrote:I guess we'll see.

Indeed we will, should be very interesting to see what happens once the FSF moves all of their software to GPLv3.

Tsuroerusu wrote: When I read GPLv2, it took me about 45 min. to read through it and then 15 mins. to understand it fully, I doubt GPLv3 will be more difficult to read or understand.

You're a very smart person.

sweetnsourbkr wrote:

Tsuroerusu wrote: When I read GPLv2, it took me about 45 min. to read through it and then 15 mins. to understand it fully, I doubt GPLv3 will be more difficult to read or understand.

You're a very smart person.

I thank you for the kind words, but that's really exaggerated, it's not like the GPL is hard to read if you just sit down, relax and give yourself sometime to chug through it. As long as you know what technical stuff like "source code", "binary" etc. are, you can absolutely read the GPL.

remember seeing an article about a teacher at my college alma moder that teaches a class about software and how it effects society.

anyway he said he had someone read the GPL and then the microsoft Eula and asked her to tell the class on what she thought of the licenses.

she said that the GPL says what I can do with software and the Eula tells me what I can't do - it was pretty classic.

to me that pretty much explains the difference between open source and proprietary software. one opens possibilities the other closes them.

I could never see myself going back to windows - ever.

jsusanka wrote:remember seeing an article about a teacher at my college alma moder that teaches a class about software and how it effects society.

anyway he said he had someone read the GPL and then the microsoft Eula and asked her to tell the class on what she thought of the licenses.

she said that the GPL says what I can do with software and the Eula tells me what I can't do - it was pretty classic.

to me that pretty much explains the difference between open source and proprietary software. one opens possibilities the other closes them.

I could never see myself going back to windows - ever.

Exactly man, and another thing is that the GPL is written so that normal, down to earth, non-laywer people can understand it.

This is another reason why I think the GPL should be respected, it's a really really fair license. I'm all for violating proprietary EULAs when they don't treat the user fairly, but since the GPL goes far and beyond to ensure the user's rights, I think it should be respected.

Tsuroerusu wrote:

jsusanka wrote:remember seeing an article about a teacher at my college alma moder that teaches a class about software and how it effects society.

anyway he said he had someone read the GPL and then the microsoft Eula and asked her to tell the class on what she thought of the licenses.

she said that the GPL says what I can do with software and the Eula tells me what I can't do - it was pretty classic.

to me that pretty much explains the difference between open source and proprietary software. one opens possibilities the other closes them.

I could never see myself going back to windows - ever.

Exactly man, and another thing is that the GPL is written so that normal, down to earth, non-laywer people can understand it.

This is another reason why I think the GPL should be respected, it's a really really fair license. I'm all for violating proprietary EULAs when they don't treat the user fairly, but since the GPL goes far and beyond to ensure the user's rights, I think it should be respected.

I'm with ya there - there shouldn't be deals made that skirt around it either just to avoid litigation.

Tsuroerusu wrote:I'm all for violating proprietary EULAs when they don't treat the user fairly, but since the GPL goes far and beyond to ensure the user's rights, I think it should be respected.

That's a dangerous sort of logic to push. A developer could simply say he doesn't think the GPL treats him fairly, and therefore be "all for violating" the license. Yes, I know the EULA restricts users while the GPL empowers them, but that doesn't mean violating a license you think is unfair is acceptable.

Vogateer wrote:That's a dangerous sort of logic to push. A developer could simply say he doesn't think the GPL treats him fairly, and therefore be "all for violating" the license.

Yeah well, I was referring to Microsoft's Vista EULA not allowing Vista Home to be run inside say VMware.

Vogateer wrote:Yes, I know the EULA restricts users while the GPL empowers them, but that doesn't mean violating a license you think is unfair is acceptable.

Well, certain Linux distributions are doing a very nice job of violating the GPL, not naming any names of course.

Although from november they try to ease everyone fears.

http://www.novell.com/linux/microsoft/c ... etter.html

Jim.

We all know that the Free Software Foundation will move all of it's software to GPLv3 as soon as possible, which includes GCC, glibc, coreutils, etc. etc.

However, I just read this, in an interview with Andrew "Tridge" Tridgell, a big name in the Samba project:
"The Samba project intends to move to GPLv3 quickly after it is released," he said. "We've been following the development of GPLv3 closely, and think that it suits us very well."

Since Novell's deal with Microsoft explicitly mentions Samba, Novell will not be able to include a GPLv3 version of Samba in any of it's distributions without automatically extending Microsoft's "promise not to sue Novell customers" to everybody that receives the GPLv3 software.
Judging by what Eben Moglen has been saying, if I buy a copy of SUSE Linux Enterprise from Novell, which includes a version of Samba that is under GPLv3, then the "patent covenant", or "promise not to sue", that I would get from Microsoft, will automatically also cover anybody that I distribute that version of Samba to, which would include Red Hat.

Same thing would be true for OpenOffice.org, if Sun would be kind enough to put it under LGPLv3

Give it up Novell! Game Over!!