Add TurboLinux to the Microsoft patent-protection roster

greggh · Post by **greggh** » Mon Oct 22, 2007 9:47 pm

http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=856

--Pathetic

Tsuroerusu · Post by **Tsuroerusu** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 3:28 am

Well, now it'll be very difficult for TurboLinux to use any software that is under GPLv3, that will include Samba and new versions of GCC (Yes, the latest version GCC is officially under GPLv3), and in time also the entire GNU system. I'm personally hoping that Trolltech will release a future version of Qt under GPLv3, so that KDE will at least have the option of upgrading their licensing, since almost all the distros that have a patent-deal with Microsoft use KDE (Linspire, Xandros and TurboLinux) it would quite a kick in the nuts for them if KDE went to GPLv3, especially with the ginormous improvements that will show during the KDE 4.x cyclc.

rehcla · Post by **rehcla** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 10:24 am

Hi all!

Thats sad news!
I hope as many FOSS Project as possible switch to the GPLv3 and by that making the life of such poisoned distros difficult!

Claus

Wally Balljacker · Post by **Wally Balljacker** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 11:27 am

So, TurboLinux, Xandros, Linspire, and Novell can't use new versions of Samba, or versions of GCC newer than 4.2.2? What about GNOME? I assume GNOME will go GPLv3, that means those distros mentioned won't be able to ship the latest GNOME release? I think it's easy to see where this is all going.

Post by **Patrick** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 11:32 am

Wally Balljacker wrote:I think it's easy to see where this is all going.

A mass migration to BSD by these companies?

Tsuroerusu · Post by **Tsuroerusu** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 11:49 am

Wally Balljacker wrote:So, TurboLinux, Xandros, Linspire, and Novell can't use new versions of Samba, or versions of GCC newer than 4.2.2? What about GNOME? I assume GNOME will go GPLv3, that means those distros mentioned won't be able to ship the latest GNOME release? I think it's easy to see where this is all going.

GNOME is part of the GNU project, however it is not yet under GPLv3, and it's such a freaking huge project that I'd suspect it to take a little while. But yeah, if GNOME goes to GPLv3 no more GNOME for Novell, unless they can make Microsoft make the same sort of "promises not to sue" to everybody and not just Novell's customers without a fee.

Patrick wrote:
Wally Balljacker wrote:I think it's easy to see where this is all going.
A mass migration to BSD by these companies?

Not really, because Samba is still under GPL even if you use it on *BSD. KDE or GNOME doesn't magically become BSD licensed just because you run them on *BSD.

Post by **Patrick** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 11:55 am

Tsuroerusu wrote:Not really, because Samba is still under GPL even if you use it on *BSD. KDE or GNOME doesn't magically become BSD licensed just because you run them on *BSD.

So much for that BSD magic ?!?!

Tsuroerusu · Post by **Tsuroerusu** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 12:07 pm

Patrick wrote:
Tsuroerusu wrote:Not really, because Samba is still under GPL even if you use it on *BSD. KDE or GNOME doesn't magically become BSD licensed just because you run them on *BSD.
So much for that BSD magic ?!?!

What BSD magic are you talking about? And also, even IF the Linux kernel went to GPLv3, good luck getting IBM and so forth to support *BSD. IBM was involved in the drafting of GPLv3, and have openly stated that they have no problems with it.

Wally Balljacker · Post by **Wally Balljacker** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 12:23 pm

I'm still undecided on whether I think GPLv3 is an improvement or not, but what I don't like, is how the general trend is that FOSS projects are going to be forced to adopt it, whether they like it or not, as GPLv3 becomes more widespread and pervasive. One example of this, is the VLC project, which depends on libraries from many other projects, and if any one of those single projects switches to GPLv3, VLC must in turn switch to GPLv3.

VideoLAN wrote:We would however like to remind our users that, because VLC media player depends on a wide range of open-source libraries, we may be forced into distributing certain, if not all, of our official binary releases under GPL version 3, should any single of those libraries switch to a license that is incompatible with GPL version 2 (at the time of writing, the only identified case is libsmbclient from the Samba project).

That sounds pretty shitty to me.

http://www.videolan.org/pr2007-1.html

Tsuroerusu · Post by **Tsuroerusu** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 12:36 pm

Wally Balljacker wrote:I'm still undecided on whether I think GPLv3 is an improvement or not, but what I don't like, is how the general trend is that FOSS projects are going to be forced to adopt it, whether they like it or not, as GPLv3 becomes more widespread and pervasive. One example of this, is the VLC project, which depends on libraries from many other projects, and if any one of those single projects switches to GPLv3, VLC must in turn switch to GPLv3.

VideoLAN wrote:We would however like to remind our users that, because VLC media player depends on a wide range of open-source libraries, we may be forced into distributing certain, if not all, of our official binary releases under GPL version 3, should any single of those libraries switch to a license that is incompatible with GPL version 2 (at the time of writing, the only identified case is libsmbclient from the Samba project).
http://www.videolan.org/pr2007-1.html

That sounds pretty shitty to me.

I think that is a REALLY dumb argument!
When people themselves choose to use the GPL license(s), they essentially say to makers of proprietary software "Write your own code, don't use ours!". I don't think people should ever be forced to make their code free software, in other words I don't think proprietary software should be illegal. But if you use free software in relation/directly to/in your program, you should respect the developers' choice of license, and not bitch about their choice of license since you're the one using their code, and if you can't agree with their choice then shut up and write your own code! I think OpenBSD made a mistake when they were accused of GPL violation, and I think the developers of the free Atheros driver for Linux made a mistake when they took the HAL code from OpenBSD and not respected their really brain-dead simple licensing terms (Which is to just keep a copyright notice intact).

Nobody is forcing the VLC developers to use the libraries that other people write, and if they can't accept that those other people may feel that GPLv3 is a good license, then they should just stop bitching and write their own code, just like people who get busted for using GPLed code in their proprietary applications.

Wally Balljacker · Post by **Wally Balljacker** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 1:25 pm

What about Apple? How is Samba and GCC switching to GPLv3 going to affect them?

Tsuroerusu · Post by **Tsuroerusu** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 2:30 pm

Wally Balljacker wrote:What about Apple? How is Samba and GCC switching to GPLv3 going to affect them?

Well if Apple doesn't like GPLv3 (Which is unlikely since they too were on the GPLv3 discussion committees), obviously they could fork them, like they did with KHTML, and continue to use versions that are under GPLv2. However, if they don't find GPLv3 to be a problem, the only impact, really, is related to patents. GPLv3's patent provisions are quite difficult to understand correctly, and let me say clearly that I am not a lawyer, but as I understand it, if Apple distributes Samba and GCC with changes of their own, then they grant you "a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free patent license under the contributor's essential patent claims, to make, use, sell, offer for sale, import and otherwise run, modify and propagate the contents of its contributor version.". This to me means that I can use Apple's version of GCC without fearing patent lawsuits from Apple over things in GCC (Although other things I might be doing could violate their patents, I only get a patent license for GCC) and so can people getting GCC from me.

GPLv3 really is not that radical a change, in terms of what it actually does, it's really a fairly moderate change. And if one have actually read it, one would know that (I am not pointing finger at anyone).

allix · Post by **allix** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 5:49 pm

Congratulations Troels on your 2000 postings

Your brought up something interesting, that you don't think proprietary software should be illegal, which actually makes the gpl v3 stronger in that if you don't like what gpl v3 says and don't want to contribute to free software then go make a proprietary product , I am not stopping you.

All gpl v 3 is doing is preserving the rights of users/developers to carry out the four freedoms without interruption , if you don't like it, use something else.

Wally Balljacker · Post by **Wally Balljacker** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 6:10 pm

But VLC isn't developing proprietary software. They are a legitimate contributor to the FOSS community, and it's inherently authoritarian to force a project to adopt a new license simply because a dependent library gets moved to GPLv3. You want to talk about developer rights, what about the VideoLAN project's rights? Shouldn't they be allowed to continue using the GPLv2 if they feel it's the best license for their software? How on earth can you defend a license that is incompatible with it's predecessor? I can see where this is going and I don't like it one bit. First Samba, then GCC, and before we know it, the entire community is using GPLv3 against their wishes simply because a few key projects adopted it, and they ended up getting sucked into it. That's pretty under-handed if you ask me. I think I can understand the real motivation for OpenBSD to develop their PCC compiler; THEY HATE GPLV3.

Tsuroerusu · Post by **Tsuroerusu** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 6:16 pm

allix wrote:Congratulations Troels on your 2000 postings

Hehe thanks, I ought to get a prize or something.

allix wrote:Your brought up something interesting, that you don't think proprietary software should be illegal

I don't think it should be illegal to make proprietary software for a very specific reason, and that is: Politicians can ALWAYS be bought!
If proprietary software became illegal, Microsoft would pay a lawmaker their entire cash reservices, and then have free software be made illegal.
I'd like to believe that if politicians outlawed proprietary software they would make sure that the laws stayed that way, but history has shown us that lawmakers change their views depending on how much you pay them. The American Home Recording act gave people rights that are now considered criminal acts in the digital form.
So I take the "You keep your nose out of my business and I'll keep my note out of your business" kind of approach to this.

allix wrote:which actually makes the gpl v3 stronger in that if you don't like what gpl v3 says and don't want to contribute to free software then go make a proprietary product , I am not stopping you.

Now I didn't say that!

I don't think people should make proprietary software, nor do I think people should go on a vacation in China (I'm a zealot when it comes to freedom of speech), but people do and that's just reality, I personally won't do either, I see both as being a disservice to society as a whole, in the case of proprietary software it's not necessary evil (In my opinion), but nonetheless a disservice, because it encourages monopolies, software patents and Gestapo-like copyright laws.

allix wrote:All gpl v 3 is doing is preserving the rights of users/developers to carry out the four freedoms without interruption , if you don't like it, use something else.

Actually, the GPL focuses on the user specifically, of course it also grants developers freedom, but it always keeps the everyday users as a first priority. Wouldn't it be wonderful if copyright law itself did this? I can dream!
But yeah, I love this quote from Jeremy Allison "If you're wanna share in the freedom that we give to people, write your own code, don't use ours!".