|
Tomorrow GPLv3 is Released |
|
Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 11:34 AM EDT
|
Tomorrow at noon GPLv3 will be released. I was on one of the committees, so it's a relief it's finally done. I just wanted to say out loud how hard it was to try to get everyone's wants included. But the effort was real. And not everybody on the committees were fanbois either, from what I saw on the committee I was on. Lots of give and take. FSF demonstrated a willingness to listen to everyone and take seriously what all were saying and they made some adjustments that they didn't particularly want to make but made anyway to try to meet concerns others had. If it wasn't possible to please absolutely everyone on planet earth, it's because not everyone is on the same page as to what matters most. That's fine. GPLv3 isn't trying to be the one and only license in the world. And it's not a religion or a political document. It's a license. That's all it is. Use it if it suits your needs. It surely meets some current legal needs in a way no other license does. In fact, what it foresaw regarding patents actually came to pass while it was in the draft process. Did you see the latest from Linspire, by the way, speaking of current events? Hold your nose, because I'm going to show you.
Kevin Carmony tries to justify his decision to sign a patent deal with Microsoft, and he couches it in part like this: Lastly...some distributions have come out, claiming to be taking the "morale high ground" by refusing to give into "Microsoft threats," while openly promoting the means of circumventing proprietary software on their web sites, amounting to nothing more than high-brow software piracy.
Some are claiming anti-Microsoft sentiment in regards to our recent announcement, but I don't see them licensing or respecting the IP from many others, not just Microsoft. That's not how I define the "moral high ground." So, if we don't sign patent deals with Microsoft, we're pirates? Puh-lease. I told you to hold your nose. I don't even know what he's talking about. It would be hard to find a group that tries as hard as FOSS programmers do to respect the property of others, in my experience. That's why SCO can't find anything in Linux and it's no doubt why there has never been a patent infringement suit against it.
As for Microsoft, it won't show anything. Please do show us the patents with specificity, Mr. Carmony. You must know what they are, if you are "respecting" them. So share with the community what you know. By all means we will respect any legitimate patents by ripping out whatever we need to, pay whatever we need to, and work around it. But you have to tell us what they are so we can check them for obviousness, for a start, and prior art, so we can make sure this isn't just Microsoft selling the world a pig in a poke. They do have a reputation for FUD. Had you not heard? And if you signed without knowing about any specific patents, say so. Because then you are not respecting someone's IP at all. You are giving in to Mafia-like threats based on fear. That is not the moral high ground to me, although you are free to do whatever you please. I mention this just to point out that GPLv3 can't please everyone, because ideas differ about what is right and what isn't. But if your desire is to build up over time an oasis of code a little more free of patent infringement threats (the only final solution is for software and patents to get a divorce, of course) and with the assurance that no one can take your code and sign patent deals -- with Microsoft or anyone else -- that you don't want your code involved with, GPLv3 is likely your license. GPLv2 can't protect your code from those patent deals, as you now can clearly see. So if that matters to you, GPLv2 is not perfect for you. Mr. Carmony asked a question, will Linux split in two factions? The answer is no. Some Linux distros will limp along a while and then die off, because they misunderstood what folks want when they choose GNU/Linux and FOSS. You can see that already. Red Hat, which refused to sign any such deal, is flourishing, for example. It's not about code that "just works". Apple offers that already. It's the freedom. And we've proven willing to put up with some temporary frustration in order to get it. In time, FOSS will win, and all those proprietary codecs and everything else will be made available on pleasanter terms, because market share does that. Even businesses want freedom to customize without fear. The GPL -- both versions -- gives you that in a way that patent deals never can. GPLv2 and v3 are usable together, don't forget. GPLv3 code can run *on* the kernel without any license problems. Update: I used the wrong adjective. I'm sorry if I confused you. I woke up thinking it was Friday, and it's been like that all day. Here's the correct info from Richard Stallman's essay: When we say that GPLv2 and GPLv3 are incompatible, it means there is no legal way to combine code under GPLv2 with code under GPLv3 in a single program. This is because both GPLv2 and GPLv3 are copyleft licenses: each of them says, “If you include code under this license in a larger program, the larger program must be under this license too.” There is no way to make them compatible. We could add a GPLv2-compatibility clause to GPLv3, but it wouldn't do the job, because GPLv2 would need a similar clause.Fortunately, license incompatibility only matters when you want to link, merge or combine code from two different programs into a single program. There is no problem in having GPLv3-covered and GPLv2-covered programs side by side in an operating system. For instance, the TeX license and the Apache license are incompatible with GPLv2, but that doesn't stop us from running TeX and Apache in the same system with Linux, Bash and GCC. This is because they are all separate programs. Likewise, if Bash and GCC move to GPLv3, while Linux remains under GPLv2, there is no conflict.
Keeping a program under GPLv2 won't create problems. And here's the GPLv3 FAQ on compatibility: How is GPLv3 compatible with other GNU licenses?
The various GNU licenses enjoy broad compatibility between each other. The only time you may not be able to combine code under two of these licenses is when you want to use code that's only under an older version of a license with code that's under a newer version.
It has a handy chart. So as GPLv3 builds up a large pool of safer code, everyone will know where the greatest safety and freedom from patent threats can be obtained without having to sign off on a de facto proprietization of code that was written with the clear intent that it stay free of patent deals. Freedom is what we switched from Microsoft's products *for*. If you wish to respect other people's IP, you might start by respecting the GPL. It's a legal license, and its intent is clear. Deals that try to leapfrog over it or slice off a bit of it or undermine it are not the way to show you respect the authors' right to tell you what you can do with copyrighted software they have written and own and released under terms that you are supposed to respect.
|
|
Authored by: Erwan on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 11:36 AM EDT |
If any...
---
Erwan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Today or tomorrow ? - Authored by: Erwan on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 11:46 AM EDT
- Tomorrow is the release - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 12:10 PM EDT
- Corrections here please - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 01:16 PM EDT
- Corrections here please - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 02:27 PM EDT
- Incorrect link - Authored by: init on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 03:07 PM EDT
- morale high ground --> moral high ground - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 03:17 PM EDT
- "fanbois?" - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 03:49 PM EDT
- Corrections here please - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 08:07 PM EDT
- Quote, 1st line: into -> in to - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 08:17 PM EDT
- Newspics - Pragmatic open source - broken link - Authored by: eamacnaghten on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 11:26 PM EDT
- correct the title - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 29 2007 @ 06:07 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Erwan on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 11:38 AM EDT |
And remember please, some like clickies...
---
Erwan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Intel Core 2 - Broken and Untrustable - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 11:46 AM EDT
- Carmony is one of McBride's buddy's from Franklin Covey - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 12:49 PM EDT
- OT: Kristian Hermansen - Authored by: Peter H. Salus on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 03:21 PM EDT
- Novell and Linux - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 03:45 PM EDT
- Red Hat next? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 05:02 PM EDT
- This - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 05:06 PM EDT
- We'll see, but I think Redhat know which side their bread is buttered. - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 06:01 PM EDT
- Dissing Red Hat - Authored by: jplatt39 on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 07:13 PM EDT
- Dissing Red Hat - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 07:20 PM EDT
- Dissing Red Hat - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 11:49 PM EDT
- NDA's - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 29 2007 @ 03:58 AM EDT
- Reuter has the story too. - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 07:35 PM EDT
- Red Hat next? - Authored by: Tyro on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 08:33 PM EDT
- The FUD Is In The Angle - Authored by: TheBlueSkyRanger on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 10:15 PM EDT
- On the falibility of the court - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 05:24 PM EDT
- MS to Google: Take an antitrust lesson from us; "desperately trying" with Europe - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 06:46 PM EDT
- SCOTUS - There ain't no sanity claus - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 07:21 PM EDT
- Chef Sues Over Intellectual Property (the Menu) - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 07:23 PM EDT
- AG Gonzales in the news again about "attempted copyright infringement" - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 08:30 PM EDT
- I'm getting my project ready! - Authored by: skip on Friday, June 29 2007 @ 04:41 AM EDT
- Off Topic here : More MS Office 2007 Lockin. - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 29 2007 @ 10:30 AM EDT
|
Authored by: mcinsand on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 11:42 AM EDT |
So, Linspire claims to be respecting others' hard-won intellectual developments
by jumping into bed with the company that has one of the worst records of
respecting others' intellectual property in the history of intellectual
property? Maybe the new dictionary needs to have Carmony's picture by the
definition for hippocrite. The kernel guys and guys at Redhat mount a serious
effort to maintain a clean pedigree for all code that goes into their respective
projects, they make sure that the process is open, and they have publicly
expressed a mission to keep free of infringements. Can anyone with half a clue
say that about the parties of the Microsoft-Quisling deals?
mcinsand (or did I actually log in this time?)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 11:59 AM EDT |
I suspect what they gave in to was plain old payola. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: kawabago on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 12:00 PM EDT |
Could an american petition a federal court for a declaratory judgement that
software is not patentable as per the law? Could that be a vehicle to get the
question in front of the Supreme Court? I get the impression they want someone
to do that so they can rule on it. My idea is to get the question in front of
the Supreme Court without a long expensive legal battle in lower courts.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: chris hill on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 12:01 PM EDT |
Given how Microsoft is acting, and how SCO acted, is it possible that they have
stepped over the line and committed several RICO offenses in the United
States?
Racketeer Influences and Corrupt Organizations Act seems to have
several which this patent covenant scheme falls
under:
Extortion
fraud
Section 2332b (g)(5)(B) which
states:
(i) section 32 (relating to destruction of aircraft or aircraft
facilities), 37 (relating to violence at international airports), 81 (relating
to arson within special maritime and territorial jurisdiction), 175 or 175b
(relating to biological weapons), 175c (relating to variola virus), 229
(relating to chemical weapons), subsection (a), (b), (c), or (d) of section 351
(relating to congressional, cabinet, and Supreme Court assassination and
kidnaping), 831 (relating to nuclear materials), 832 (relating to participation
in nuclear and weapons of mass destruction threats to the United States) [2]
842(m) or (n) (relating to plastic explosives), 844(f)(2) or (3) (relating to
arson and bombing of Government property risking or causing death), 844(i)
(relating to arson and bombing of property used in interstate commerce), 930(c)
(relating to killing or attempted killing during an attack on a Federal facility
with a dangerous weapon), 956(a)(1) (relating to conspiracy to murder, kidnap,
or maim persons abroad), 1030(a)(1) (relating to protection of
computers), 1030(a)(5)(A)(i) resulting in damage as defined in 1030(a)(5)(B)(ii)
through (v) (relating to protection of computers), 1114 (relating to
killing or attempted killing of officers and employees of the United States),
1116 (relating to murder or manslaughter of foreign officials, official guests,
or internationally protected persons), 1203 (relating to hostage taking), 1361
(relating to government property or contracts), 1362 (relating to
destruction of communication lines, stations, or systems), 1363
(relating to injury to buildings or property within special maritime and
territorial jurisdiction of the United States), 1366(a) (relating to destruction
of an energy facility), 1751(a), (b), (c), or (d) (relating to Presidential and
Presidential staff assassination and kidnaping), 1992 (relating to wrecking
trains), 1993 (relating to terrorist attacks and other acts of violence against
mass transportation systems), 2155 (relating to destruction of national
defense materials, premises, or utilities), 2156 (relating to national defense
material, premises, or utilities), 2280 (relating to violence against
maritime navigation), 2281 (relating to violence against maritime fixed
platforms), 2332 (relating to certain homicides and other violence against
United States nationals occurring outside of the United States), 2332a (relating
to use of weapons of mass destruction), 2332b (relating to acts of terrorism
transcending national boundaries), 2332f (relating to bombing of public places
and facilities), 2332g (relating to missile systems designed to destroy
aircraft), 2332h (relating to radiological dispersal devices), 2339 (relating to
harboring terrorists), 2339A (relating to providing material support to
terrorists), 2339B (relating to providing material support to terrorist
organizations), 2339C (relating to financing of terrorism,[3] or 2340A (relating
to torture) of this title;
Emphasis is mine, and I am unsure if I am right.
Can anyone explain if I've noted this properly, or if I can blow it out my
ear?
As I'm Canadian, I'm trying to understand this.
Chris Hill [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Microsoft and RICO? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 01:28 PM EDT
- Microsoft and RICO? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 06:20 PM EDT
- aren't they? - Authored by: LocoYokel on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 07:41 PM EDT
- Yes - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 29 2007 @ 04:10 PM EDT
|
Authored by: sumzero on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 12:13 PM EDT |
"And it's not a religion or a political document."
the fsf is political. the concept of a free society is a political one and the
gpl is a political statement promoting this.
in fact, every action is political. this is widely acknowledged in less
developed areas of the world, but we have become insulated in the west as we do
not readily and immediate see the results of our actions in the same way they do
in africa or south america, for example.
sum.zero
---
48. The best book on programming for the layman is "alice in wonderland"; but
that's because it's the best book on anything for the layman.
alan j perlis[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- politics - Authored by: Just_Bri_Thanks on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 12:22 PM EDT
- politics - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 12:29 PM EDT
- politics - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 01:53 PM EDT
- politics - Authored by: davecb on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 03:52 PM EDT
- then... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 04:45 PM EDT
- contract versus political document? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 03:41 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 12:15 PM EDT |
Time will tell if the additional restrictions on freedom to defend freedom will
be a net gain or a net loss for Linux, should it adopt v3. Will users demand
that linux be in more devices so they have more hacking rights? Will companies
steer clear of it due to concerns, possibly fud induced, about the license and
their intellectual property. Time will tell.
It will also be interesting to see what happens with projects that use GPL
software in different ways. Will this drive the BSD projects to increase their
pace of GPL code retirement? Will it cause forks of projects that have gplv2
licenses today that move to v3 (even though the GPL was supposed to prevent
forks)? Will it change things such that FSF software becomes less relevant
because the new restrictions are too onerous? Or will it be a well-hyped
non-event.
Time will tell, although I'm sure the commentators here will weigh in with their
opinions before time has a chance to tell.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- GPLv3: good or evil? - Authored by: Just_Bri_Thanks on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 12:24 PM EDT
- GPLv3: good or evil? - Authored by: PJ on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 01:15 PM EDT
- GPLv3: good or evil? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 04:05 PM EDT
- Which projects ? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 04:46 PM EDT
- Which projects ? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 06:53 PM EDT
- Which projects ? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 29 2007 @ 09:23 AM EDT
- GPL 2 or later? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 05:20 PM EDT
- GPL 2 or later? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 05:34 PM EDT
- GPLv3: good or evil? - Authored by: Tyro on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 01:18 PM EDT
- GPLv3: good or evil? - Authored by: Pensacola Tiger on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 01:22 PM EDT
- Whatever - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 29 2007 @ 04:18 PM EDT
|
Authored by: sumzero on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 12:18 PM EDT |
if he knows of specific patents that affect linux which he cannot pass on the
usage rights to, isn't he precluded from distributing under gpl 2?
sum.zero
---
48. The best book on programming for the layman is "alice in wonderland"; but
that's because it's the best book on anything for the layman.
alan j perlis[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 12:49 PM EDT |
"Mr. Carmony asked a question, will Linux split in two factions? The answer
is no."
Sorry, Linux (either kernel or distributions) is already split into multiple
factions! So it is a little late to either ask or answer the question. After
all this is what actually drives Linux towards world domination.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 01:05 PM EDT |
I can finally get around to reading the GPLv3.
RAS[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: kberrien on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 01:21 PM EDT |
>As for Microsoft, it won't show anything. Please do show us >the patents
with specificity, Mr. Carmony. You must know what >they are, if you are
"respecting" them. So share with the >community what you know.
Would it possible, to use the courts via a suit to enforce (or if they don't
comply, thus indemnify) Microsoft to show their patent claims (which have been
announced in public and referenced in these agreements)?
Ie, head Microsoft at the pass. And perhaps, if they don't comply the very
attempt might provide future legal cover for distributors, developers and users?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 01:32 PM EDT |
Hmm... So in the final draft we have:
"You may not convey a covered work if
you are a party to an arrangement with a third party that is in the business
of distributing software, under which you make payment ..." (emphasis
mine)
And now you say:
"... and with the assurance that no one can take
your code and sign patent deals -- with Microsoft or anyone else -- that
you don't want your code involved with ..." (emphasis mine)
So are you
saying the "that is in the business of distributing software" language is gone
from GPLv3 final, and that section now applies to everyone?
Please
say yes. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Nick_UK on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 01:38 PM EDT |
Today, I joined the FSF as an associate member. Anyone
can, and I think it is
really great way to help:
Join
FSF
Of course, you can also donate as little/much as you want
to
help finance the work of FSF.
Nick [FSF member 5508][ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: stites on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 01:42 PM EDT |
"In fact, what it foresaw regarding patents actually came to pass while
it was in the draft process."
I think that in the beginning most
people treated GPLv3 as an academic exercise. We were theorizing about possible
software patent attacks on Open Source and possible defences. When the
Microsoft-Novell agreement was announced the real world suddenly intruded into
the debate. As a result the debate became much more intense and much more
important.
In his criticisms of GPLv3 Linus Torvalds has said that
people have exaggerated the dangers of the Microsoft-Novell agreement in order
to generate support for GPLv3. I agree that the emotions generated by the
Microsoft-Novell agreement have greatly increased support for GPLv3 but I don't
think that those dangers are exaggerated. In the real world Microsoft is using
software patents to attack Open Source and we are forced to fight
back.
------------------
Steve Stites
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 01:44 PM EDT |
I use a free version of Linux but I had been planning to go to a commercial
distro for various reasons. Because of the patent deals, I won't use them now.
I don't have MS codecs, fonts, or software installed on my Linux box. Microsoft
alleges Linux violates their patents and tell me I have to pay them for use of
those patents. But when I ask for what patents, the answer is we're not going
to tell because they know some are shakey and they don't want me to rectify any
infringment so they can keep me in perpetual violation.
So, tell me why I have to pay MS to use Linux. But if it's because of some
reason I can't verify and recitify, then all deals are off with you.
Silence? Thought so. Enjoy your 'moral highground'.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Linspire and SUSE - Authored by: wal on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 02:22 PM EDT
- That's illogical - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 04:00 PM EDT
- Correction - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 04:48 PM EDT
- Mandriva's better - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 29 2007 @ 01:36 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Sesostris III on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 01:51 PM EDT |
IANAL (obviously!)
OK, as far as many here are concerned, the GPLv3 says many of the right things
(and fills in a few "loopholes" in the GPLv2). However, saying the
right thing and being legally robust are two different things! Are we all
convinced that it will stand up (if challenged) in a court of law?
I see (at least) two possible areas of "attack":
Firstly "Tivoization", where it could be argued that the
anti-tivoization clause was non-legal in a specific instance as mandated by
(say) congress ("Congress mandates locked-down open-source software to be
used in all voting machines, to provide confidence, peace of mind, auditability,
along with security and freedom from tampering" or words to that effect).
Secondly patents. In the US, which is primary; patent or copyright? (US only, as
this bit not really relevant elsewhere). Which is worse, infringing patent, or
infringing copyright? Could a judge come down in favour of a corporation (say
Linspire) for trying to do the right thing wit regards patents, even if this
seems to be infringing copyright? Or will the judge most certainly, definitely,
without qualm, come down in favour of the GPLv3 copyright holder?
Assuming a decision not to the liking of the GPLv3 community, what would be the
consequences?
Won't happen? We've seen the hassle SCO have put IBM through, and that is
without necessarily holding any copyrights! Microsoft are bigger and richer than
SCO, and they most certainly do hold patents (in the US).
My fear is that the GPLv3 may say things more pleasing than the GPLv2, but be
legally weaker. It may become a target just because of that.
Please prove me wrong!
Sesostris III
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 01:51 PM EDT |
Just a bit of history on the Linspire thing. MS and Linspire are not
historically bedfellows. Remember that Linspire used to be Lindows. They
fought very long against MS on trademark issues (MS claims to hold
"Windows" as a trademark, even though the concept of
"windows" in computing has been around for much longer than MS's use
of the word). MS would've lost their trademark in the US and went court
shopping in the international arena until they found one sympathetic to their
point of view (pisses me off to this day that they co-opted a generic term like
that).
In any case, Linspire has always licensed codecs and other proprietary software
from other companies (WMP codecs and DVD playback among others). It was their
choice in the legal department. From that viewpoint they tried to provide a
legal means for a "fully functional" Linux desktop (able to play
movies, view common web media, etc). I suspect the patent / licensing deal
covers the non-GPL stuff in their distribution. It's been mentioned before, but
as far as codecs and whatnot go Linspire _did_ take the high ground and license
them properly... NOTE: I'm not saying that any other distro has actively
promoted getting these through other means, although there are plenty of
fansites / userland instructions to get the codecs for other distros.
Although this is speculative on what the agreements actually cover. As usual,
it'd be much appreciated if Linspire did note exactly what was covered...
Perhaps the right thing here is to invite Linspire to clarify exactly what was
covered and what was not.
Side note: Glad GPLv3 is nearly here. It's been a while in the coming, but
recent events demonstrate the need.
-TomcaT-[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 02:04 PM EDT |
And what, if i may respectfully ask, is wrong with that?
As an example: installing and using any GNU/Linux
distribution is a fully legal way to 'circumvent
proprietary software': by not using it. Have i missed
something and has that become illegal overnight? 'Openly
promoting such circumvention' could hardly be called an
offence i'd think, much less 'piracy'.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 02:46 PM EDT |
With respect, I think that PJ is misinterpreting the Linspire statement. In my
Ubuntu system, I have added access to the "universe" repository which
makes it trivially simple to install illegal codecs for mp3, gif, and similar
file types. Ubuntu and other distros are careful to keep these out of their
mainstream repositories, but, come on, let's admit that 99% of users read the
forum postings telling them how to install these codecs and do in fact have
"illegal" software on their computers. I think this is what he is
referring to. Linspire does avoid that problem with appropriate licensing.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: wvhillbilly on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 02:47 PM EDT |
Lastly...some distributions have come out, claiming to be taking the
"morale high ground" by refusing to give into "Microsoft threats," while openly
promoting the means of circumventing proprietary software on their web sites,
amounting to nothing more than high-brow software piracy. Some are
claiming anti-Microsoft sentiment in regards to our recent announcement, but I
don't see them licensing or respecting the IP from many others, not just
Microsoft. That's not how I define the "moral high ground." [My
bold]
That stinks! That absolutely stinks. Stinks worse than a cat
that's been dead for a week.
If they want to make patent deals with
Microsoft on their own proprietary software, fine. But when they do it with
open source software they don't own, that's a whole 'nother ball game. And then
accusing FOSS of piracy? That's adding insult to injury, if not flat out
libel. --- What goes around comes around, and the longer it goes the bigger
it grows. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: hubick on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 03:01 PM EDT |
I think he's probably referring to this:
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/RestrictedFormats
And I agree with him.
Installing proprietary codecs on your Linux system does violate many of those
codec licenses, which is essentially piracy.
Switch to OGG, etc.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Only in the US - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 03:10 PM EDT
- Taken care of in one sense. - Authored by: Benanov on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 03:43 PM EDT
- High-brow piracy - Authored by: sailorxyz on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 04:03 PM EDT
- Meanshile...in the real world... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 04:06 PM EDT
- High-brow piracy - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 04:57 PM EDT
- MPEG 4 IP toolsuite isnt illegal - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 05:08 PM EDT
- Should they spin that site off then? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 05:08 PM EDT
- BTW remember AT&T v Microsoft - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 05:11 PM EDT
- "Piracy": Does anyone else think Microsoft/BSA include Linux in their piracy loss stats? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 05:21 PM EDT
- Watch out... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 06:36 PM EDT
- Too far out - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 09:02 PM EDT
- High-brow piracy - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 07:42 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 03:24 PM EDT |
<a href="http://www.sifma.org/news/47167838.shtml">SIFMA
says:</a>
"The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA) today
commended the Free Software Foundation and the Software Freedom Law Center for
their significant work in introducing Version 3 of the General Public License
(GPL)."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 03:55 PM EDT |
Iam thinking that the gplv3 should override the gplv2 after a given time limit,
after the gplv3 release date. Override I mean that the gplv2 will become the
gplv3 default. I don't believe in any fork(s) within the community developments,
however, I do see the need to follow through with the change.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: mtew on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 04:00 PM EDT |
I have heard of European (and other?) sites in countries without software
patents that provide codecs and other pieces of software that, if hosted in the
USA, would be guilty of infringing US patents.
That puts him on the 'correct' side of that one point, He is still a
self-serving git over-all and on his other points.
---
MTEW[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 04:09 PM EDT |
PJ wrote: "I was on one of the committees"
I thought the rumor from SCO is that you "were" one of the committees.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Steve Martin on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 06:12 PM EDT |
I read the linked story to an extent, and the first thing that struck me is that
he's prattling about choices, talking about how he "prefer[s] Debian to
RPM", apparently not realizing he's comparing apples and oranges (or, more
accurately, comparing a distro to a package manager). I'm not an expert, but
even I know better than that.
---
"When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffee, "Sports
Night"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 06:27 PM EDT |
but I don't see them licensing or respecting the IP from many
others Right, and how many times has Microsoft been found
guilty of infringing somebody else's patents or copyrights ?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 06:38 PM EDT |
Where in the world is Eric S. Raymond ?
Now, what's a reasonable explanation
for him supporting Linspire ?
Open Source Guru Eric S. Raymond Joins
Freespire Leadership Team
The company that was all rosey 8 months
ago is now in bed with Microsoft ?
I'd love to know.
According to
Carmony... Raymond is a principled person who would never take money in exchange
for his views or support.
Kevin Carmony email
This note was
written by Carmony to sort-of distance himself from Raymond.
But
hey...
Linspire
actively, (and Carmony personally) used Raymond's credentials to bring some
credibility into Linspire
How does that leave Carmony himself with
respect to his own principles, if any ?
IMHO There's something
fishy here, and it has M$ tatooed all over.
Some revenge for Halloween
?
So, where in the world is ESR now ?
We already know where Carmony
is.
See you at the Money
Bin
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 06:59 PM EDT |
If they were compatible, there wouldn't be a problem. The community had pretty
much settled on either the GPLv2 or BSD-without-advertising, which are mostly
compatible. And that gives a large body of code you can mix-and-mash at will.
Now that is going to fragment again. Joy.
The GPLv3 is going to be reminded as the worst ibiblio.orgup in the free
software history simply because it isn't compatible both ways with v2 and it's
controversial enough for a lot of people not to want to change.
OG.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 07:13 PM EDT |
"GPLv2 and v3 are compatible, don't forget."
They are? For the FSF's meaning of "compatible" as "I'm allowed
to combine code licensed under these two licenses into a single codebase and
distribute the result"? This seems like new news to me -- my understanding
is that they were not. The GPLv2 prohibits making additional restrictions on
the code one distributes, so one cannot relicense someone else's GPLv2 code
under the GPLv3. (Otherwise, there'd be no problem with relicensing the Linux
kernel as GPLv3.) Similarly, the GPLv3 places requirements that certain
additional restrictions such as patent licenses, which means one cannot
relicense someone else's GPLv3 under GPLv2. (Otherwise, there'd be no point in
the GPLv3!) Thus, as far as I can see, they are NOT compatible licenses.
I thought the FSF had been fairly clear about that from the beginning.
The whole need for the GPLv3 is to prohibit some things that the GPLv2 has
required (such as letting people do hardware keys), and so writing a GPLv3 such
that all GPLv2 code can automatically be distributed as GPLv3 won't work. And
it would be pointless if the GPLv3 let GPLv3 code be distributed under the
GPLv2. Therefore, they unfortunately have to be incompatible; there's no way
around it.
I hope the FSF's press release tomorrow comments on this; it does seem likely to
be a bit of confusion.
(And, a question for people replying who do believe the licenses are compatible:
If I take some GPLv2 code from Alice, and some GPLv3 code from Bob, and combine
them into a single codebase and distribute it, what license can I use to
distribute it under? If they're compatible, there has to be an answer to that
question.)
- Brooks
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 07:45 PM EDT |
I am very, very glad the GPL v3 will be released tomorrow and extremely grateful
to RMS, the FSF and all those who have contributed into making the GPL v3 a
reality.
Thank you one and all.
krp[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 08:49 PM EDT |
This press release I received in e-mail from FSF this
evening:
quote:
"iPhone restricts users, GPLv3 frees them
BOSTON,
Massachusetts, USA -- Thursday, June 28, 2007 -- On Friday, June 29, not
everyone in the continental U.S. will be waiting in line to purchase a $500
iPhone. In fact, hundreds of thousands of digital aficionados around the globe
won't be standing in line at all, for June 29 marks the release of version 3 of
the GNU General Public License (GPL). Version 2 of the GPL governs the world's
largest body of free software -- software that is radically reshaping the
industry and threatening the proprietary technology model represented by the
iPhone.
The author of the the GPL is Professor Richard M. Stallman,
president and founder of the Free Software Foundation, and creator of the GNU
Project. With his first revision of the license in sixteen years, version 3 of
the GPL fights the most recent attempts to take the freedom out of free software
-- most notably, version 3 attacks "Tivoization" -- and that could be a problem
for Apple and the iPhone.
Now, from China to India, from Venezuela to
Brazil, from Tivos to cell phones: Free software is everywhere and it is slowly
building a worldwide movement of users demanding that they have control over the
computers and electronic devices they own.
Tivoization and the
iPhone?
"Tivoization" is a term coined by the FSF to describe devices that
are built with free software, but that use technical measures to prevent the
user from making modifications to the software -- a fundamental freedom for free
software users -- and an attack on free software that the GPLv3 will put a stop
to.
The iPhone is leaving people questioning: Does it contain GPLed
software? What impact will the GPLv3 have on the long-term prospects for devices
like the iPhone that are built to keep their owners frustrated?
Peter Brown,
executive director of the FSF said, "Tomorrow, Steve Jobs and Apple release a
product crippled with proprietary software and digital restrictions: crippled,
because a device that isn't under the control of its owner works against the
interests of its owner. We know that Apple has built its operating system, OS X,
and its web browser Safari, using GPL-covered work -- it will be interesting to
see to what extent the iPhone uses GPLed software."
The GNU GPL version 3
will be released at 12:00pm (EDT) -- six hours before the release of the iPhone
-- bringing to a close eighteen months of public outreach and comment, in
revision of the world's most popular free software
license."
:unquote
Thought it was worthy of this topic on Groklaw.
:-)
I was disappointed that Eben Moglen was not credited by name in the
e-mail. --- "While world domination is a nice fantasy, a Free computer
is essential."
--artp, Groklaw, 2007-06 [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 08:57 PM EDT |
So why are we being forced to respond to it? Isn't this site above such idiotic
behavior?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ikh on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 09:11 PM EDT |
Some thing I found strange, each of these MS patent deals also includes an
element that requires the Linux distributor to create yet another ODF to OOXML
translator.
The only reason I can think of why MS would want these is to claim that they are
each interoperable independent implementation of OOXML for presentation to ISO.
Does anyone else have any thoughts.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Latesigner on Thursday, June 28 2007 @ 11:54 PM EDT |
You don't have to be principled; you just have to have enough vanity to avoid
looking like a moron.
Ubuntu has no competition from this.
---
The only way to have an "ownership" society is to make slaves of the rest of us.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jbn on Friday, June 29 2007 @ 03:46 AM EDT |
And it's not a religion or a political document. It's a
license. That's all it is.
From early on in the GPLv3
process 2 years and 20 days ago, the
FSF has claimed:
The GPL is the Constitution of the Free
Software Movement
The Free Software Foundation has never been reluctant
to point out that its goals are primarily social and political, not technical or
economic. [...]
Also, "The GPL is the Literary Work of
Richard M. Stallman" and I think we all know that Stallman's work has been
political from the moment he began the GNU project if not before when he learned
of the power of non-disclosure agreements or saw the effect proprietary LISP
machines had on the community of hackers where he did his work with the MIT AI
lab.
So it would appear that the GPL has always been more than just a
license. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 29 2007 @ 05:10 AM EDT |
Given that you're never put anything under the GPL2 and won't even use the GNU
Free Documentation License for your own work, I think that's pretty Goddamn
hilarious.
Do as you say, eh?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 29 2007 @ 10:44 AM EDT |
Anybody have any idea if the Affero GPL 3 will also be released today ?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Affero GPL 3 - Authored by: PJ on Saturday, June 30 2007 @ 12:11 AM EDT
|
Authored by: mattflaschen on Friday, June 29 2007 @ 11:02 PM EDT |
Actually, Carmony is right that some distributions do openly violate patents.
For example, Ubuntu doesn't include MP3 software on their CDs but they still
distribute it through their website, which is illegal (Fraunhofer-Thompson owns
MP3 patents). I do avoid patented software when possible (even though I don't
think software patents are legitimate), but that's not true of everyone.
But what Linspire is doing is not justified. Instead of avoiding patented
software or questioning the patents, they are paying roytalties for their
customers and their customers alone, casting a shadow on everyone else's
freedom.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: moz1959 on Saturday, June 30 2007 @ 12:20 AM EDT |
I have to wonder, how long afterward the next version of Samba will be
released?
As we have previously seen, the samba development team have already stated that
samba will move to GPLv3, and once it does, the writing's on the wall for any
and all distros, embedded devices etc. that distribute samba as a part of their
content while holding patent deals with proprietary software companies.
The pigeon coop is full and the cats are on standby!
Regards,
Moz1959
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|