What the GPLv3 Means for MS-Novell Agreement

eldavojohn writes to mention IT Business Edge has a dry but interesting interview with a lawyer (Antoinette Tease) on the effects the GPLv3 on the Microsoft & Novell alliance. From her answers: "Unlike prior versions of the GNU General Public License (GPL), which did not address patent rights, the current draft of the GPL version 3 has several provisions that address patent rights. Section 2 states that the license to use the open source code 'terminates if you bring suit against anyone for patent infringement of any of your essential patent claims' based on any version of the open source program." She goes on to say "the GPLv3 as currently drafted would impose an obligation on Novell to somehow 'shield' its customers from patent lawsuits brought by Microsoft, or, alternatively, to make the source code publicly available..."

Patent rights

[hexene]

Er, GPLv2 does address patent rights. It's just that GPLv3 overhauls how they're handled.

Some links to statements by Stallman on the topic

[H4x0r Jim Duggan]

For background, some links:

• Stallman on what GPLv3 will do about the Novell and MS deal [fsfeurope.org]
• What clause was added to version 2 of the GPL in 1991 to tackle the patent problem [fsfeurope.org]
• About the promise not to sue in GPLv3 (draft 2) [fsfeurope.org]
• Transcripts made mostly in 2006 of presentations mostly about GPLv3 [fsfe.org]

Nothing

[edbob]

As far as I know, the Linux kernel will remain with GPLv2. Right now, nothing is covered by GPLv3, so it means nothing. It should get interesting if some open source component used in Suse goes with GPLv3, though.

Re:We've been through this twice already!

[vivaoporto]

But there is no denying, that it is a weapon (bomb), and that businesses may want to give the idea another thought -- or opt for BSD-licensed software instead.

It is not "da bomb". It is "da shield". It is not like companies were being forced to use GPL licensed software, or if they were unaware of the terms of the license. GPL v3. will *not* work like those "submarine patents", that are granted and kept low profile, and them when someone makes a profit of it are used to sue the company for a lot of money. In fact, it is exactly the opposite, it is a way to ensure that the company distributing derivative software using that GPL (and I say derivative because, if they own the copyright, they can still (re)license in whatever license they want) doesn't not hijack the code and deny to the public the benefits they were granted when accepting the terms of GPL.

A license is just that. Without GPL, they have no right to distribute derivative works. With GPL, they get the rights, but must to abide to the terms. The terms are there to ensure that they will pass along the rights they got, and that they will not pull a card from the sleeve and deny people the very freedom that the GPL license is born to grant.

In short: you have the right to not distribute GPL'd software. If you do, you must abide to the terms and preserve the intended freedoms. Play by the rules or go away, it is simple as that.

Re:So they will continue to use GPLv2...?

[drinkypoo]

From doing a quick read, it sounds like there are concerns on how much protection GPLv3 actually provides. Does this mean that developers will continue to release software under the GPLv2 until this gets straightened out.

The GPLv3 doesn't exist yet. It's still being drafted [fsf.org]. Any complaints about the GPLv3 are thus actually complaints about a possible, future GPLv3, and can still be addressed.

v2 is not an option for Novell

[H4x0r Jim Duggan]

Using GPLv2 is not an option for Novell because they don't own the software they package and redistribute.

When developers switch future versions of their software to GPLv3, Novell will not be able to incorporate the changes in those new versions.

So if Novell wants to avoid GPLv3, they will have to forever stay with Glibc 2.5, GCC 4.1, coreutils 6.7, and old versions of GIMP, emacs, bash, gdb, etc. etc.

you're 1 paragraph point is correct

[H4x0r Jim Duggan]

The point you make in the first paragraph is correct. Stallman points this out:

We keep looking for ways to protect the users from the danger of software patents, but there's only a limited amount that any software licence can do this. The thing that makes software patents so dangerous is that somebody that you've never heard of and with whom you have no relationship whatsoever can have a patent covering a technique that you implemented, and sue you for the code you wrote.

This is precisely why software patents are so bad, and since you have no relationship with that person, there's no opportunity for any licence on your software to have any effect on him. So all we can do is get rid of a small part of this large danger for all software developers.

Quoted from here (scroll to the audience member's 2nd intervention): Stallman speaking in Bangalore [fsfeurope.org]

Wrong, wrong, wrong

[massysett]

Did the person interviewed for this article actually read the draft [fsf.org]?

"This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the unmodified Program." (emphasis added) "This License permits you to make and run privately modified versions of the Program, or have others make and run them on your behalf." It is only this permission to make and run privately modified versions that terminates if the licensor sues for infringement. This is a far cry from what the article suggests, which is that the license "to use the open source code" terminates when the licensor brings a patent claim.

I hope the article is a distortion of what this attorney said. If it isn't, then anybody who has hired this lawyer for anything software-related should get another lawyer, pronto.

You're correct, 25-50% of each distro'll be GPLv3

[H4x0r Jim Duggan]

All of the GNU project will move to GPLv3. That's glibc, gcc, gdb, binutils, coreutils, bash, grub, grep, cpio, readline, make, gettext, GIMP, aspell, parted, parts of GNOME, etc. etc. etc.

Also, SAMBA said they'll be moving to it, and MySQL said they expect to move to it. Sun might, or might not, use it too.

GPLv3 will be widely adopted, it's a given

[H4x0r Jim Duggan]

The whole GNU project will use it. That means Glibc, gcc, parted, GIMP, parts of GNOME, gdb, binutils, coreutils, bash, gettext, aspell, grep, gzip, findutils, cpio, make, grub, etc.

The SAMBA project have also said they'd be using it, and MySQL sound like they will be too. Sun might or mightn't. Some others will too, surely.

Can Novell ditch GNU? No.

[H4x0r Jim Duggan]

No, Novell can't replace the GNU bits with BSD bits - even the BSDs don't do that!

Every BSD is GCC built and ships GCC to their developers.

Also, there's no BSD replacement for GIMP, and replacing Glibc and replacing it with a BSD libc would be very hard. An operating system's libc has to marshal between the kernel and the userspace - Glibc has been doing this for 15 years for Linux and the GNU userspace. A new libc would be a world of problems.

Anyway, other packages such as SAMBA would still be out of bounds (they've said they're moving to GPLv3 too).

Oh, and as for Stallman being surrounded by sycophants - his main job is travelling and giving speeches and answering emails - he hears criticism and questioning every day.