What the GPLv3 Means for MS-Novell Agreement 161
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..."
The lawyer has a point (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Nothing (Score:1, Interesting)
it's a way to divide the community (Score:5, Interesting)
> FUD and misdirection I should think.
Surely, but I think there's more to it.
One goal is to divide the free software community. With the Novell deal, Novell no longer has an interest in helping the community to fight MS's patents. Worse, Novell now benefits from Microsoft's patents getting more and more dangerous. To fight the patent problem, we can't afford to lose any friends. ...not the Novell was much of a friend in the anti-swpat campaign [compsoc.com], but if MS is allowed to buy on free software distributor, they can buy others.
And another motivation a little more base: extortion. Microsoft has been in stagnation for a long time and it now scrambling to slow everyone down to prevent their demise. It would be a clever long term strategy to find a way to profit from the free software operating system that will probably replace theirs.
License can't solve patent problems (Score:5, Interesting)
The conflict is fundamental - patents stop people from doing things with software, and open source programmers want to do those things. The law is a tool towards those ends, which both sides will employ. The stark fact seems to be that the law supports patents, and so does the political establishment and commercial support which funds said establishment.
There are two things stopping a WW3 style patent nuke war, as far as I can tell - one is the MAD assurances provided by the larger open source companies and/or supporters, and the other is the cost/benefit analysis of launching an attack on an open source author/project is not so good. Attacking the project means lots of legal fees if the case is fought, very bad press among the tech community, and the distinct chance the software you are attacking will be reborn, rewritten, or even replaced by something better as thousands of irate geeks seek a technical solution to the legal action. If by some chance the patent being used has covered all possible useful methods of doing something, the community simply waits until it expires and THEN proceeds. Yes 20 years is a long time, but it is not forever. The GIF patents eventually expired, and I would be very surprised if the cost/benefit analysis of those patents was a net plus. Apple has not gone after the freetype project, for example (although they did contact them).
However, these mechanisms cannot be entirely relied upon. JMRI is certainly an example: http://jmri.sourceforge.net/k/index.html [sourceforge.net] So long as patents can be filed on software, there is the potential for a slaugher among free projects. I can't think of any license change JMRI might have made that would avoid their current situation. Patents will always pose a serious threat to free sofware, as the representative of commerical control interests. Indeed, I would expect that if patents are abolished some other method would be found, but at least it would be more difficult.
Re:SUPPORT THE GPLV3 NOW (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't understand (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm a Novell customer, and Novell makes a decent amount of money off us. If Novell gave Microsoft a reason to sue us, we'd drop Novell and become an all-Microsoft shop.
I don't understand why people think Novell wants to jeopardizes it's business.
There was speculation that the deal was designed to scare Red Hat customers over to Novell. But I don't see that as reasonable either. If Microsoft sues Red Hat customers, Red Hat, the FSF, and indeed Novell will sue Microsoft to show us the code [showusthecode.com].
I just don't get it. We had one Linux server going into 2006, and because of our Novell license agreement, at the end of 2006 we had twenty-two. (We're up to 25 now). Seven or so of those were migrations away from NetWare - which is the sensible path Novell is suggesting to it's customers. Why does Novell want to jeopardize that?
What does make sense to me is that Novell kept trying to sell Linux into big companies, and the Microsoft FUD was working. The only real way for Novell to counter that was the Novell-MS deal.
My CIO thinks better of Linux, now that Microsoft has acknowledged it. If Microsoft was trying to sow FUD in our shop, that certainly back-fired.
Although, if the FSF is successful in cutting Novell's Achilles Heel, then I suppose the Microsoft gamble will have been worth it (to Microsoft at least).
Re:GPL v3 will certainly further divide the commun (Score:5, Interesting)
How Novell benefits from Microsoft winning (Score:5, Interesting)
So when Microsoft's patents are more dangerous, Novells advantage is more prominent.
So we've lost one ally (or should-be ally) in the long-term fight against software patents. What if we also lost Red Hat and Sun and the other companies that love our software because it lines their pockets? What would our chances look like then in the campaign against software patents? The campaign against DRM? The campaign against proprietary formats? etc. etc.
What Novell did was not bad for Novell's business (if we ignore what it did to their status in the community, and that GPLv3 is going to create big problems for Novell now). For a dog-eat-dog mindset, it was a smart move. But the relationship between the free software community and the companies that profit from free software is not meant to be dog-eat-dog - it's supposed to be solidarity. That's how we win, together.
So GPLv3 will say: "No giving in - no selling out". If some code violates a patent, we try to get the patent thrown out, or we ditch that piece of code. GPLv2 said that too, but Novell found a loophole. That will be closed.
Re:Can Novell ditch GNU? No. (Score:4, Interesting)
The vast majority of Free Software runs on FreeBSD at least as well as it runs on Linux (there are occasional Linuxisms, but people seem to be getting better at avoiding them), so there aren't any issues with most applications running on something other than glibc. Incidentally, glibc itself isn't particularly tied to Linux; it runs happily on HURD, and has been at least partially ported to FreeBSD and Solaris (I don't know the current status of either port, however, since they were not integrated into the main tree).
[1] Both use Interrupt 80h, but Linux uses the DOS calling convention, and passes arguments in ebx, ecx, etc, while *BSD uses the UNIX convention and passes arguments on the stack. Both pass the system call number in eax.
Equality? (Score:4, Interesting)
I read the original article and it seems the meat of it's argument is that if A can be held responsible, then B should be too. Supporting the argument with a question of difference between A and B.
The difference is this. Profit.
Open Source doesn't stand to profit off of it's efforts. Never mind Red Hat, SuSE et al. My contributions are done with 100% generosity with no intention, expectation or hope of return of any kind other than the concept of personal acheivement or contibution to a greater good. The later is tricky, because Adam Smith in his published works imply that within Capitalism, that a person, regardless if he feels so, usually contributes to a greater good (society) far more than he realizes underneath a capitalistic society, with every ounze of incentive being from currency (or a pay check).
I argue that while a pay check might motivate some to get out of bed and "work", it's certainly not the only thing that might equally motivate someone. Because, "work" is only "work" if you are getting paid for it, otherwise, it's a "hobby"; and contrary to popular belief including the line from Office Space, yes there are people who do enjoy being janitors. Admittedly, likely not enough however, one does what one can and all that is needed is a desire to contribute and with enough those of lesser ability would feel proud to contribute anyway they can. "Tech Support", "Testing" are all Janitorial services within IT... and obviously, there are plenty that enjoy it.
It's odd, while we're talking about incentive and what motivates a man. A paycheck really is one of the weakest forces of all the Classical motives for extreme human effort; compare the motivation of vengance, retribution, survival, integrity, patriotism/nationalism (a broader sense of family bonding and sense of self, belonging and representation). Even Machievelli pointed out that the first to run from the battlefield will be the "mercenaries", and so true that infact is.
The major difference between Proprietary Software and Open Source Software, is the goal and intentions of each. Intention is a viable concept for precedence; no matter what the case might be. For example, Apple Corporation and the Beatles for example on how "intention" can turn the tides of otherwise blatant infringments (The Beatles did have a valid claim... if only considering the surface.)
The main goal of Proprietary Software, Personal Gain, usually in the form of capital, market dominance, or any perceived benefit that clearly identifies a positive benefit within a Capitalist ideology.
The main goal of Open Source Software, more or less, Communal Gain.
All other things, in my belief, are by products to propel an effort towards the main goal. Communal Gain can not be achieved if you leave anyone out, so, to ensure that everyone may benefit, there is less demand of return or, any quid pro quos, conditions, restrictions are such that, the end result is within reasonable reach of Everyone. To amplify an extreme for clearly showing "reasonable reach", it's simply best to make the product "free"; for which, there exists no retort as for it's availability. For Capitalism, you'll have everything geared towards protecting the flow of capital, make as many streams of capitals available as possible. As a result, patents, copyrights, controlled distribution channels, controlled substances (like certain chemicals etc. required for making anything really useful) making physical ability to reproduce much more difficult... all of this is in place to ensure that only certain people will ever be in a position to "provide" or "offer" a product to the consumer.
Because Patents and all are more geared towards protecting a Companies benefit, I have argued in past posts, that enforcement of legislation and consequences should only apply to Companies in violation of their own measures. The "guy in a garage" doesn't have the breadth and depth to really threaten Sony Entertainment's production line... so, he should be exempt
Re:How Novell benefits from Microsoft winning (Score:3, Interesting)
And if Novell renegotiates that portion of the deal, then the FSF would be happy?
I see where that has some appeal; it puts Novell in the same position as Red Hat. But to me it also means the death of Linux in large data centers. Not that Sun would mind that....
If you are large enough to have a big data center, you are large enough to attract nuisance lawsuits. No CIO is going to expose his company to those kinds of lawsuits just for an OS. (Which brings my CIO back to Windows). And that is exactly why Novell lost four big data center deals: Novell made their pitch, and Microsoft followed up with "So Novell is telling you to commit to a new OS that has Intellectual Property problems, hmmm?" It is classic FUD - but it works. In the large corporation with enough cash to be a litigation target - a CIO would have to be reckless to the point of "fiduciary malfeasance" to purposefully adopt something with such well publicized baggage.
We only got permission to install Linux because we promised the CIO that he wouldn't get egg on his face. Novell had already promised us indemnity in case SCO (or whomever) sued.
I cannot imagine that Novell or Red Hat wants to approach new customers with the line "in case you get sued by Microsoft, we'll be here for you".
I assume that it was the "we won't sue each other's customers" clause that made this stink. That's the driver toward Novell and away from Red Hat, right? If my assumption is wrong, then I still don't understand.
Re:How Novell benefits from Microsoft winning (Score:3, Interesting)
With the Novell-MS deal, the balance of cash moved toward Novell and away from Microsoft, so it didn't seem like MS was getting anything. If Novell canceled the deal tomorrow, would MS even notice the change on their balance sheet? But you make the good point that Microsoft gets to market their so-called-infringed-IP as having value, because of the Novell payment.
Unfortunately, I don't see how to get away from software patents, short of picking a fight with Microsoft, where Microsoft loses. And that will only work if MS is dumb enough to step up to the fight. Intimidation via FUD is effective, and they'd be silly to give it up.
Do you think it will be possible to get Microsoft to "show us the code" or shut up? Or is there another way to render the idea of software patents weightless (in the legal sense)?