Microsoft Patent Deal Could Leave Novell Behind 246
robbyyy writes to mention a Computer Business Review Online article about commentary from Bruce Perens to Novell, about their recent deal with Microsoft. He argues that the company should quickly turn its back on the deal, because Novell risks being left behind by open source progress. From the article: "While Linux creator Linus Torvalds has previously stated that the Linux kernel will remain on the GPL v2 license, much of the code that makes up a complete Linux distribution is owned by the FSF, which intends to re-license all its code to GPL v3 as soon as it is completed in early 2007. 'In the face of these changes, Novell will probably be stuck with old versions of the software, under old licenses, with Novell sustaining the entire cost and burden of maintaining that software,' Perens wrote, adding that Novell faces a choice of sticking with Microsoft and being left behind, or turning its back on the patent deal."
Re:FSF owns what? (Score:5, Informative)
All the GNU tools bash, cp, mv, rm, etc have copyrights owned by the FSF. if you donate code to those projects you are "encouraged" to donate the copyrights to the FSF. Samba, Linux kernel, and other tools have their copyrights assigned to various other people.
the FSF is the single largest copyright holder of GPL software. IBM is working on doing the same thing with their software donations, and if Sun GPL's Java and Open Solaris then they will jump in the pool as well.
Re:FSF owns what? (Score:5, Informative)
Of course it does. FSF owns the copyright on the essential GNU software (coreutils, compiler, etc).
GPLv3 forbids deals like this, so it is illegal for Novell to distribute any software under GPLv3. Therefore they will have to stick with the last versions released under GPLv2.
Re:Scam. It's a scam. (Score:4, Informative)
Pretty silly... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The end of the world is not nigh (Score:3, Informative)
The FSF is the Free Software Foundation [fsf.org], and the owner of the majority of the copyrights on GNU software and the stuff in lots of Linux distributions. It isn't some nebulous movement.
Yes, Novell can do all they want with the OLD code as long as they respect the copyrights. Novell does not have the resources to maintain GPLv2 versions of everything that moves to v3. The point of GNU/Linux is that the community does a lot of the work, not just one company. Novell can't replace that and if they tried, would rapidly fall behind and into the dustbin.
Re:How can the GPL v3 change this (Score:4, Informative)
That's because it can't.
Novell is not giving their customers any rights beyond those Novell or anybody else has. If there is a valid MS patent, suddenly nobody has the right to distribute or use the code.
THe only thing special is MS promised not to sue Novell cutomers
Mmmh no !
Nobody has the right to distribute or use the code IF MS says so.
The problem is that if most of the base OS becomes GPLv3, and Novell uses it, it will pass any patent related agreement (like "promise not to sue") to every FOSS users of the software that has the problem. This would break their contract, or prevent them from using the GPLv3 software.
As most of the code in a distro like Suse comes from outside, they're in for a rude awakening then.
Re:The end of the world is not nigh (Score:3, Informative)
As has been stated many times, Novell can indeed continue to distribute software under the GPLv2. But as the FSF (which owns the copyrights on a lot of software that is critical to any linux distribution, such as the compiler) moves their software to the GPLv3, this new license forbids Novell from distributing such software because of their patent agreement with Microsoft. The GPLv3 does not allow Novell to license a particular patent that is alleged to cover the GPLv3 software to some people but not others. In other words Novell cannot respect the GPLv3 terms because of the patent covenant with Microsoft and therefore can use but not distribute GPLv3 software (well at least such software that is supposedly covered by the patents they licensed).
No in this case paranoia is in fact justified on the rest of your points. The FSF is often portrayed as a bunch of strange, ideological extremists, but the truth of the matter is they are more like prophets. Who would have thought when the FSF started working on the GPLv3 (well they did, obviously) that something as bizarre as this Novell and Microsoft deal would emerge, necessitating the need for the GPLv3. Obviously the FSF saw this coming and in the coming years we will thank them for having the foresight. Now the GPLv3 still isn't settled yet, and there still are legitimate concerns by a lot of people over it. Perhaps this Novell/Microsoft stuff will influence people like Torvalds to really get involved in the process and get everything moved to an acceptable GPLv3 as soon as possible (I have my doubts there).
Re:FSF owns what? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:How can the GPL v3 change this (Score:3, Informative)
I really think a large group of the FOSS community is going overboard on this. Novell wants to provide a Linux distribution that can be easily used by MS Windows folks but, reasonably, does not want to get embroiled in patent disputes with Microsoft in the process. They are not implying, in any way, that this means Microsoft holds patents on techniques used in FSF developed code. The potential issues that Samba and Mono might have is nothing to do with any agreement between Microsoft and Novell, convoluted theories notwithstanding. I hate software patents, but this kind of heavy handed attempt to kill them is just going to be counter-productive.
Re:Linus' stupity is going to kill corporate Linux (Score:3, Informative)
No. They are required to give up Linus' key, but they can't, because they don't own Linus' key. In short, they're screwed.
I think a proper analogy for this would be if I owned a nice piece of land by a river. It was the only peice of land by the river that was usable. I sign a contract with you to sell it to you for 6 million dollars. Then someone else offered me 7 million dollars. Being the foolish retard that I am I sell it to the second guy. Then you come back to make good on the contract. Now I owe you the land, but I don't own it. I still need to give it to you, (or something equivilant). So I can try to buy it back from the guy who gave me 7 million for it, but if he isn't willing then I'm screwed. Since there's now other land by the river that's usable we would probably end up going to court and the judge would decide what an appropriate equivilant trade plus some punitary damages for me being such a retard.
That's how things work out at the moment, I'm not a lawyer so I'm not sure how it would transfer over to a GPL3 case, but my guess is that the people who produce the offending software would be required to give all their users equivilant hardware without those code-signing restrictions (or buy Linus' private key, which would be slightly expensive).