IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New If MS indemnifies one, it indemnifies all.
[link|http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=39737|The Inquirer]:

TOP LINUX GURU, Eben Moglen says that Microsoft's attempts to win patent suits against those using the open source OS will come unstuck thanks to the Vole's deal with Novell.

Microsoft says that Linux infringes more than 240 patents, and intends to start enforcing them, convincing users to cough up money. Earlier this year, Novell paid a wad of cash for 'vouchers' which would indemnify users of its SUSE Linux from action.

Here's the problem. These vouchers have no expiration date on them, meaning they can be used to indemnify a holder tomorrow or next year. But the GPL v3, scheduled to come into action later this year, includes a clause that extends a granted indemnity to one person to everyone else, too.

[...]


Whoops.

[edit:] More is at [link|http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070519090322431|Groklaw], of course.

Cheers,
Scott.
Expand Edited by Another Scott May 22, 2007, 12:25:53 AM EDT
New No one has mentioned how it is unlikely the kernel will go
to GPL 3. There are a some clauses in it that Linus does not agree with.
New He's softened his views on later drafts. It's possible now.
[link|http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-6171300-7.html|News.com.com.com.com...] from March 28:

"I'm much happier with many parts of it. I think much of it reads better, and some of the worst horrors have been removed entirely," Torvalds said.

Torvalds was noncommittal about whether he might try to move the Linux kernel to GPL 3--a change that would require the permission not just of Torvalds but also of all other Linux kernel copyright holders. But he didn't rule it out.

"The current draft makes me think it's at least a possibility in theory, but whether it's practical and worth it is a totally different thing," he said. "Practically speaking, it would involve a lot of work to make sure everything relevant is GPLv3-compatible even if we decided that the GPL 3 is OK."

DRM remains a sticking point. The Free Software Foundation drafting the document wants to prohibit hardware companies such as TiVo from imposing restrictions on GPL software used in their products, but Torvalds believes that should be permitted.

"The 'we control not just the software, but also the hardware it runs on' parts still drive me up the wall because I think they are so fundamentally broken. But the new draft at least limits it to a much saner subset and makes it clearer too," Torvalds said.


FWIW.

Cheers,
Scott.
New Re: If MS indemnifies one, it indemnifies all.
so, how does a license which doesn't even exist yet invalidate something that happened already
I thought developers, companies, etc. were allowed to choose the license they put the stuff out under

A
Play I Some Music w/ Papa Andy
Saturday 8 PM - 11 PM ET
All Night Rewind 11 PM - 5 PM
Reggae, African and Caribbean Music
[link|http://westcottradio.org|Tune In]
New The developers have to agree to the new license.
If they allow their code to be released under the new license, it supercedes the old.
Regards,

-scott anderson

"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
New "Supersedes" </CRC>


Peter
[link|http://www.no2id.net/|Don't Let The Terrorists Win]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
[link|http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?pwhysall|A better terminal emulator]
[image|http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/pwhysall/Misc/saveus.png|0|Darwinia||]
New You can't downgrade a license.
If your product incorporates any code licensed under GPL v3 your product has to be licensed under v3.

Once components of SUSE's Linux are under v3, and someone turns in a voucher, Microsoft automatically becomes a distributor of software under GPL v3.

Of course it may not matter. Some are predicting Microsoft will soon be standing side by side with the FOSS community seeking to ban software patents. They're constantly in court fighting patent infringement suits and it's already cost them far more than they could realize in revenue from licensing their own patents.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
New But didn't MS become MS due to its lawyers?
While it's true that software patents haven't been around very long, MS got to be where it is by using the legal system (e.g. getting around Apple's interface innovations and bringing out overlapping windows in Windows 2.x when the license from Apple (supposedly) restricted them to panes; the "look and feel" battles; MS's per-system contracts; etc.). It's hard to believe they'll give up any cudgel even if it does cost them more than they get in license fees.

Plus, it's hard to believe that IBM will give up its software patents easily.

IOW, unless Gates and Ballmer and the rest are removed from MS's leadership and board, it's hard to imagine MS embracing FOSS principles on software patents. IMHO, anyway.

Cheers,
Scott.
New Have I Got It Right?
Same code but a different license that operates retroactively?

Or will only new code get a new license?

A
Play I Some Music w/ Papa Andy
Saturday 8 PM - 11 PM ET
All Night Rewind 11 PM - 5 PM
Reggae, African and Caribbean Music
[link|http://westcottradio.org|Tune In]
New A copy of old code in your posession . . .
. . continues with the license it states. New copies may have a different license if the copyright holder so decides, and certainly updated or revised copies can. A large amount of code is licensed "GPL v2.x or later". Even someone other than the copyright holder can comply with the original license by redistributing under GPL v3.

Microsoft's problem is not about licenses being retroactive. Novell could protect Microsoft by freezing all code in their distribution right where it is now, but they won't, that would be suicide.

Development continues so new and updated modules coming in may be licensed under GPL v3 and would be incorporated. SUSE Linux would now have v3 code in it. Someone cashes in a Microsoft coupon and of course he gets the latest version which has v3 licensed code in it. Microsoft is now a distributor of code under v3.

[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
New Thanks
Play I Some Music w/ Papa Andy
Saturday 8 PM - 11 PM ET
All Night Rewind 11 PM - 5 PM
Reggae, African and Caribbean Music
[link|http://westcottradio.org|Tune In]
New Eh?
As written, what you've said is that all of SuSE Linux has to be under GPL v3, because some bits of it are.

This is clearly not the case, because at the very least, X11, Perl and Apache will be in there, all under their own licences.

Or did you mean the kernel?


Peter
[link|http://www.no2id.net/|Don't Let The Terrorists Win]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
[link|http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?pwhysall|A better terminal emulator]
[image|http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/pwhysall/Misc/saveus.png|0|Darwinia||]
New Double Eh?
Ummm . . . I have a hard time reading it that way. Paragraph #1 doesn't refer to Linux or any other SUSE product at all, just incorporating code into a product, any product.

Elsewhere it says "some components" of the SUSE distribution are v3. Doesn't mean the kernel or whetever - a "distribution" includes all kinds of stuff (hell, Debian is up to 21 CDs now).

Redistribute that and you're distributing v3 code.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
New Re: Double Eh?
Here's the bit I'm querying:

"If your product incorporates any code licensed under GPL v3 your product has to be licensed under [GPL] v3"

Now, if your product is "SuSE Linux 10.0" or whatever, that statement is clearly not true, as the product in question is comprised of a number of components which have various licences, including GPL v2, GPL v3, X11, Artistic, MPL, SPL, Apache and BSD licences - and probably more.

Just because GNU textutils or whatever has been relicenced under GPL v3 has no bearing whatsoever on the licencing of, say, X11.


Peter
[link|http://www.no2id.net/|Don't Let The Terrorists Win]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
[link|http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?pwhysall|A better terminal emulator]
[image|http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/pwhysall/Misc/saveus.png|0|Darwinia||]
     If MS indemnifies one, it indemnifies all. - (Another Scott) - (13)
         No one has mentioned how it is unlikely the kernel will go - (crazy) - (1)
             He's softened his views on later drafts. It's possible now. - (Another Scott)
         Re: If MS indemnifies one, it indemnifies all. - (andread) - (10)
             The developers have to agree to the new license. - (admin) - (1)
                 "Supersedes" </CRC> -NT - (pwhysall)
             You can't downgrade a license. - (Andrew Grygus) - (7)
                 But didn't MS become MS due to its lawyers? - (Another Scott)
                 Have I Got It Right? - (andread) - (2)
                     A copy of old code in your posession . . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (1)
                         Thanks -NT - (andread)
                 Eh? - (pwhysall) - (2)
                     Double Eh? - (Andrew Grygus) - (1)
                         Re: Double Eh? - (pwhysall)

But if you draw a bow, draw the STRONG-est! YEEEEESSS! And if you use an arrow, use the LONGEST! OH YES!!
62 ms