| |||||||||||||
Questions that need answeringQuestions that need answeringPosted Dec 6, 2006 18:20 UTC (Wed) by NigelK (guest, #42083)In reply to: Questions that need answering by lonely_bear Parent article: Of hypocrisy and the FSF (Libervis)
It was the GNU projects I was talking about. The programmers of the GNU projects give the FSF their copyrights partially on the understanding that the FSF will step up to the plate when someone infringes the GPL when using that code.
If the FSF doesn't act against Microsoft and Novell (redrafting the GPL3 doesn't count), then what good does giving them code copyrights do?
Nigel Kneale.
(Log in to post comments)
Questions that need answering Posted Dec 6, 2006 19:19 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] The programmers of the GNU projects give the FSF their copyrights partially on the understanding that the FSF will step up to the plate when someone infringes the GPL when using that code. True - and so far results were pretty satisfactory. FSF enforced GPL a lot of time. They don't use public performances for this - it's their choice. It's often not a good idea to use this approach - instead of compliance and future friends you'll generate bunch of sore losers. If the FSF doesn't act against Microsoft and Novell (redrafting the GPL3 doesn't count), then what good does giving them code copyrights do? They are not blowing their months off - but how do you know they are not acting ? AFAIK right now they can not sue Novell, but may be they can sue Novell customers. It depends on exact details of Microsoft/Novell agreement. There are remote possibility that it's not really possible at all. Copyright (granted to FSF) is potent veapon but absolute it's not.
Questions that need answering Posted Dec 6, 2006 20:32 UTC (Wed) by HenrikH (guest, #31152) [Link] >If the FSF doesn't act against Microsoft and NovellThere is nothing in the Microsoft/Novell deal that is prohibited by the GPLv2 so exactly how do you plan the FSF should act against them?
If on the other hand Microsoft starts to collect on their patents and Novell plays their "safe card", then there will be breakage of GPLv2, but not before.
Questions that need answering Posted Dec 6, 2006 21:26 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] True. They'll (almost certainly[1]) hang legal fire until somethingdefinitely wrong has taken place.
[1] Nothing is certain. RMS and Eben Moglen *could* go insane tomorrow and
Questions that need answering Posted Dec 6, 2006 21:24 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] What makes you think they aren't planning to do exactly that?
But note that when moving against something the size of MS, or something
I expect the FSF will do here what they always do with legal matters: act
Questions that need answering Posted Dec 6, 2006 23:52 UTC (Wed) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] Eben Moglin and RMS both have stated that the Novell-Microsoft agreement is perfectly legal and is not a violation of the GPL license.
And Eben has looked closely at the details of the arrangement. I am willing to beleive them.
In other words Novell-Microsoft is NOT IN VIOLATION of the GPLv2 license.
There is nothing that FSF or GNU or anybody else can do about it, legal-wise. The goal is to close this paticular loophole with the GPLv3 license.
Questions that need answering Posted Dec 7, 2006 20:47 UTC (Thu) by Arker (guest, #14205) [Link] I don't believe either of them have said that, actually. Link?
Questions that need answering Posted Dec 8, 2006 0:08 UTC (Fri) by k8to (subscriber, #15413) [Link] You come off as pretty brusque. In general, on this site, I find that you can accept people at their word. It saves a lot of time and unpleasantness.
Here is the link.
|
|||||||||||||