Objective? [LWN.net]

Objective?

Posted Dec 23, 2006 20:22 UTC (Sat) by niner (subscriber, #26151)
In reply to: Jeremy Allison Has Resigned from Novell to Protest MS Patent Deal (Groklaw) by pyellman
Parent article: Jeremy Allison Has Resigned from Novell to Protest MS Patent Deal (Groklaw)

So in what _objective_ way does the deal constitute an attack on Linux?
The GPL has not been breached. No one has lost any rights that he had before. There are no new legal obstacles in the way due to the deal.

All there are, are fuzzy concerns and accusations like that the deal was an implicit agreement that Linux software violates MS' patents though both sides (including Microsoft!) have officially and openly said, that this is not so.

Remember: as long as no patent violations are discovered, no one needs a patent license to distribute or use the violating code. So Novell's customers can fulfill any obligations they have due to the GPL, even though they cannot extend the covenant not to sue to any other people. The freedoms the GPL tries to preserve (that's the often cited spirit of the GPL!) are protected and in no way harmed.

So what are these objective standards that you talk about? All I see are people on witch hunts and talks about Novell being touched by the "dark side".

(Log in to post comments)

Objective?

Posted Dec 23, 2006 22:25 UTC (Sat) by pyellman (guest, #4997) [Link]

It's quite simple, niner. The deal undermines one of, perhaps the key underpinning of free software (specifically, the GPL): you must give to others the same rights that were accorded to you.< period. You say it yourself ("even though they cannot extend the covenant not to sue to any other people"), though in apparent complete ignorance of the implications of your own words! I sense behind your words an all too common (mis)interpretation of the intent of the GPL to mean something like "to protect my -- or anyone else's -- freedom to do whatever I want".

The deal also creates categories, or "castes" of "free" software users and developers. Completely antithetical to the philosophy and practice of free software.

I could go into detail, blather about patents, when they will and won't be enforced, etc., but if you can't see the big picture above, such a discussion would be just an opportunity for some smoke and mirrors on your part. Why bother?

Peter Yellman

Objective?

Posted Dec 26, 2006 19:16 UTC (Tue) by peace (guest, #10016) [Link]

Please note Steve Ballmers statements regarding this deal and tell us why you think this is not an attack on Free software?

Ballmer:
"Novell pays us some money for the right to tell customers that anybody who uses SUSE Linux is appropriately covered, this is important to us, because [otherwise] we believe every Linux customer basically has an undisclosed balance-sheet liability."

and plenty more.

The first software battle saw developers on the front lines. The next front will be populated by lawyers.