Weekly Edition
Return to the Announcements page
| |||||||||||||
SFLC: A Wake-Up Call for GPLv3 Migration
The Software Freedom Law Center's Bradley Kuhn uses
the TomTom case to advocate for greater adoption of GPLv3. "Were
Linux under GPLv3 (but not GPLv2), these terms, particularly those in the
second paragraph, would clearly and unequivocally prohibit TomTom from
entering into any arrangement with Microsoft that doesn't grant a license
to any Microsoft patent that reads on Linux. Indeed, even what has been
publicly said about this agreement seems to indicate strongly that this
deal would violate GPLv3. While the Novell/Microsoft deal was grandfathered
in (via the date above), this new agreement is not. Yet, the most
frustrating aspect of the press coverage of this deal is that few have
taken the opportunity to advocate for GPLv3 adoption by more projects. I
hope now that we're a few weeks out from the coverage, project leaders will
begin again to consider adding this additional patent protection for their
users and redistributors."
(Log in to post comments)
SFLC: A Wake-Up Call for GPLv3 Migration Posted Apr 17, 2009 14:53 UTC (Fri) by trasz (guest, #45786) [Link]
In other words: GPLv3 is better, because it would make it even harder for companies to use GPL-ed
code.
No wonder nobody except the FSF own projects (and Samba, for some reason) wants to use it.
SFLC: A Wake-Up Call for GPLv3 Migration Posted Apr 17, 2009 15:01 UTC (Fri) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
Right.
Just like it's going to be so simple for me to use GPLv2 software that has a half a dozen patent holders actively going after me for patent licensing agreements I must pay off or risk getting sued.
Because life is already so simple I must now go and figure out which pieces of the Linux kernel I can retain without having some patent troll come after me for licensing in my products, which the majority of the industry has already paid.
SFLC: A Wake-Up Call for GPLv3 Migration Posted Apr 17, 2009 19:21 UTC (Fri) by alankila (subscriber, #47141) [Link]
Well, assume I have a patent on a software, and there is a company with product that infringes that patent. If the terms of the GPL3 are such that the patent is "one-time sale", and will always get granted for the whole world once a single licensing agreement with any company is reached, it would naturally make the price for licensing the patent to be very high.
Of course I would be willing to license my patent in terms that infringe the GPLv3, but then the infringing company would have to stop distributing the product or face Harald Welte...
The end result should be that there would be almost no case where a licensing agreement could be reached that would be acceptable to both parties. Thus, the infringer would always end up working around the patent, and paying for damages caused by infringement (or challenging it at court, another costly and risky affair).
In other words, GPLv3 seems to make the situation worse for that company.
SFLC: A Wake-Up Call for GPLv3 Migration Posted Apr 17, 2009 19:46 UTC (Fri) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
I would think that it would encourage more developers to work together and join and contribution to things like OIN.
The deal here is that while using open source you may run into patent issues.. but using closed source you run into patent issues, too.
So going on your own and not using open source software to accomplish the same goals is not going to get you any sort of immunity. And if your a smaller company using closed source is not going to make patent licensing less of a threat or more affordable then using open source.
So once you get people actually getting redistribution rights for GPLv3 software then that means people using that software can use it without threat of patent lawsuits that they may run into by using closed source software...
Get it? I know it's a bit convoluted, but I think it's logical.
And in situations were you end up with functionality that is covered by patents that can never really be negotiated with then that functionality will need to be removed from said open source software...
So another way to look at it you have 2 choices
1. You have GPLv2 software that is covered by patents that individuals have to pay in order to use, but you can't be sure.
2. You have GPLv3 software that your essentially immune from patent issues if you use ikt, to the best knowledge of the industry... and then you have functionality that patents cover that can't be taken care of universally then is broken off into 'patent encumbered' parts.
Similar to how patent-encrusted media codecs are broken off and away from 'Free software' programs, but can be purchased from people like Fluendo or added in a semi-legal fashion by end users.
-----------------------
So lets say we live in a parrallel universe that is similar, but slightly different:
So lets assume that the only differences are that the Linux kernel is GPLv3 and Microsoft says that they are going to go aggressively after all Open source users.
So Microsoft sues TomTom for using FAT functionality and it's actually a strong court-proof patent.
1. TomTom tries to purchase blanket immunity for all Linux users, but it is to expensive.
2. Then TomTom goes to OIN, or other similar thing, and tries to form a 'FAT user group' that will try to get other industry members to join in and share the cost of licensing the FAT patent.
3a. If successful then people purchase a blanket license and everybody can use FAT support freely.
3b. If unsuccessful then the Linux developers are forced to eliminate FAT + long file name support from the kernel since nobody can legally redistribute it; the nuclear option has been deployed.
Then:
Then FAT + long filename support is created in the form of a open source FUSE file system module that can be purchased with the purchase costs covering the patent licensing fees. (something like this)
or
People create some sort of alternative.
This way people know that they can still use the Linux kernel without running into issues, and still can get FAT long file name support.
------------------
But right now people might or might not be able to use the Linux kernel safely, knowing that some people are paying licensing fees to Microsoft and other people are not.
SFLC: A Wake-Up Call for GPLv3 Migration Posted Apr 17, 2009 20:57 UTC (Fri) by alankila (subscriber, #47141) [Link]
I think I get why you think GPLv3 world is better. There are better guarantees that a GPLv3 system is free to use despite any patents that might apply to it, simply because it forces people facing patent threats to negotiate deals that benefit the whole community. But I still maintain this makes the situation of the companies doing this negotiation significantly worse.
As you say: "[TomTom] tries to form a 'FAT user group' that will try to get other industry members to join in and share the cost of licensing the FAT patent." In some way, in this universe, TomTom is being forced to act like the patent troll and threaten others with Microsoft's patent infringement claims in order to gather money to pay Microsoft for good of everyone? I find this perverse.
I still think GPLv3 is reducing the choice for company that (for no fault of its own) infringes some patent. For this reason I think the original commenter's point stands.
SFLC: A Wake-Up Call for GPLv3 Migration Posted Apr 17, 2009 21:57 UTC (Fri) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
> I find this perverse.
Yes it is perverse. But the legal environment in which USA based companies are forced to exist under cause these sorts of situations. It's certainly not by choice.
> I still think GPLv3 is reducing the choice for company that (for no fault of its own) infringes some patent. For this reason I think the original commenter's point stands.
It it is and it isn't.
Going back to the Tom-Tom situation. Right now Microsoft says that they are not going after 'open source'. But lets pretend that they are.
If you want to continue to have the ability to redistribute and allow people to freely re-use Linux kernel your going to have to remove the patent infringing portions of the code.. it does not make a difference if it is GPLv2 or GPLv3.
So the effect that the GPLv3 has on restricting choices is pretty mute. Any restriction that the GPLv3 would introduce is already established by US government law.
No negotiation Posted Apr 18, 2009 23:56 UTC (Sat) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] If the distributor cannot negotiate a settlement then the patent holder loses all leverage. Going to court is not what patent bullies want. Even if it loses, the distributor will be forced to go out of business, which is bad for everyone. That is something that rubber tree planters have known for centuries.
No negotiation Posted Apr 19, 2009 3:42 UTC (Sun) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link]
No not bad for everyone
And don't negotiate out side of what is strictly needed by the law procedure... the motto...
: - yes your honor... using Fat32, was an involuntary reaction following common practice in the market.. but we don't have any intention of licensing that obsolete crap... we've immediately substitute it with something much better after notice of alleged patent infringement... we seek settlement on possible damages never on licensing an outdated tech...
If a company cannot abide by those so simple facts, what is so bad of it going under ??... if it cannot replace Fat32 then it is not a tech company, and if it is not a tech company what has it to do with OSS and or Linux ?
http://ooy.cc/tomtom-surrenders-pays-microsoft-licensing-...
this is a trap... time to move to Linux 3 and shed all legacy FS and or other *mechanism* that make very little if any sense at all... LF should not be worried about supporting a FS that grand ma and pa use... or any other identical stuff that many patent trolls could eventually have a claim on...
NEW CODE IS MUCH MORE SAFE
So the legal trojan horse that M$ got by the way of Tom tom should refer only to the old Series 2.6... the new 3.0 should be free even if remains at GPL v2...
No negotiation Posted Apr 19, 2009 8:36 UTC (Sun) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
It's a lot harder to replace Fat32 then you think. Far far harder.
It essentially would require a redesign of the hardware to use something other then mass storage, either that or adapt HFS+ or Ext2 for Windows compatibility... which is going suck even worse since it makes your stuff difficult to use compared to your competitors.
Probably the least painful way for Tomtom to go right now would be to drop long file name support...
No negotiation Posted Apr 19, 2009 16:14 UTC (Sun) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link]
"" It essentially would require a redesign of the hardware to use something other then mass storage, either that or adapt HFS+ or Ext2 for Windows compatibility... which is going suck even worse since it makes your stuff difficult to use compared to your competitors. ""
You are talking about tom tom hardware... that is their problem... because you answered it your self... ""HFS+ or Ext2 for Windows compatibility "" and the big question is if there is that compatibility needed in the first place... and if there is, remove it, that is, turn the OSS desktop the preference choice all over the world because that is the sane, safest and the one that delivers the large guaranty that it works...if you are defeated even before start, then there is no need to debate, everybody should line up to pay M$ license (watch me) because there is no choice according to you...
But i guess you are trying to talk about server deployments also...
But even there, you might offer that (Fat32) as a module... that is, remove it from kernel, incentive ppl to use ext2, which is much better... and talk about heaven to those *customers* that might want to use Fat32...
something like http://www.2x.com/
a solution that is not exactly pure terminal services but much better... and there is a X server for windows... there is no need to use citrix, as there is KDE4 for windows... if only Novell et all just could " dust" some of the scraps money that they seem willing to pay M$, into those projects... the all world would be much better...
Forget about M$... *Deal* with segregation like in 2X case, not compatibility...this movement... pardon me all... some times resembles sheep being driven by bate to the slaughter house...
Anyway, if a customer *still* wants Fat32 in spite the all much better alternatives... he should be able to download it as a module from some place where M$ patents are not valid... period
Costumers are not paying to be treated like childs, they too must take a little risk on the preference of their choices, LF and any other project shouldn't baby seat.. in favor of big houses... because those are infiltrated and in a narrow view out of their narrow business...
the prize big pot is exactly in desktop and webservices... the M$ model is stupid and outdated, because for a final user using it there must be 9 stealing... M$ model only works when you are an all over monopoly, because those stealing and using your product are those that not adopt anything else... so incentivate the stealing actually!...
In OSS that dosen't happen... compile install from online by the means of a free live CD/DVD is the best solution of a **WEBSERVICE** that might very well compel end users to pay something for a job that the large majority of themselves could not do on their own... and those system are better tunned for a particular HW then otherwise could be possible...
This is one example, but there are more webservices... and i can't see any of those *BILLIONS* of potential costumers ever be interested in Fat32
No negotiation Posted Apr 19, 2009 17:47 UTC (Sun) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
The deal with Fat32 is that you can just take any stupid consumer gadget and expose a file system via USB mass storage interface.
USB mass storage with FAT is essentially univerally supported in every decent operating system since Windows 98 days and so is Fat32.
So what this gets you is instant compatibility with everybody's computer, anywere, running any operating system, with zero requirements to install any software.
You simply can't find anything that comes close to replacing that.
No negotiation Posted Apr 19, 2009 19:38 UTC (Sun) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link]
Technically ??
You must be joking!
Market !??... again a joke, right !?... Linus in Finland doing an academia project, who would thought that it would end up like this ???...
Market is **MADE**, there is no "invisible stupid hand" or something of the kind... John Adams was a stupid ignorant imperialist with moral "marasm" of the *royal* ancient england... we could not make science of a wasp stinging in the point of his nose...
... and INFERIOR, corrupted and subservient markets like the M$ one, only stick because of all those players that are willing to bend over... and take it...
Look i'm not in a trolling mod, TomTom got bad luck... bad luck... in any war there are causalities... they don't have to pass their woes to no one... it will take time of course... but replacing an outdated tech like Fat32 is only a question of time... not why...
The market battle is an uphill one ?... and it hasn't been so so far ??
Linux and the all OSS movement should move forward, knowing that they have infiltrated enemies, and not worrying about TomTom... not that this is something "news" either, for not mention the SCO case...
And GPLv3 is a very valid option.period.
No interpretation Posted Apr 20, 2009 1:29 UTC (Mon) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link]
A truly inspired pamphlet there from mmarq, I'd quite like to comprehend it but I cannot possibly do it justice.
No interpretation Posted Apr 20, 2009 7:18 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
mmarq, do you by any chance own a mask with an oddly shifting surface?
--- no, forget it, you wouldn't tell me anyway.
No interpretation Posted Apr 20, 2009 18:10 UTC (Mon) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link]
You'd be surprised how "mainstreet" i am
Perhaps that is why there is some " who the well is this guy?", OSS is an institutionalized Industry movement now... speaking out overtly can get "labor" problems...
No interpretation Posted Apr 20, 2009 21:02 UTC (Mon) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link]
Sorry.
It has nothing whatever to do with what you're trying to say, or your poltical or sexual orientation, or even that you're not "one of us". Indeed, on my part I haven't bothered to find out people's real names or broadcast mine, so a large minority are no more than old-fashioned nicknames on LWN. You are every bit a part of the LWN community, as much as nix or I or drag or quotemstr or bodan.
We have no desire to exclude you. We amuse ourselves at your expense, solely on the basis of the way you express yourself in English. It really is that hard to comprehend what you write (and it can't merely be a non-native-speaker issue because there are very many second-language English posters here and most of them get by just fine).
It's rude of us. And "it's funny because it's true". Keep trying!
No interpretation Posted Apr 20, 2009 22:46 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Quite so. I plead hay fever for making me be so pointlessly nasty (but I'm
afraid the Rorschach reference was forced on me at gunpoint).
No interpretation Posted Apr 21, 2009 2:00 UTC (Tue) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link]
No one can second that better
The well with who i am or anybody else, what is important are ideas, facts and the TRUTH... TRUTH ABOVE ALL...
Well for the second part i'm sorry i've not the effluence of Shakespeare in the English language... but i could bet a million that i'm much better at English, and people understand me reasonably well *enough*, than you are at my native language "xoddam"...
Another complain is this engine at LWN... there should be a Re-editing facility... many "typos" got by and then is too late... and i've seen many ppl present apologies afterwards...
why haven't nobody complained strongly yet beats me!... really!?... or is it there only for subscribers !!?
No interpretation Posted Apr 21, 2009 2:14 UTC (Tue) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link]
> i could bet a million that i'm much better at English, ...
> than you are at my native language "xoddam"...
Provavelmente bem verdade :-)
but
> ... and people understand me reasonably well *enough* ...
may not be quite as true.
One difference is that I don't attempt to make myself understood in Portuguese (or any other language I'm not confident in). This may not be the only difference.
No interpretation Posted Apr 21, 2009 2:29 UTC (Tue) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link]
eh! cara, bem me paraceu que você está na reinação... você entendeu tudinho en "inglês" não foi ?
No interpretation Posted Apr 21, 2009 2:24 UTC (Tue) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link]
"" It's rude of us. And "it's funny because it's true". Keep trying! ""
Its funny your future !??... its not the concern that appear on this thread!
what "us" are you talking about ?
sure what i can detect is irony, and i presume you are an OSS developer..
well i'm not... and i don't intent to be rude, but i believe you need *thousands* like me, to keep that "us" well and alive... to keep trying that you got a chance to exercise your art... don't you think so ?
No negotiation Posted Apr 19, 2009 17:14 UTC (Sun) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link]
Sorry everyone if i seam a little steamed up. but i can't understand!!
how does ppl think about doing business with a entity that uses the most ville and dirty anti competitive methods against you...
they would prefer to kill all those end user that might adopt desktop Linux... or even offering for free, if not allowing and incentive the stealing of their OS, and even install it themselfs... only to avoid having those users buying from the competition, namely from Linux... revealing the dirty scum they are...
If that wasn't very bad enough, they fund and those market analysis & such dark angels, that repeatedly invent reasons why Linux is not good on the desktop... forgetting to mention if it weren't for the free launch steal all you can... the world would had been 90 Apple and 3% windows instead and Linux could have been to 30% adoption now... if desktop linux is not a viable business model, even less is windows with all the stealing it involves... and only sustains because there is a monopoly.
yet there are ppl concerned with the successive and on purpose launched incompatibilities...an willing to pay!!!!!.... "baby face nelson" the ballmer must not be kicking chairs anymore, he must be laughing his guts out now... and planning where to introduce more incompatibilities next time so that the OSS Linux world can pay... next time i'll bring a carrot when talking to those no good air cutters OSS developers donkeys... says the "baby face" compulsively without being able to stop laughing...
No negotiation Posted Apr 20, 2009 10:19 UTC (Mon) by alankila (subscriber, #47141) [Link]
I concur this as a valid point. (If the patent holder is suing to put someone out of business, they would not negotiate an out-of-court settlement in case of GPLv2 either.) There may be more method to this GPLv3 madness than I thought.
SFLC: A Wake-Up Call for GPLv3 Migration Posted Apr 17, 2009 21:15 UTC (Fri) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link]
Forget M$... that is plenty an issue of my rants...
And the problem is right that... forget M$... considering TomTom case, isn't there something better to offer than FAT32... OF COURSE IT IS! NO?... but the market is "used" to FAT 32 and is a uphill battle to get something else adopted !
Hei!... but isn't also much more expensive to buy it and or organize all those "pressure groups" and all the politics behind it... me(?) CEO of Tom Tom and i would not pay 1 dime of license... it can only be a joke if its not a trap... there is so much better things to use than FAT32... they want to sue ?... fine!... next day i would be using something much better... cut all strength out of M$ arm... and forgetting about M$...
This are only issues because the plethora of dark angels out there have actually convinced ppl that Linux and OSS is only good for servers under the strong arm of a institutionalized industry umbrella... but they are not only convincing, they have other *infiltrations*... even OSS developers believe it... and the stupid M$ is like one of those stupid kids that are always stepping in front of the camera on purpose, trying to get attention with their hijacking deals, like the Novell one and others... they are, or can become quickly, totally irrelevants if ppl not only starts to belive in it...** BUT ACTUALLY MAKE THAT HAPPEN** by using extensively the best that OSS has, and try to be better than M$, even or specially on desktop and easy of use...
And its so easy to FORGET M$ IMO... they don't have the best business model, they have the OLD business model... and is very easy to make money out of desktop OSS, but that is not by selling a box full of SW in CD/DVDs... use *open source* instead to compile from online in end users machines... ppl don't want a particular distro, they want their own distro, which a quick glance at "distrowatch" can make clear as water, because they don't count the star number of personalized distros... sell end users there own distros... a big shop would appreciate for sure having its logo on the OS they use...
And GPLv3 is an indispensable tool for the job, the best defense so far IMHO.
SFLC: A Wake-Up Call for GPLv3 Migration Posted Apr 17, 2009 20:37 UTC (Fri) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link]
"" Well, assume I have a patent on a software, and there is a company with product that infringes that patent. If the terms of the GPL3 are such that the patent is "one-time sale", and will always get granted for the whole world once a single licensing agreement with any company is reached, it would naturally make the price for licensing the patent to be very high. ""
Why ??... and why license patents if you do GPLv3 in the first place ??... if you have a patent and place it on GPLv3 code, you are automatically giving a license to anyone that plays by GPLv3 with that code... am i wrong in this ?
If the infringing party want to play outside the GPLv3 code mode, then they have to pay... nevertheless the point of GPLv3 if i understood correctly is that a licensed party can't nullify a GPLv3 grant... use GPLv3 code and don't pay, don't use it and it might have to pay...
For an outsider that doesn't want to play by GPLv3 rules, like Microsoft, nothing could be worst news than a wide adoption of it... GPLv2 is much more easy to hijack...
Its not on Linux and else, because in device drivers and many other mechanisms that might be swarming in patents in those code sets... the original owners don't want to give patent GPLv3 grants to anyone...
But LF trust on the good will of those contributers, and perhaps it has very good reasons to do so and it might work very well for the foreseeable future...i don't believe in a Silver Bullet GPL... but OTOH, might one of those relevant contributers get really piss off, and they might be able to shut down not only the all Linux dev trees, but also the major distros free downloads... the "Gran M$ Dream" movie story!...
"" The end result should be that there would be almost no case where a licensing agreement could be reached that would be acceptable to both parties. Thus, the infringer would always end up working around the patent, and paying for damages caused by infringement (or challenging it at court, another costly and risky affair).""
If the party wants to leech on GPLv3 repositories, the answer is yes.. nevertheless there is nothing that prevents that potential licensee to license from you to include on its own implementation of a particular program... and still you have it for free there in the GPLv3 repository...
""In other words, GPLv3 seems to make the situation worse for that company. ""
If they, ISH/ISV have their own internal software development infrastructure right, their own internal code repositories outside any GPL repository, then is absolutely the same as it was when there wasn't any GPL of any kind...
If they want to hijack GPL reps then i must give all credit this time to RMS, GPLv3 is the way to go... because GPLv3 is only a problem if you intend to do this... FSF doesn't want pseudo-GPL, easily turned off by patents issues... and they are right.
SFLC: A Wake-Up Call for GPLv3 Migration Posted Apr 17, 2009 21:06 UTC (Fri) by alankila (subscriber, #47141) [Link]
"Why ??... and why license patents if you do GPLv3 in the first place ??"
Remember, independent inventions can still be patented. If I hold a patent on something, it is only because I have filed for it, and it was accepted by the patent examiner. The same invention could be incorporated into GPLv3-licensed program entirely independently through rediscovery. After all, many software patents are trivial.
I find rest of your points difficult to decipher. It may be because it's friday night and I'm already substantially drunk. The other alternative is that this short rebuttal already covers the rest of your points, if they follow from misunderstanding of the case I'm making.
For instance, you write this: "GPLv2 is much more easy to hijack". I have no idea why you think GPLv3 software is any less easy to hijack. Patents can cover any software, regardless of what license it is under. However, being GPLv3 severely limits the options for negotiating a contract between the patent holder and the infringer, thus making it worse for companies that find themselves in infringement. This was my original point, and my belief of what the grandparent poster tried to say.
SFLC: A Wake-Up Call for GPLv3 Migration Posted Apr 19, 2009 17:42 UTC (Sun) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link]
"" For instance, you write this: "GPLv2 is much more easy to hijack". I have no idea why you think GPLv3 software is any less easy to hijack. ""
easy.. if you have a patent and your code is in a GPLv3 repo you are already giving a patent license to anyone that might use that repo...
In GPLv2 that doesn't apply... you still can sue anyone that might use that GPLv2 code for patent infringement...
In either case you can still license the patent to anyone that might be willing to pay... be it in GPL repos or outside... but i can't see that happen in GPLv3 code since by the terms of it, you are already giving a grant "a priori"
SFLC: A Wake-Up Call for GPLv3 Migration Posted Apr 20, 2009 10:27 UTC (Mon) by alankila (subscriber, #47141) [Link]
"easy.. if you have a patent and your code is in a GPLv3 repo you are already giving a patent license to anyone that might use that repo..."
While this is a valid point, it was never the situation I had in mind. It's good to know that GPLv3 will prevent perverting codebase from becoming polluted by submarine patents that are owned by the code contributor.
SFLC: A Wake-Up Call for GPLv3 Migration Posted Apr 20, 2009 19:28 UTC (Mon) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] easy.. if you have a patent and your code is in a GPLv3 repo you are already giving a patent license to anyone that might use that repo... This is true if the *owner* of the patent places the code in that GPLv3 repo. Unlikely to happen if said owner is even toying with the idea of trolling with it, to say the very least. If I (coder on foot, not the patent owner nor a licensee allowed to do so) place the code in a GPLv3 repo I'd be in very hot water indeed...
SFLC: A Wake-Up Call for GPLv3 Migration Posted Apr 19, 2009 18:44 UTC (Sun) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link]
Well... THE BIG QUESTION
Can anyone outside still sue a GPLv3 project for patent infringement ??
YES THEY CAN
GPLv3 is no silver bullet... actually there is only one thing that might approach the magic of a silver bullet.
** be better and more prolific than the competition **
The only way to counter all patent trolls is to have all the "prior art" in your side... and meanwhile shed all possible infected legacy...
GPLv3 is an excellent tool against *infiltration* because of ppl that might put patented code in a GPL repo... in Linux kernel there isn't much of a choice, because specially in device drivers, that is practically unavoidable... but that could be "soften" by having a TECHNICAL NOT POLITICAL better solution to device drivers developement and a DYNAMIC module insertion interface be offered... like DKMS...
There is cooperation now alright, but nothing is really very different from before, HW manufacturers always wanted to cooperate... but not on FSF terms.
2 BIRDS WITH 1 SHOT
1 )The issue is not accept binary only modules... really who cares about them ??... if anybody does, then its not their business, unless their politic is to outlaw close source SW.
The issue of an interface like DKMS is to streamline dev driver development in OSS world.. not having everything taken by a generalist approach, but letting it diverge often in a sane manner at the very low level, that is, very close to the metal...
Of course many big and small players will take advantage of this to offer binary only modules... but where is it different from now when there is already plenty of that, along with various OSS driver projects... IT IS BETTER ACTUALLY... because having a somehow a defined interface, which could be HARDENED ALSO, is better than letting an outside ISV/IHV do modules to insert wherever they want all over Linux kernel... AND ACTUALLY FACILITATES REVERSE ENGINEERING...
2 ) I suspect that most of patent issues are in Linux kernel are "close to the metal"... so having a dynamic interface will allow the passage of many of those nasties to a dynamic module... NOT for closed IHV//ISV delight, but for a caution of patents suing against OSS SW that might happen specially in those close to metal code...
PS: rather ... i don't know the word... but to have a MUCH BETTER defense against binary modules would be to forbid and or stop "insmod" and "modprob"...
this can only make those unwilling to cooperate to cooperate, and replace that with the likes of DKMS... in this DKMS yes and "mobprob" "insmod" no, any other module MUST WITHOUT EXCEPTION pass by the normal code acceptance, peer review and incorporation...
because actual model don't prevent me to sell CLOSED SOURCE modules that don't pass by Linux repositories to my costumers... and so i'm without having to share, because there are the costumers that are doing the the requisition for private use, not i that am distributing !!... see ??
SFLC: A Wake-Up Call for GPLv3 Migration Posted Apr 19, 2009 19:04 UTC (Sun) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link]
"" 1 )The issue is not accept binary only modules... really who cares about them ??... if anybody does, then its not their business, unless their politic is to outlaw close source SW. ""
To clarify someone more confused... binary only modules don't happen inside Linux dev trees of course, that is not what i'm suggestong.
They happen plenty outside... and that is an incontrovertible fact today, NOTHING to worry about... AND NO LEGAL PROVISION should stick... it is END USERS that are requesting them... Linux kernel can only gain by accepting, take advantage of interfaces that don't banish that, and learn... otherwise it is only making hunger against "Linux" itself, because making very cumbersome for IHV to offer those modules by private outlets, instead of public downloads only to avoid any protest is not going to happen... in the end is that nobody can or should force anyone if those don't want to cooperate in any case... by apply sane rules(interfaces)...
Funny enough... everybody is in " wrapper mania" because that suits the big SW houses in linux business, and the devs are afraid to loose their jobs.. so they don't protest about tainting now !!?... when they should stop "modprob" "insmod" not the likes of DKMS!!!? ... savy?
SFLC: A Wake-Up Call for GPLv3 Migration Posted Apr 17, 2009 15:07 UTC (Fri) by donbarry (guest, #10485) [Link]
Alter "use" -> "take" and I might actually agree with trasz' comment.
Corporations, I've noticed, tend to love BSD code, when written by
SFLC: A Wake-Up Call for GPLv3 Migration Posted Apr 18, 2009 22:12 UTC (Sat) by jlokier (guest, #52227) [Link]
+1 insightful.
SFLC: A Wake-Up Call for GPLv3 Migration Posted Apr 17, 2009 15:24 UTC (Fri) by dkite (guest, #4577) [Link]
Qt is available under gpl v3.
I wonder why samba would go v3?
Derek
SFLC: A Wake-Up Call for GPLv3 Migration Posted Apr 19, 2009 4:33 UTC (Sun) by maco (guest, #53641) [Link]
Qt is licensed under the LGPL now, not the GPL. Since it's LGPL, it doesn't really much matter what the terms of the software using it are.
SFLC: A Wake-Up Call for GPLv3 Migration Posted Apr 17, 2009 19:12 UTC (Fri) by Adi (guest, #52678) [Link]
Ignore trasz, he's well known troll in Polish internet.
SFLC: A Wake-Up Call for GPLv3 Migration Posted Apr 17, 2009 15:15 UTC (Fri) by ajb (subscriber, #9694) [Link]
Maybe it would be a good idea to write a FAT filesystem and license it under GPLV3. Although presumably there would be a problem linking it to the Linux kernel. I guess a FUSE one would be written, but that might be a bit too much overhead for an embedded system.
SFLC: A Wake-Up Call for GPLv3 Migration Posted Apr 17, 2009 16:00 UTC (Fri) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link]
So you write a FAT filesystem, license it under the GPLv3, get some company to use it, have them get sued by Microsoft, have them reach a settlement, and then be forced by your license to stop using your code.
Of course, they probably don't even want any functionality covered by Microsoft's FAT patents, so then they can switch to the version of the Linux FAT filesystem which TomTom will, by then, have made that lacks the ability to write to files with long names, because TomTom will have released their version as required under the GPLv2.
It would if it could Posted Apr 17, 2009 17:04 UTC (Fri) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] In my opinion, we would have a much higher rate of adoption of GPLv3 if not the anti-DRM provisions. Bundling better software patent protection and anti-DRM measures didn't work well. Tackling several issues at once it not always the best approach.
It would if it could Posted Apr 17, 2009 17:44 UTC (Fri) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link]
Agreed. I think the measures to counteract tivoization are a good idea in principle, but the FSF should have held fire on those to make sure of bringing the wider community (particularly the Linux kernel) with them.
It would if it could Posted Apr 17, 2009 18:12 UTC (Fri) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] RMS wouldn't like it, but if your only objection to GPLv3 is the DRM language, you could license your code under GPLv3 with a carefully written special exception, permitting users to ignore the language you don't like. As long as this is written in a way to be strictly more permissive than the original GPLv3, the resulting license is GPLv3-compatible and GPLv2+-compatible.
It would if it could Posted Apr 18, 2009 22:26 UTC (Sat) by jlokier (guest, #52227) [Link]
It sounds like someone would need to hire a lawyer to do that safely.
Having to hire a lawyer is enough of a reason to stick with GPL-v2 I think.
It would if it could Posted Apr 19, 2009 0:31 UTC (Sun) by gmaxwell (subscriber, #30048) [Link]
The permission would have to evaporate when your GPLv3+permission was combined with other GPLv3 works. Worse, if there existed multiple such permission clauses they quite likely wouldn't end up mutually compatible.
Are you sure the GPLv3 tivoization language is actually objectionable to you? The language in the final license has a very narrow scope, far narrower than in the earlier draft. You may be reading more expansive coverage than exists.
JoeBuck, "DRM" in GPLv3 generally refers to the 'effective measures' in section 3. I've never heard much complaint about these terms in the final license. Anti-tivoization is generally understood to be vested primarily in the Installation Information requirements of section 6.
The GPLv2 requirement "plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable" could even be argued to be more powerful anti-tivoization than the language in v3, though I suppose the FSF thought it wouldn't prevail in making that argument and instead adopted the unambiguous, if possibly less expansive, language in v3.
It would if it could Posted Apr 19, 2009 1:55 UTC (Sun) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] I don't object to the Tivoization language, but since others do I'd rather see an exception in use than to see the free software world split into GPLv2-only and GPLv3-only camps.
It would if it could Posted Apr 19, 2009 3:22 UTC (Sun) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
> The permission would have to evaporate when your GPLv3+permission was combined with other GPLv3 works.
Yes it would.
But the only situation were it would matter is if people are combining your GPLv3+TiVo-exeption with GPLv3 code and then trying to use it on a user-restritive device. Which would be illegal anyways.
Right? I mean it doesn't matter if the exception goes away or not because the people that would want to use your code on a user-restrictive device wouldn't be able to use pure GPLv3 code anyways. They'd still be able to use yours quite easily... but they would have to replace the pure-gplv3 code with something else.
> Worse, if there existed multiple such permission clauses they quite likely wouldn't end up mutually compatible.
One of the things that GPLv3 design goals is to allow exceptions for situations like these.
Because with the GPLv2 there was not any clean and easy way stated in the license saying what sort of exceptions you would or would not be able to take and still have it compatible with the GPLv2 code.
So what happens is that people then go and create their own oddball licenses and quite often do not have the resources necessary to do a very good job of it. So the idea is that you can replace the vast number of so-called OSS-approved licenses with GPLv3 + various exceptions.
It's one of the very positive aspects of the GPLv3, if I am understanding everything correctly.
-----------------------
Basically, if I understand things... if you combine multiple programs with GPLv3+exceptions then the worst thing would happen is you'd end up with something that is the equivelent of pure Gplv3.
|
|||||||||||||