AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > AnimeSuki & Technology > Tech Support

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2007-07-16, 11:26   Link #1
WanderingKnight
Gregory House
*IT Support
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
Age: 25
Send a message via MSN to WanderingKnight
Linux (News Discussion Thread)

Thread guidelines

This is a thread for the discussion of news regarding the word of GNU, Linux and Open Source in general. This is not a thread for the discussion of the disadvantages of Linux in comparison to other operative systems. I think passing comments should be allowed, but making a post solely about how Linux sucks will be considered a trolling attitude. This is also not a thread for general support on Linux. If I find any offending posts in these matters, I will ask for a mod to kindly remove your post.

Reasons for this thread:

My main source of news on the development of Linux comes mainly from Slashdot. However, I can't find myself pleased with the method of discussion there. There's just too many people around, and most of times the savvy-ism on the matter surpasses my limits (no wonder, I'm a really new Linux user), not to mention the enormous amount of trolls. Even though I've been learning a lot lately, Slashdot is not a place to start well articulated discussions. As such, I was thinking about making a thread like this in order to get the opinion of the very intelligent Linux users this forum has.

As the OP, I'll get the ball moving:

A day ago, Linus has called the GPLv3 creators 'hypocrites'.

Quote:
"We've heard conflicting tales regarding Linus Torvalds' acceptance of GPLv3. InformationWeek reports on comments by Mr. Torvalds that would seem to decide the issue: 'Torvalds said the authors of a new software license expected to be used by thousands of open source programmers are a bunch of hypocrites ... For Torvalds' part, it appears unlikely he'll ever adopt GPLv3 for the Linux kernel. He accused the Free Software Foundation leadership, which includes eccentric, MIT-trained computing whiz Richard Stallman, of injecting their personal morality into the laws governing open source software with the release of GPLv3. "Only religious fanatics and totalitarian states equate morality with legality," Torvalds wrote.'"
The reluctance of Linus when it comes to the adoption of GPLv3 is well known, though I can't understand why does he dismiss the anti-tivoization prevision that much. As far as I can tell, it allows TiVo (and any other company, for that matter) to bypass the GPL almost completely. The whole point of releasing the source code is for people to be allowed to make the modifications they deem fit. If TiVo makes your hardware unusable when it detects a change in the source code... Then again, I'm not very learned on the matter (that's partly one of the reasons why I started this thread, I'd like to learn more regarding lots of stuff of the Linux community).
__________________


Place them in a box until a quieter time | Lights down, you up and die.
WanderingKnight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-07-16, 13:06   Link #2
Jinto
Asuki-tan Kairin ↓
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Fürth (GER)
Age: 33
I think the problem is more like this...

If TiVo uses DRM stuff in combination with e.g. a Linux OS in their boxes, then GPLv3 would allow anyone to manipulate that code, even the DRM one, which uses then GPLv3 Linux interfaces and libraries and thus becomes GPLv3 itself. There would be no way to declare the changes illegal. Thus anyone could write hacks and distribute them. Now the distributors of DRM media would not want to rely on such a system, thus disabling play back support of their media for unhacked TiVo boxes (I doubt that works on hacked ones). However, TiVo cannot sell boxes that need to be illegaly (legal as in changes to the software are allowed, illegal, as in bypassing DRM is not allowed) hacked/cracked before one can use them (this is too obvious for jurisdiction that TiVo would put up with the fact that their boxes are obviously used to bypass DRM - or at least that would be their main purpose and TiVo knows it yet distributes... which is close to providing the means to bypass DRM directly).

Now DRM is only one example... military software would be another and there are more...

If we consider that GPLv3 would be not really working in many countries anyway, since the GPLv3 has lower priority then local laws (and if the law says manipulating DRM software may be legal but bypassing DRM is illegal then I suppose that counts more then GPLv3 which allows to have the means to do it, but the other law forbids to actually do it... some jurisdictions may even regard the mere existence of the tools to bypass DRM as illegal). Thus this would not have big effect anyway, but give the software that is published under the GPLv3 a negative almost pirate like image, which is not good for the distribution of the software in the industry. And lets face it, if the software has no place in the industry then there is less development on it. (just my impression)

Last edited by Jinto; 2007-07-16 at 13:16.
Jinto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-07-16, 17:05   Link #3
Vexx
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 56
Aye.... as much as I enjoy Stallman&Co.'s antics -- the GPLv3 raises a conundrum for a number of software development sectors. In some sense its part of the arms race between DRM-fascists and OSS-commies (its a joke! really! ) and rest of us who just like making and using software are getting a bit scrunched in the middle.

I do wish Linus took the time to launch a few more missiles at the DRM issues if he's going to razz the GPLv3 problems.
Vexx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-07-17, 01:27   Link #4
hobbes_fan
You could say.....
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
From my understanding of DRM (at least what I can understand of the US legislation) its really a non issue for your average legit home user. AFAIK our legislation in Australia (which tends to mirror US legislation on this), is that simply put it isn't illegal to make a item playable on a device (say itunes stuff on a non ipod player). I think its covered under fair use if you've obtained the product legally. Distributing it is entirely a dfferent mater.

As a limited linux user (I'm not confident in it being suitable for my needs to completely replace more complex things I do MS XP), and as TIVO is an alien concept anywhere else outside North America, I'm not to sure what to make of it. I'm hesitant to say that it won't affect the rest of the world but as far as I can see TIVO is essentially PVR which has open source code but the hardware won't allow you to use modified software (wiki). This is fair enough. They made the PVR, the source code is available, however as manufacturers of the product they are entitled to some protection.

Now it's completely deluded to absolutely ignore the rights and wishes of a manufacturer of a product. It doesn't really have something termed as "law of the land" application. There has to be some balance between manufacturers and end users. GPLv3 clearly tips the scales in the end users favour, this doesn't benefit the open source movement at all IMHO. It makes it less appealing to big business thereby continuing the monopoly of other software on the market. At the end of the day from what I understand of Open Source goals was to give users the freedom to choose. GPLv3 is restricting manufacturers who are themselves users by not giving them any kind of protection. So in my opinion Mr Torvalds has every right to be critical.

I'm sorry if this sounds incoherent, I've recently become a fan of Open Source software and have only started reading into it.
hobbes_fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-07-17, 03:02   Link #5
grey_moon
Yummy, sweet and unyuu!!!
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
I've noticed that lots of the ppl who say that Torvalds and co. don't understand GPLv2 and v3 always seem to skirt around examples such as medical devices and voting machines.

I'm actually quite shocked at the attitude of the pro v3 camp against anyone who is against it, especially since normally they are quite fair in dealing with issues (thinks Groklaw).

I think a general summary for those who don't want to trudge through hours worth of posting (in regards to the same thing) is:

Linus: I don't like v3 it tries to restrict hardware developers, I like v2 as it's elegant and does what I want, which is tit for tat and more importantly its my choice.

v3 camp: That is because you don't understand v3 or v2

Linus: Don't call me stupid...

...

Wash, rinse and repeat....

Some of them even go so far in saying that what Tivo did is against v2, which most ppl reply with well duh if that is the case why do they need v3 for?

Also in regards to v3 giving more protection to the end user, that imho is a load of tosh. As an end user we have always got that type of protection in the form of freedom of choice. v3 removes some of that freedom, which is protecting my end user freedom by removing my freedom????

v3 removes some of the end user choice by restricting what manufacturers can run the software on. If the company is forced to restrict software running then they would be in breech of v3. FSF automatically then tries the good old scare monger tactics which is throw DRM up to get support on their side, which seems to work for Bush and Blair, but I was shocked at how well it worked with ppl who support OSS.

They don't seem to deal with issues such as restriction of end user choice. Hey I might want to buy a TiVo box that runs on linux, and they do actually label clearly how it is restricted.
If I want to buy a hackable box I would either get a x (there is one but can't remember the name), or build a MythTV solution.

Basically v3 would make some devices against the law as it is GPLv3 or would make the companies break the local law because they have not adequately restricted the device from doing something bad. One big example is wireless devices, I'm pretty sure that not only would the FCC or equivalent come down hard on the end user who breaks power ratings, but they would do their damnedest to prevent that device form being sold.

How about other examples? Ones that could potentially involve not the end users rights (as in the persons who purchased), but the safety of the end user's customers? I don't want to have a drip machine plugged into my arm which could have any hacked firmware loaded onto it. I don't want to fly on a plane which could have certain restrictions removed from its autopilot. etc etc..

v3 succeeds imho in doing one thing and that is give Microsoft a chuckle as it stifles the adoption of FOSS, which stifles development of it. FSF resort to calling ppl like Linus stupid or pig headed and dictatorial (in not so many words but it is there between the lines), because they need Linus onboard, but they can't persuade him and the rest of the core developers with sound argument.
__________________

Last edited by grey_moon; 2007-07-17 at 03:31.
grey_moon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-07-17, 08:05   Link #6
WanderingKnight
Gregory House
*IT Support
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
Age: 25
Send a message via MSN to WanderingKnight
I don't know... at any rate, there's always GPL v2. It's not like everyone who makes open source software is forced to adopt the v3.

And I have a slight feeling that the true developers, the true hackers, hardly care about the licensing issue. Their objective is far beyond the legalese of the GPL, and I feel that probably, the change of licenses won't make an impact at all.

Richard Stallman still is kind of my personal hero, though. Maybe he's made a mistake now, but that hardly changes decades of work towards the plunging forward of the open source movement.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Linux MPX Multi-touch alternative to MS Surface

Quote:
"Gizmodo has published an article (with video) on the Linux-based free alternative to MS Surface along with a quite interesting interview with its creator, Peter Hutterer. "It may not be as fancy-schmancy as Microsoft Surface or Jeff Han's demos but this video of a Linux-based MPX multi-touch table shows that things are moving full speed ahead in the land of the free penguins. We talked with developer Peter Hutterer, who gave us his insight on the project, the iPhone and the ongoing multi-touch craze." He talks about Jeff Han's work, MS Surface and defines the iPhone as "not the first in what it's doing, but definitely a huge impact" in the field."
A day old, but still valid. The video is kind of boring, though, and doesn't show as much as the MS Surface one did.

Personally, I feel that these attempts to get a newer interface will always succeed not to appeal me. This surface thing seems kind of OK, but only for specific purposes. I, for one, would like to see GUI applications taking more into account the keyboard than a graphical interface such as the mouse. I feel it's much easier and faster, most of times, but I've been baffled by the enormous amount of programs that don't even notice the existence of a keyboard that can allow us to do the job faster most of times.
__________________


Place them in a box until a quieter time | Lights down, you up and die.
WanderingKnight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-07-17, 08:29   Link #7
Jinto
Asuki-tan Kairin ↓
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Fürth (GER)
Age: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by WanderingKnight View Post
I don't know... at any rate, there's always GPL v2. It's not like everyone who makes open source software is forced to adopt the v3.
If the Linux kernel was GPLv3 licensed, then also all drivers and interfaces inherit GPLv3 (in the end many software build for/on Linux would be GPLv3 because of simple inheritance... a basic feature of the GPL's)

Quote:
Originally Posted by WanderingKnight View Post
And I have a slight feeling that the true developers, the true hackers, hardly care about the licensing issue. Their objective is far beyond the legalese of the GPL, and I feel that probably, the change of licenses won't make an impact at all.
Now is this a statement in favor or against GPLv3? ^^'
Imo GPLv3 is more like bad karma less like an actual threat (or whatever one wants to interpret it - nuisance maybe? )... it distracts the industry from using stuff based on it. Sometimes even a rumor or a common thinking is enough to have a negative effect (regardless of legality). How highly speculative rumors affect the buisness one can very nice observe at the stock market.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WanderingKnight View Post
Richard Stallman still is kind of my personal hero, though. Maybe he's made a mistake now, but that hardly changes decades of work towards the plunging forward of the open source movement.
Well, GPLv2 works good. Maybe GPLv2 software should have the chance to spread more and be accepted before thinking about a GPLv3. What idealist often forget is, that ideal systems often work only in theory (with the civilisation today).


Quote:
Originally Posted by WanderingKnight View Post
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Linux MPX Multi-touch alternative to MS Surface



A day old, but still valid. The video is kind of boring, though, and doesn't show as much as the MS Surface one did.

Personally, I feel that these attempts to get a newer interface will always succeed not to appeal me. This surface thing seems kind of OK, but only for specific purposes. I, for one, would like to see GUI applications taking more into account the keyboard than a graphical interface such as the mouse. I feel it's much easier and faster, most of times, but I've been baffled by the enormous amount of programs that don't even notice the existence of a keyboard that can allow us to do the job faster most of times.
Hm, but imo Hotkeys and stuff are a common thing. So what I miss a little bit in Linux is standardization of things like Hotkeys. There should be a set of Hotkey combinations that always work (like in Windows). Maybe its just the lazyness that sometimes comes with open source programming, but afaik windows applications use Hotkeys more often and in a more standardized way. But then again thats usability issues and these highly depend on personal preference. So not realy a matter worth of discussion in regard to the entry post.
Jinto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-07-17, 09:11   Link #8
SeijiSensei
AS Oji-kun
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Mucking about
Age: 64
I admit to being rather uninformed about what seem to be a number of important differences between v2 and v3 of the GPL. Someday I'll read the License.

I do know there are provisions to defend the "spirit" of the GPL against the adoption of patent protections for software. (Luckily for many of you here, this has no direct bearing on you since you're not living in the US.) I read the Groklaw discussion of the Novell/Microsoft deal in light of GPLv3. PJ contends that if Microsoft agrees not to sue Novell's customers for the use of MS's patented technology, then GPLv3 would require Microsoft to extend the same guarantees to all users of the software. In essence, GPLv3 could turn the deal against Microsoft. There's a bunch of thorny legal territory to cover though. GPLv2 uses the phrase "distribute" when it defines the action covered by the license. GPLv3 uses the phrase "convey," which PJ claims has a broader reach than distribution and could include Microsoft's agreement to give away SuSE coupons.

When Microsoft cut the deal with Novell, it agreed to distribute coupons redeemable for a licensed copy of SuSE Linux Enterprise, but they didn't specify a version or an expiration date. Thus does the redemption of one of these coupons next year for a current version of SuSE that contains GPLv3 content (Samba for sure) constitute "conveyance" and bring Microsoft under the terms of the GPLv3? If the litigation (and there'll be a lot of it) supports this perspective, the coupon deal might come to be seen as one of Microsoft's stupidest acts in recent memory. Most lawyers I know like to limit their clients' liability as much as possible, so they'd be arguing for things like specific versions or termination dates. Where were Microsoft's lawyers? Was this deal so small potatoes for Microsoft that no one really paid attention to what the consequences might be?

One problem that's been raised about moving the Linux kernel to v3 is that there are many different copyright holders in the kernel code. Some of them may have licensed their code under "version 2 or later versions," but others may have only licensed their code under GPLv2. All of these developers would need to agree to move their code under the v3 license before Linux as a whole could be licensed under GPL v3. I don't know how many such people there are, but if it's more than a handful, it could take a long time to secure their agreement. For instance, some of the drivers may not have changed much since the 1990s, and the authors of that code may be hard to track down.

Linus owns the trademark for Linux®, but he doesn't own the copyrights to the Linux code base. I don't think he has intention of exploiting his trademark to the detriment of Linux users and developers, however. My understanding is that he obtained the trademark more as a defensive measure to block some future group like SCO from owning it and calling its version "Linux®."
__________________

Last edited by SeijiSensei; 2007-07-17 at 09:43.
SeijiSensei is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-07-17, 11:07   Link #9
grey_moon
Yummy, sweet and unyuu!!!
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Linus is actually one of the main copyright holders. Unlike a lot of the proper GNU projects which require you to give your copyrights to the FSF. (I think I got the terminology right). Below is Linus on Groklaw putting his point forward (this is before he starts to swear )

http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?m...481922#c481977

The thing is a good deal of the kernel code has the v2 only lines in it and a huge bulk of it does not have any line in at all. The question for these is do they inherit Linus's top copying file which specifies v2 only? Instead I've read more posts of if people (aka Linus and a lot of others) didn't put in v2 only then there would not be this issue. Linus's reply to this is on the lines of "I'm intelligent, I'm not going to leave my bottom open to a rogering"

More from Linus on Groklaw (the swearing starts), but it really explains Linus' stance on the whole GPLv3 thing....

http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?m...481997#c482040

And here is a white paper from one of the developers on the dangers of GPLv3

http://kerneltrap.org/node/7160
__________________

Last edited by grey_moon; 2007-07-17 at 11:29.
grey_moon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-07-18, 14:13   Link #10
WanderingKnight
Gregory House
*IT Support
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
Age: 25
Send a message via MSN to WanderingKnight
Microsoft Excludes GPLv3 from Linspire Deal

Microsoft is excluding any software licensed under the new GPLv3 from their recent patent protection deal with Linspire.
Quote:
"Microsoft has since been treating GPLv3 software as though it were radioactive. 'Microsoft isn't a party to the GPLv3 license and none of its actions are to be misinterpreted as accepting status as a contracting party of GPLv3 or assuming any legal obligations under such license,' the company said in a statement released shortly after GPLv3 was published on June 29. In addition to excluding GPLv3 software from the Linspire deal, Microsoft recently said that it wouldn't distribute any GPLv3 software under its SUSE Linux alliance with Novell, even as it maintains in public statements that the antilawsuit provisions in the license have no legal weight."
More GPL v3 stuff. Something kinda obvious; in the end, it would be stupid, now that Microsoft is aware of the existence of GPL v3, to fall so easy into its coverage.
__________________


Place them in a box until a quieter time | Lights down, you up and die.
WanderingKnight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-07-18, 20:18   Link #11
SeijiSensei
AS Oji-kun
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Mucking about
Age: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by WanderingKnight View Post
Microsoft is excluding any software licensed under the new GPLv3 from their recent patent protection deal with Linspire.... In addition to excluding GPLv3 software from the Linspire deal, Microsoft recently said that it wouldn't distribute any GPLv3 software under its SUSE Linux alliance with Novell, even as it maintains in public statements that the antilawsuit provisions in the license have no legal weight
I was very surprised by the comment about Novell, then I found this related story. Microsoft says it won't distribute a version of SuSE Enterprise that includes GPLv3 code, but the next version of SuSE is almost guaranteed to carry v3 code, and Novell has publicly announced that they intend to incorporate v3 code into their products.

The most important part of the Novell article was this:
"How the decision will impact large enterprise customers, such as Wal-Mart Stores, that have already purchased certificates for Novell's SUSE Linux through Microsoft -- presumably with the expectation of receiving future updates -- was not immediately clear."

So let's say Wal-Mart turns in a coupon after v3-flavored SuSE is released. Will Microsoft refuse to honor the coupon and risk a suit for breach of contract? One coupon is small peanuts, but Wal-Mart, already a big Linux user, allegedly stocked up on thousands. They'd probably have no trouble showing "harm" as a breach plaintiff if Microsoft reneges. Maybe MS will try to push or bribe Novell to continue a fork of v2-only versions? Or, even more intriguing, will Microsoft take on the task of supporting the current version of SuSE Enterprise itself and maintain v2-clean repositories for updates. Maybe the day of "Microsoft Linux" is closer than we think.

Of course, our hypothetical plaintiff ("Wal-Mart") will still first have to show that Microsoft is in violation of the GPLv3 license; all that stuff about the meaning of "convey" will come up first. If Microsoft can prove its contention that the license doesn't apply to their act of distributing coupons, then they can give them out to their hearts' content. If the courts rule that MS is bound by the license, then it'll be interesting to see what strategy Microsoft will choose to comply. I'd guess three or more years out at least, though, folks. Those wheels of justice rotate slowly.
__________________

Last edited by SeijiSensei; 2007-07-18 at 20:32.
SeijiSensei is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-07-18, 20:37   Link #12
grey_moon
Yummy, sweet and unyuu!!!
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Personally I think it's IBM who is the interesting one. Big corp, deep pockets, big player in OSS (note I didn't use the F here ) and got their fingers in lots of relevant pies.

I think the main issue with Novell is people forget where their roots are. They always have been a commercial company with responsibilities to their share holders. I can imagine the whole scene now if they turned down the M$ deal.

Novell: We turned down the deal for a huge cash injection.
Shareholder: Why?
Novell: Because M$ are evil and it goes against the FSF principles.
Shareholder: See you in court (or what ever deals with these types of things)

Even now with the precedent of Novell with the huge media backlash against them other companies are still accepting the M$ deal and I bet it is not because of the protection they get, but because of the nice wad of cash.

I guess what I mean, money does make the world go around. The thing about using a licence to beat people like TiVO over the head with a stick is one thing, but to try to retroactively take on a company renowned for its legal shananigans and deep pockets is another thing altogether.

The FSF's whole attitude of if it breaks the spirit of the licence we would rather it not be popular instead, is really dangerous and I think breaks their responsibilities to the users of their licence.

All M$ needs to do is to be forced into a corner where it decides that it can take the bad media flak and cost for going to court over GPLv3 and then you have one of their "FUD" scenarios become reality. Basically GPL in court and most probably tied up for years (I'm pretty sure the FSF will get their cash daddy too). Then all these companies who are worried about the legalities of using FOSS will have another reason to. End of the day FSF might not worry about who uses their licence, but the developers and I the end user worries about if I can safely use the products. I use the word safely really loosely here, I mean it in terms of companies and developers dropping OSS. I like GPLv2, I like the idea of Open Source. Free is okay, but I've always believed in the power of the consumer and the ability to vote with my feet.
__________________

Last edited by grey_moon; 2007-07-18 at 21:02.
grey_moon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-07-18, 21:12   Link #13
Jinto
Asuki-tan Kairin ↓
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Fürth (GER)
Age: 33
I am not completely sure about the consequences of a long term influence of Microsoft in Linux, but I think it is not neccessarily bad if SUSE becomes a Microsoft version Linux as long as other distros stay on the market and Micorsoft has to share/bring in their own Linux code.
There will likely be a conflict of interests between the fully commercial Windows and the rather "free" Linux. It could be possible that Microsoft will charge fees for the stuff that makes Linux more compatible with Windows, which does make sense in the server segment, since an ever increasing number of servers is running Linux today. When Linux is able to win the server race, then the only thing left for Microsoft to get money for is the patented technology to for software that enables interaction between Linux servers and Windows clients (e.g., Samba). Since the odds look bad for Microsoft to reverse the linuxification of the server market for cheap solutions, this is their only way to do it more elegant. Providing an entire MS compatible Linux and prohibiting usage of the patented technology for everyone else. At least that was the thinking until Microsoft figured out that this might not be a good idea since big players like IBM could force an ugly patent war once Microsoft tries to forbid the use of certain technologies.

So I believe at the moment Microsoft is rather interested to keep Linux at the lowest possible level for client machines and home/multimedia users, while it will increase support for the server stuff but keep it a low quality alternative.
In highly complex systems "intelligent" servers are needed. Microsoft introduced new approaches that according to Microsoft help to administrate and effectively control highly complex systems - the buzzword here is autonomic computing... an according article can be found here. Originally developed, advanced and promoted by IBM, Microsoft tries to do the same but with their own technique and their own patents. Given that Microsoft might have the bigger knowhow and more resources to waste on autonomic computing, it is likely, that this sector becomes a patent secured area of Microsoft. The GPLv3 is a good excuse for Microsoft to put even less effort in the development of Linux atm. Therefore they have the chance to secure the patents for the server technology of tomorrow. And what that means for Linux is clear... on that sector there will be either once again double standards or Linux simply doesn't have the autonomic computing capabilites and will therefore be a cheap server alternative with a limited deployable radius and thus no active danger for commercial Microsoft products (that is my point of view for the server market... I have no clue how this will affect the client/standalone OS market).

Last edited by Jinto; 2007-07-18 at 21:57.
Jinto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-07-18, 21:16   Link #14
grey_moon
Yummy, sweet and unyuu!!!
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Nice post Jinto Lin.

Also I wonder how would GPLv3 affect the embedded device market?

*Edit*
Hee hee I just realised if Stallman read your post he would be rather miffed that you didn't use the term GNU/Linux.

One thing your post brings to mind, is the whole change of business models. Looking at technology now, we can see that lots of applications are moving away from expensive desktops (expense as in software and hardware). Instead big apps are being hosted centrally and users access them via a generic web interface. M$ themselves are working on this area. When it comes to a point when it's no longer cost effective to try to keep plugging a very expensive to maintain and unpopular (hee hee it might be unpopular in the future) OS, they might switch to Mubuntu and concentrate on the services side.
__________________
grey_moon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-07-18, 21:18   Link #15
WanderingKnight
Gregory House
*IT Support
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
Age: 25
Send a message via MSN to WanderingKnight
@Jinto

But isn't the point of the closure of the Novell-deal loophole in GPLv3 that, by making MS a distributor of GPLv3 software, MS can't sue for patents?
__________________


Place them in a box until a quieter time | Lights down, you up and die.
WanderingKnight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-07-18, 21:27   Link #16
grey_moon
Yummy, sweet and unyuu!!!
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by WanderingKnight View Post
@Jinto

But isn't the point of the closure of the Novell-deal loophole in GPLv3 that, by making MS a distributor of GPLv3 software, MS can't sue for patents?
That's the scenario I mean by forcing M$ into a corner. They are updating a licence to retroactively attack M$. With the TiVO scenario they are preventing TiVO from doing a certain action in the future. The M$ one is more far reaching and I don't think that M$ will roll over on this one. btw IANAL (hee hee I've always wanted to post that)
__________________
grey_moon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-07-18, 21:43   Link #17
Jinto
Asuki-tan Kairin ↓
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Fürth (GER)
Age: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by WanderingKnight View Post
@Jinto

But isn't the point of the closure of the Novell-deal loophole in GPLv3 that, by making MS a distributor of GPLv3 software, MS can't sue for patents?

You are right, this would be the case if Microsoft actually adopted/distributed GPLv3. But if Microsoft says no, there will be at best a solution where Novell must try to sell its stuff alone. Now that would be exactly what I meant... Microsoft would of course not develop or optimize the new GPLv3 software, therefore this is equal to slow the development of SUSE Linux down. From the point of view of Microsoft it is not an excuse but a necessity.
This would render the whole Novell/Microsoft deal useless and Novell would be there where it was before the deal... and like grey_moon pointed it out already, Novell is not the Salvation Army for the FSF.
Jinto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-07-18, 23:23   Link #18
grey_moon
Yummy, sweet and unyuu!!!
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
The main issue I believe isn't because it would render the deal useless, but it is being used to attack M$ patent folio, which is imho a glove to the face.

BTW I'm not a supporter of patents or of M$, just pointing out my interpretation of the scenario.
__________________
grey_moon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-07-19, 01:00   Link #19
hobbes_fan
You could say.....
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by WanderingKnight View Post
Microsoft is excluding any software licensed under the new GPLv3 from their recent patent protection deal with Linspire.


More GPL v3 stuff. Something kinda obvious; in the end, it would be stupid, now that Microsoft is aware of the existence of GPL v3, to fall so easy into its coverage.

I wonder what will happen to Freespire now?
hobbes_fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-07-19, 02:46   Link #20
grey_moon
Yummy, sweet and unyuu!!!
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by hobbes_fan View Post
I wonder what will happen to Freespire now?
If GPLv3 prevents the bundle-ling in of closed source binaries, I guess they will have to package all of the closed source stuff off separately and let the user then add it in later. I suppose it would break the works out of the box package....

I'm sure the the distros will find some way around it, but I hope that its not at the cost of ease of use. Just when Linux is starting to loose it's hobbiest label too..

One example is how they handle codecs, they can't ship them, but it ain't hard to install them
__________________
grey_moon is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 17:05.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.