Microsoft Excludes GPLv3 From Linspire Deal 342
rs232 writes to tell us that Microsoft is excluding any software licensed under the new GPLv3 from their recent patent protection deal with Linspire. "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. "
The GPLv3 works (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The GPLv3 works (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The GPLv3 works (Score:5, Funny)
SuperEULA: able to transform customers into pirates with a single click!
(Ninjas of the world, beware)
Re: (Score:2)
re: SuperEULA (Score:2)
Re:The GPLv3 works (Score:5, Interesting)
The real story is how Microsoft changed its patent covenant, after the deal with Linspire was already finalized. Is Microsoft free under that deal to alter the patent covenant however they want - making it useless?
Not that the deal was useful for anything previously either. It doesn't cover 'clone products' - which perhaps includes OpenOffice and Wine, and it doesn't cover 'video game applications designed to run on a computer', nor 'unified communications', nor a long list of other things. Does it cover anything at all?
Re:The GPLv3 works (Score:4, Funny)
Stallman (Score:3, Insightful)
So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So what? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:So what? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not as simple as saying, "fine, we'll just ditch anything GPLv3". Who's gonna maintain the fork? 'Cause you gotta maintain it, you can't just fork it and let it rot. Will Microsoft pick up the fork? Will any of the Linux distro's that made a deal with Microsoft? Will they fork and maintain all projects that go GPLv3?
See, it's not just a matter of forking the code. The license still sticks. OK, it's not GPLv3, it's good old GPLv2, but I think they'll have a lot of trouble dealing with just GPLv2 too. Remember, v3 made patent protection explicit and took it globally. But the stuff was still there, albeit implicit and USA-centric.
All in all, I absolutely love seeing Microsoft publicly stating it won't touch GPLv3 with a ten foot pole. This is it, folks, this is THE shit. FSF got the holy Grail. It tells the corporate assholes "take it or leave it", and they gotta choose. And neither option comes easy.
I think it's a knee-jerk reaction of Microsoft's to simply dismiss everything GPLv3, but they're probably frantic to get out of the Novell deal with clean face. It turned worse that they could've ever dreamed.
Re:So what? (Score:5, Informative)
Uh, yeah we do. According to its Wikipedia entry [wikipedia.org], it's pretty much dead. It's at version 0.4.99, which was released almost two years ago, and apparently hasn't had more than "minimal" development since it was forked:
purpose served, project ended (Score:5, Informative)
The main Samba team learned their lesson. They switched to an IDL for Samba 4. Samba-TNG has been a very close clone of the Microsoft implementation, warts included. Samba 4 is far better.
Thus Samba-TNG has served it's purpose: teach the Samba developers that IDL is a good idea. Done. Mission accomplished.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, we know IDL was a better idea, we've always known that
Jeremy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:So what? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
GPL 3 reaches past this (some would say overreaches), and controls attempts to control the hardware designs of the user. The GPL 3 is much more focused on the rights of certain users, shifting those rights
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
GPL 3 reaches past this (some would say overreaches), and controls attempts to control the hardware designs of the user.
If you consider the company that makes Tivo to be a "user", and not the people who are actually watching their digitally recorded television programs, then you would be correct in stating that the controls are over-reaching.
I prefer to view somebody who is using the device a user, though. The company making money off of it is simply a vendor.
And GPLv3 doesn't say "You cannot make money from selling your product" to the Tivo people. They say, "Play fair and share the innovative features that you adde
Re:15 years ago: (Score:5, Interesting)
*Assuming others are contributing to it. If you're the sole copyright holder for your project, you can always do whatever the hell you want.
-Em
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
-Em
Re:15 years ago: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's say I produce a brilliant product which once installed doesn't require a great deal of service. There's no sense in me basing it off a GPL project because then I'd have to make the source code available to everyone, and Fred down the road could undercut me because he isn't doing any development.
Now, change that business model slightly. Let's say I contribute to a pro
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, Microsoft is pathological. But the question remains: if BSD is really so superior, why are so many companies (not just the "big guns" like Novell, Red Hat, and IBM, but also ones like Trolltech, MySQL, etc.) betting the farm on the GPL instead?
Re:15 years ago: (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:15 years ago: (Score:5, Insightful)
Not quite. You can take code out of the garden and modify it for personal/internal use, and you don't have to share those changes. You only have to put your modifications back into the garden if you redistribute them, and putting them back in the garden is the only way you are allowed to redistribute those changes.
This ensures that changes that are redistributed are available to the original authors, and the community at large. That 'walled garden' is always open, and anyone can use it.
Other licenses allow you to take code improve it, and then redistribute it in proprietary walled gardens that may restrict who can use it. Why would I want to contribute code to be used in someone elses proprietary walled garden... where one day I might be required to pay a license covering the code I wrote and contributed.
copyright and license (Score:2)
Why would I want to contribute code to be used in someone elses proprietary walled garden... where one day I might be required to pay a license covering the code I wrote and contributed.
Legally if you write code for yourself you own the copyright. Nobody can force you to pay a license fee to use that code unless you sell the rights to the code. Now you might of noticed I said "write code for yourself". That's important because if you write the code on someone else's (the owner's of that walled garden)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:So what? (Score:4, Insightful)
All the FSF can do is take the GNU/ userland GPL 3, but all the GNU/ tools up to that point are still GPL 2 and can be forked. On top of that, the BSD userland can be adapted to the Linux kernel. So I really don't see Linux going GPL 3, in whole or in part.
Re: (Score:2)
Give it time. Alan Cox has been chipping away at Linus about it more or less ever since the GPL 3 was first thought of, and the FSF sends its' minions to apply pressure on a fairly regular basis, as well.
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
At enormous cost. Linux itself is just a kernel. The GNU toolchain outweighs it by a huge factor in terms of what actually makes a linux distro a linux distro, and the BSD userland is laughably inadequate compared to it.
I personally hope that as much as possible of the average linux distro goes GPLv3 as soon as possible. The mere fact microsoft is reacting so vehemently to it is an indication the GPLv3 gets something right.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:So what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Did you know, the BSD userland actually has a BSD kernel too (a whole bunch of them, in fact)?
I think we can safely conclude that anyone who wanted the BSD userland and BSD licensed kernel would, in fact, already be using BSD. And looking at the history of the unix wars we can draw some further conclusions about how the anything-goes approach plays out. The only ones who'd be interested in a repeat of that would be Microsoft or some aspireing semi-proprietary vendors who arent familiar with the pile of proprietary unices that fell at the roadside.
The fact is, the bigger participants in that round have been staunch supporters of the FSF's approach on GPLv3; both Sun and IBM appear to have learned the lessons of fractured markets and IP warfare. It creates many more losers than winners, and it damages the market as a whole - better then to live with an enforced level playing field where you compete on being the best, as opposed to being the best backstabber, where you compete on being the quickest, not the quickest to lauch lawsuits.
In the end, even tho the ability to deny others freedom can lead to short term benefits for one or a few players, in the long term the enforced market freedom creates a bigger pie for all players.
GPL v3 (Score:2)
both Sun and IBM appear to have learned the lessons of fractured markets and IP warfare.
True, but I see GPL v3 as a treat to more fracturing.
It creates many more losers than winners, and it damages the market as a whole
Yeap, GPL v3 certainly does that. Remember the GPL is meant for the freedom of the user not the freedom of the developer. And with Linux having literally thousands of contributors each one of them would have to approve the move to v3. I seriously doubt that will happen, so either L
Re: (Score:2)
Remember the GPL is meant for the freedom of the user not the freedom of the developer.
This is not true. Users are free to use GPL code in any way they want (except distribute). The GPL is ALL ABOUT the developers! It prevents authors of code from being ripped off. Anyway, the "freedom" you talk about really refers to the code; i.e., the code cannot be "enslaved" (excuse the extreme choice of word).
The only real objection Linus has... (Score:5, Insightful)
He says he is angry that FSF is claiming to protect freedom while taking away a certain freedom [iu.edu] from companies like TiVo.
But the freedom that FSF is taking away is the freedom to take away freedom from users of the software. Thanks you Linus, great protector of
But keep in mind the politics that Linus has to deal with. There are many developers who would have to sign off on GPLv3. One of the biggies is Greg Kroah Hartmann of Novel, who owns the USB subsystem. Novel no doubt takes GPLv3 personally. Greg has actively tried to discourage [gmane.org] even the "or any later version" clause from being included in kernel patches.
On top of that, even if everyone wanted to go GPLv3, they would have to track down hundreds of developers. So it's just easier for Linus to say no to GPLv3 in any case.
Re: (Score:2)
But the freedom that FSF is taking away is the freedom to take away freedom from users of the software. Thanks you Linus, great protector of ... wha??
That's a very common mischaracterization of the objections to the hardware over reach of the GPL 3. If you want to really understand the kernel developers objections (and it's not just Linus), you need to read the relevant portions of the LKML [iu.edu].
Re: (Score:2)
I don't get what you're saying. Can you please explain it with some hint of coherence?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
IANAL however.
Re: (Score:2)
Kernel is GPL2 only.
GPL3 license states GPLv3 or late.
They're incompatible licenses - a wholesale change to GPL3 is about as likely (and as feasable) as a change to BSD... in fact BSD would be easier as you could do it piecemeal.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
MS and FOSS (Score:2)
Look, Microsoft is not an "Open Source" software company. Neither they, nor anyone else (including "Open Source" software companies), are obligated to distribute software under GPLv3.
True but software currently under GPLv2 vary well may be moved to v3. As Linus had said he doesn't like v3 he may keep Linux licensed under v2. If so then MS could still distrbute Linux itself.
FalconRe:So what? (Score:5, Informative)
Which is true as far as it goes. The missing detail is the vouchers MS have been selling for SUSE Linux which have no expiry date. This means that, in principle, if anyone redeems such a voucher for a copy of SLES, and if that collection contains any code licenced under GPLv3 at the time they redeem the voucher, then there's a chance MS may be held to account under the terms of GPLv3.
Now whether that will stand up in a court of law or not is another matter. Eben Moglen and RMS seem to think so, since they wrote the new licence to allow the MS-Novell pact specifically for this reason. But like I say, we won't know for sure until it's tested in court.
On the other hand it seems reasonably certain that Microsoft sees some legal exposure there, or they wouldn't be making such a fuss. Because for all they talk as if the licence poses no threat to them, they are nevertheless backing away from it at every opportunity.
The thing is that if the GPLv3 does apply, then anyone they sue for patent violation hereafter is going to be able to claim that Microsoft licenced the patent for their use - else they had no right to distribute in the first place. That too will need to be tested in court, but again it seems that Microsoft are taking the threat seriously.
So that's "so what". It's not Microsoft don't use GPLv3 and we think they should.
It's more a case of MS may already be using GPLv3 which makes them a lot less scary.
Hope that helps, have a nice day.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No. The missing detail is that the vouchers do not specify the version of SUSE Linux that must be distributed, nor do they
Ignore it at your peril (Score:2)
They will change tactics when ignoring the rule of law as they see fit is no longer tolerated.
Why isn't there a "noshit" tag? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The submission quality has been meaningless hype piece (see E3 info for the last week in games), non-Slashdot Politic pieces to push the liberal agenda (there's some conservative pieces too but not that many, most of the political crap is edited by Kdawson, but he's hardly the only one), summary reading too far into the story (see the comcast/firefox article, comcast is lazy, go figure) and "DUH" articles, such as this one
Does Linspire have any market share? (Score:4, Interesting)
Microsoft's Covenant to Customers [microsoft.com] (Linspire's customers it would seem - not Microsoft's) hardly makes compelling business sense to consider Linspire for the business desktop. Few home users would consider themselves vulnerable to patent lawsuits by Microsoft, if they used Linux.
So this announcement merely indicates that GPL3 has won, and Microsoft has been compelled to publicly qualify their pre-negotiated deals with business partners, and customers gain more from GPL3 than covenants from Microsoft.
I, for one, welcome our... (Score:3, Funny)
-WtC
Success! (Score:5, Insightful)
So, anyone who was bothered by the MS/Novell deal (and its variants) can and should encourage usage of GPLv3. Coders who want to prevent MS from using patent threats to splinter the community should consider adopting the GPLv3.
Since a certain number of important projects have already switched to GPLv3, this means that within a year or two the MS/Novell deal (and variants) will essentially disappear. As someone who was not happy with those deals in the first place, I say good riddance.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Success! (Score:4, Informative)
Microsoft will never sue - they know that the only thing they can do is amke noises. Actually suing would be the equivalent of a first strike in a MAD - Mutually Assured Destruction - scenario, which they would ultimately lose.
The resulting positive publicity for linux would further erode their already slipping grip on their customer base. Like it did with allthe SCO BS.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There is a player you're forgetting about: IBM.
They aren't the good guys. In fact, they are the biggest patent abusing bastards in the world. But... they'd take a revenue hit if people were afraid of deploying their favorite commodity UNIX (i.e. GNU/Linux), so they're likely to step in and maul anyone who actually attacks it with software patents.
And yes, they can win a patent war against Microsoft.
is GPLv3 Successful? (Score:2)
So, anyone who was bothered by the MS/Novell deal (and its variants) can and should encourage usage of GPLv3. Coders who want to prevent MS from using patent threats to splinter the community should consider adopting the GPLv3.
I'm not so sure. One of the things I've heard is that GPLv3 will create hardware vender lockout. Because of clauses in v3 they won't move to v3. It's hard enough the get hardware venders to release drivers for Linux, with v3 they won't period.
Falcon
All I know is that I know
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, given that the GPLv3 was written specifically to make those "patent protection deals" untenable,...
There's another way of seeing this if we can assume that the effect is proof of the motive: that GPLV3 was written specifically to encourage developers to build products that would not be indemnified by those "patent protection deals". Richard stuck a spear in the ground and assumed Microsoft would run into it. What's comical is the number of people surprised or upset that they went around it instead.
What amazes me is this... (Score:2)
I know how they feel (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So Torvalds and MS agree on one thing (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.linux.com/articles/114336 [linux.com]
Darth Gates (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
(see also: your own sig)
Re: (Score:2)
Had *both* MS and Linspire said it, then fine.
Novell must remove samba? (Score:2)
Obviously Novell doesn't have to remove samba, but I would imagine that the "vouchers" that MS has are for standard Suse distros which include samba. So, does Novell now have to create a "special" distro just for MS so they don't distribute GPLv3 software?
Doesn't this fork *.everything? (Score:4, Insightful)
If most F/OSS goes GPLv3, and simultaneously Microsoft denies GPLv3 bug still has a vested interest in Novell Linux, won't that just mean that MS will fork every open source project at the point where it switches to GPLv3? They'll create their own faux-communities loyal to the regime and play them off as open source, and the public will eat it up since they don't know any better. Those who believe in F/OSS as a philosophy and accept GPLv3 will be branded pinkos and commies by "commercial friendly" open source, and die a slow death...?
I sure hope I'm wrong.
Re:Doesn't this fork *.everything? (Score:4, Insightful)
It was never that intention. GPLv3 was created solely to close the loopholes that many of the companies that were taking advantage of the GPLv2 in order to prevent their customers from gaining access from modifying the source. (aka "tivo-ization") in which vendors would simply deny modification of the source they were to provide by using another developers code under GPLv2 by adding hardware DRM.
Or in Microsoft's case by means of patents.
From my understanding there is nothing that compels any developer to upgrade from GPLv2 to GPLv3 unless you desire to use someone else's code that is being upgraded to GPLv3 with code changes (you are still free to hold on to their GPLv2 code without updating)
And the other main beef that people have is the "and later versions" clause in GPLv3, but you are free to remove that if you want as a developer of your own code (Not so much if you are using someone else's code! But no one is forcing to use other people's work instead of making you own!)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Key word: *community* (Score:2)
It's all about marketing. Microsoft is successful only to the extent they can control the market. Market dominance and market control are one and the same to Microsoft.
Controlling the market is two parts controlling the distribution chain, and one part controlling public opinion. Microsoft's Li
Microsoft does not have enough money for that. (Score:3, Interesting)
Microsoft may be very rich but they do not have enough income to hire enough developers to fork every open source project.
Customers and stockholders would be very angry if MSFT diverted a large part of their current staff to forking open source projects. They can't just pull the open source work into their existing teams because of the possibility of contamination of their precious source code assets with some Open Source or - horror! GPLv
3 problems: Samba, GNU Coreutils and Tar. (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't they know that those packages are GPL v3?
In other words, Microsoft ether has to rewrite those packages themselves, break the distro into an unusuable state, or drop any Linux deals.
Or give up on the patent saber rattling.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft really doesn't want to test the GPL because there's a good chance it will get kinetic weight from a legal standpoint, which would be bad.
pleading in the alternative (Score:5, Interesting)
In a lawsuit, it is possible to argue multiple theories of liability, or multiple theories of innocence. As long as each theory is internally consistent, they don't all have to be consistent with each other. It's the legal version of throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks... and when you're just getting started, you don't want to leave stuff out by mistake, becuase there might be a chance that if you don't bring it up at the beginning you won't be allowed to bring it up later.
The classic example is: Your buddy says, "You bastard, you slept with my wife!" If this was a lawsuit, you might respond
a. No I didn't!
b. You said that I could!
c. She wasn't your wife!
d. I thought she was someone else!
e. I was insane!
This would be OK, becuase even though (d) seems to contradict (a), that doesn't automatically mean that (a) is invalid, even though BOTH statements can't be true at the same time. These are all alternative theories of how you might avoid blame/liability for the act, and in filing or responding to lawsuits, this practice is known as alternative pleading. [wikipedia.org]
In that context, Microsoft's GPLv3 statement doesn't need to be consistent- although it is unusual to see this kind of logical construct outside of a court document. The press release reads like they're anticipating a lawsuit, and they're trying to get their story straight ahead of time... In this situation, their story is plausible deniability. and it doesn't matter which alternative theory ends up working, as long as one of them does the job.
So it's perfectly legit for MS to use alternate theories to justify their actions- it just reeks of bad faith when their public position is so openly contradictory. It does seem pretty odd that Microsoft is using legal tactics to write their press releases- almost like they've got something to hide.
Re:pleading in the alternative (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, thank you for demonstrating why legal stuff seems so damned asinine to the rest of us.
Sure, we can argue five different things, no two of which can be self-consistent, but as long as we can get someone to give us the go ahead on one of those, then we'll act like that was the truth and our position the whole time.
Or, when you put conflicting statements in front of anyone but a bunch of lawyers, everyone else will call shenanigans and point out you were full of crap from the get go?
I mean
I'm sure someone could post a boring explanation as to WHY you can argue several contradictory points. It would only serve to reinforce to me that law in this realm isn't so much about truth, as being able to convince someone that something might not actually be false (even though it clearly is). Sadly, I'm sure there's very good reasons why we need to have this in law. It just seems so
Cheers
Re: (Score:2)
Very simple case of pleading in the alternative:
Tweedle Dee & Tweedle Dum, identical twins, work for the Jabberwock security firm, which was hired to protect Alice. Both are seen entering the single door to the room she is in. When they leave five minutes later, the White Rabbit discovers that she has been strangled. DNA evidence shows that one of the twins did it. Either way, their employer is liable.
This could be plead in the alternative in the civil case (and p
Re: (Score:2)
It's a logically valid method of argument. Consider if you were trying to make a mathematical proof for some theorem, but it was hard to predict ahead of time whether a given proof is valid. You construct several proofs which have a decent chance of being valid, even if they're
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But I am
This isn't legal advice. If you look to slashdot for legal advice, you need a shrink far worse than a lawyer.
The logical end of pleading in the alternative is referred to as "the Cheshire Cat" defense. Similar tol your list, it's to the effect that, "I wasn't there. If I was, I didn't do it. If I did, it was really my cat. But it wasn't my cat, it was the Cheshire Cat . .
Anyway, there's nothing inconsistent between microsoft's positions here. "That's nonsense, i
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Did I say that all of the statements were contradictory?
no.
(a) and (d) can be true at the same time provided that the woman in question was not the plaintiff's wife. It is entirely consistent. The woman in question was not the plaintiff's wife, and the defendant did not _think_ that the woman in question was not the plaintiff's wife.
speck, eye, log, misplaced double negative- if the defendant thought the woman he slept with was the plaintiff's wife, he could not make statement (d). You're not allowe
Re: (Score:2)
Re:An other example of GPL3 suckyness (Score:5, Interesting)
The loopholes were just that: sneaky ways to evade the intentions of most of the most important contributors in the realm of FOSS. I have no problem with businesses making money using FOSS, and many of them do it in a way that is not only compatible with the intentions of the GPL, but actively promotes the cause of free software. However, those businesses who were exploiting loopholes in the GPL knew that they were not promoting our interests, and therefore should not be surprised when the community shifts to close those loopholes. Such a shift will only alienate businesses who were not helping "the cause" anyways.
The GPLv3 is not perfect, and is not a perfect license. I don't think that every project should switch to GPLv3... for some the GPLv2 may be a better match. However GPLv3 was crafted to address a very real problem, and judging from Microsoft's reaction, it is doing a great job in that regard.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I think the rules changed when Microsoft (or the companies before them) started shaking down everyone with their patent portfolio. I would be more willing to take your side if Microsoft had the courtesy to tell everyone what patents linux was violating. As it stands, Microsoft is the king of suck, and I do not see this zebra changing it's stripes anytime soon.
Re:An other example of GPL3 suckyness (Score:5, Interesting)
In short, GPLv3 really made "Open Source" more like "Closed Source" by clearly pointing out that what you may be allowed to do now you may not be allowed to do later (unless you fork and thus lose the community aspect that made it interesting in the first place).
After all, who's to say GPLv4 won't say "you must release any changes back to the community whether you distribute or not" ?
GPLv3 is the best possible thing that could have happened to Closed Source vendors because it just kicked the chair out from under most of the arguments in favor of Open Source.
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright law is what gives the GPL teeth. Copyright law says that you can't distribute at all without permission. The GPL says you can distribute as long as you meet certain criteria.
Now do you understand why the GPL can't place requirements on people who don't distribute?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually it does.
If you link to a GPL library *even if you never distribute that library* your application becomes bound by the terms of the GPL.
That's the whole Mysql business model in fact.
Re:An other example of GPL3 suckyness (Score:5, Insightful)
What gives you any better choice?
When you buy Windows Vista, and you agree to the EULA, what exactly is it giving you the right to, except the license to run the binaries AS IT EXISTS NOW?
I "get" the purpose of GPL3. I "get" why companies like MS object to it. What I don't "get" is why this is an issue. The GPL2 is still there. BSD is still there. Apache is still there. Use those.
But implying that the GPL3 is taking something away from users is pretty silly. You know the score before you start... you get the candy for free, but you have to always share it with anybody who asks. If that's not okay, then don't use it! It doesn't limit your rights in any way.
Re:An other example of GPL3 suckyness (Score:4, Insightful)
Specifically, you are getting the cart before the horse. Company XYZ doesn't pick an arbitrary project from SourceForge and, strictly out of the goodness of their heart, task several paid programmers with working on it - with the goal of someday using it. Rather, they start using an existing product which is established (Linux, Apache, etc), and after heavy use realize that contributing to it is in their own best interest. Linux was successful BEFORE IBM invested a dime in it. Apache was successful before any corporation officially contributed a single line of code.
How exactly do you think corporations are going to "block" GPLv3 code? By the time the sofware is worth blocking, it has either gained a following or failed. If it already has a following, the only choice the corporation has is whether to jump on the bandwagon. 90% of corporations are USERS, not developers. GPLv3 makes absolutely no difference to my boss since he's not planning on redistributing any of the code. If 7Zip comes with GPLv3 rather than GPLv2, you really think he's going to skip on it and pay $40/license for WinZip?
Re: (Score:2)
Now you're using a nice LGPL library. It goes LGPL3 (which I presume will exist at some point) - same question. Back to the lawyers.
All of this cost time, money and uncertainty. Most businesses will take
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yeah, and "blah blah I don't get the point of the GPL blah blah" - protecting free software from MS's "embrace and extend" strategies is quite high on the FSF's list of priorities, and rightfully so.
Re: (Score:2)
If they were going to use another kernel, they'd take one of the BSD kernels so that they could retain more control.
Re: (Score:2)
And for the cost aspect, Windows makes them incredible amounts of money. Enough so that it, combined with Office, subsidizes everything else the company does. They make enough that they can lose a billion dollars a year from the Xbox division and
Re: (Score:2)