Archive for the 'fsf' Category
who really owns linux?
By Justin Silverton
The linux operating system is based on community. Many of the utilities and functionality are based on the hard work of open source developers from around the world. A recent article here is slightly disconcerting to me.
From the article:
“The Free Software Foundation is reviewing Novell Inc.’s
“The community of people wants to do anything they can to interfere with this deal and all deals like it. They have every reason to be deeply concerned that this is the beginning of a significant patent aggression by Microsoft,” Eben Moglen, the Foundation’s general counsel, said on Friday.
The foundation controls intellectual property rights to key parts of the open-source Linux operating system.
Novell angered members of the open-source community that develops Linux and other free software programs in November when it entered a wide-ranging business deal with Microsoft.
Critics called on the board to punish Novell by banning it from distributing new versions of Linux software, said Moglen.
Linux is the most popular variant of open-source software. Unlike proprietary software such as Microsoft Windows, open-source software lets developers share code and add functions and is generally available at no cost.
Moglen said the board has not made a decision on the matter but that he expects it to announce a ruling within two weeks.
If the foundation decides to take action, the ban would apply to new versions of Linux covered under a licensing agreement due to take effect in March”
I don’t necessarily agree with what Novell is doing, but why ban them from selling linux? If they haven’t violated the GNU in any way (although many might not like the fact that they are involved with Microsoft) I see no reason to ban them from selling linux.
I also find this very hypocritical from an organization that is against intellectual property (The only reason they can ban novell or any other company from selling linux is because they own the intellectual property on many of the tools that make up the operating system).
Update (2/4/07): A clarification of the above article has been posted here
Novell can still use and sell linux (and GNU based software) under the GPLv2. However, anything under the new license (GPLv3) they will not be able sell because of the patent dealings with Microsoft. This isn’t as bad as I originally thought, but it still makes me wonder how far the FSF will go to “protect” free software.
Companies should start stocking up on GPLv2 software.
Linus supports DRM, do you?
By Justin Silverton
The Free Software Foundation (FSF), established in 1985, is dedicated to promoting computer users’ rights to use, study, copy, modify, and redistribute computer programs. The FSF promotes the development and use of free software, particularly the GNU operating system, used widely in its GNU/Linux variant (from the FSF Website).
In a recent (Back In July) forum posting by Linus Torvald, he discusses his views on the FSF and the GPL 3 (some of his harsher words have been removed):
“My explanation for why the GPLv3 is bad is that if you make your decisions based on fear and loathing, they will be the wrong ones.
The whole point about the changes in the GPLv3 is to be “against” something else. That’s how the FSF has always acted, and I don’t know if you remember (or ever saw) the animosity between the BSD camps and the GPL camps, but a lot of it was because of how the FSF was preaching their religion as if it was “evil” to do anything else, even with the GPLv2.
And [deleted], I’m proud of the fact that Linux helped change that mental landscape. There were other projects (and certainly other people) too, but Linux was one big part of the movement away from that horrible “us vs them” mindset.”
I agree with Linus here. I wrote an article about the badvista campaign a few weeks ago. This is an example of this type of mentality. Rather than focusing on the merits of the GPL and using open source, the negatives of the competition (IE: Microsoft) are showcased.
Here are his views on the DRM:
“Just as a very concrete example, the anti-DRM stance of the GPLv3 is not only anti-Tivo, it’s also anti-security. Exactly because it tries to make a non-technical stand on a technical issue, one that has very real impact on real behaviour.
The fact is, that signed binaries are not only a good idea, they are an integral part of pretty much any security scheme. Every time you do a “yum upgrade”, you tend to be getting a lot of binary packages that were signed with a key that you are not going to get access to, because if you had access to that key, the whole security model would break down.
So a sane person will not say “you cannot stop execution of a binary based on a key that users don’t have access to”, because a sane person realizes that this is very fundamental technology, and that it’s a technical issue, not a political one.”
I don’t agree with this stance. Digital Rights Management by itself is not a bad idea. It allows companies to protect their intellectual property, whether it’s music, movies, or any other type of digital content. The problem is that Microsoft (and other companies with the DRM in their best interest) are trying to force it on us. It may not happen all at once, but eventually, we may only be able to play DRM content on our computers and music players.
also discussed is a passage directly removed from version 2 of the license:
“And I’m trying to protect users from idiots that think that it’s a good idea to make technical choices on non-technical grounds. Notice how the GPLv2 (the good one) didn’t do that. It even made expressly clear that the act of “running” the program was not restricted in any way, shape or form.
Here’s a quote from section 0 in GPLv2 that is totally gone in version 3, and people should think long and hard about the fact that the new version is a big change in this area:
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does.
So do me a favour, and stop talking [deleted], and start actually thinking deeper about the very fundamental changes that the GPLv3 introduces. Also, do give the people who actually wrote the code that the license is supposed to cover some respect.”
More of this thoughts can be found here
Should mysql be using GPLV3?
By Justin Silverton
In a recent announcement:
“MySQL has today refined its licensing scheme from “GPLv2 or later” to “GPLv2 only“, in order to make it an option, not an obligation for the company to move to GPLv3.
Specifically, this means that copyright notice in the MySQL source code files will change from referring to “either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version” to “version 2” only, in the MySQL 5.0 and MySQL 5.1 code bases”
Mysql is one of the best examples of a successful open source project and it is used by many businesses and people around the Internet.
If the FSF wants free software to be widely supported and used by the masses (which seems to be one of their main goals), they need to start looking more at the needs of businesses (which may actually get us better driver support for linux).
Although the FSF is still in the drafting process of the GPLV3, there are still some big changes that will most likely make it to the final version:
- GPL software can is not compatible with digital rights managements (DRM)
- Patents cannot be used to make free software non-free
- If your work communicates with an online service, it must be possible for modified versions to communicate with the same online service in the same way such that the service cannot distinguish
more information can be found here
A more restrictive license is not the answer. This will make businesses think twice before deciding to use or contribute to free software.
badvista.org…bad for open source?
By Justin Silverton
About a week ago, the Free software foundation launched the badvista campaign. It is decribed in their own words as
“a campaign with a twofold mission of exposing the harms inflicted on computer users by the new Microsoft Windows Vista and promoting free software alternatives that respect users’ security and privacy rights.”
“Vista is an upsell masquerading as an upgrade. It is an overall regression when you look at the most important aspect of owning and using a computer: your control over what it does. Obviously MS Windows is already proprietary and very restrictive, and well worth rejecting. But the new ‘features’ in Vista are a Trojan Horse to smuggle in even more restrictions. We’ll be focusing attention on detailing how they work, how to resist them, and why people should care”.
and finally, the main focus and message of this campaign:
“Our campaign will ask the important questions. Can you set yourself or your company free? Can you ever be free from Microsoft? As with our campaign against Digital Restrictions Management, we aim to demonstrate that technologists can be social activists, because we know the harm that Vista will cause”
Although this is a concern, it should not be the main focus of a new campaign from the free software foundation. The main focus should be the benefits of using free and open software, not the reasons against upgrading to the latest and greatest Microsoft Product.
Many companies that would benefit from this look at Microsoft as an example of a successful business. This new campaign may just alienate them even further from using linux and other open source applications/technologies.
If the Free Software Foundation ever wants to be taken seriously, they will need to stop these types of negative campaigns.