Announcement

**woodsmoke** · Mar 22, 2018, 12:13 AM

People with power do what they want to do and the people without power get on desktops and shout "I'm not gonna take it anymore"... and then swallow the whole thing because...they have no power.

woodjustahardwarekindaguysmoke

**kubicle** · Mar 22, 2018, 02:01 AM

Originally posted by GreyGeek View Post

That's some interesting legal buzz-wording but doesn't the "cure" really spell the end of the GPLv2 by forcing users to the GPLv3? And, if "violators" do not comply they may suffer the wrath of lawyers from Microsoft, SUSE, RH, and other corporations that have a long history of not being favorable the GPLv2.

Not really. The difference between GPL2 and GPL3 in this context is what happens if someone violates the GPL (for example, distributes without making source available):

With GPL2, the violator will lose all the rights provided by the GPL, and can only get those rights back if the copyright holders (even with the GPL, writers of the code have copyright) restore those rights. This is commonly done after the violator ceases the violations and complies with the GPL. However, this can be tricky as a software project might have hundreds or even thousands of developers (or copyright holders), and they would basically all have to agree (unless they have ceded their copyright to someone else...like their employer, but that's another story).

With GPL3, the violator can get their rights back directly just by ceasing the violations and by complying with the GPL, provided that no copyright holder actively denies them those rights within a 60 day period after compliance (this is a bit of a simplification, but catches the main idea). This is simpler for all the "actors" in the open source ecosystem.

Developers can still choose whichever version of the license they prefer, but IMO the GPL3 is vastly preferable (in this regard, at least). After all, to spread open source software (and their licenses), it's better to "help and encourage" violators abide by the GPL thanto run them out of business (or sue for cash). We should also keep in mind that not all violations are malicious (or even intentional), so it really makes it easier for companies to use GPL software if they know that possible violations are "recoverable".

"The movement" is about the participants committing to adopting similar mechanism (as the GPL3) with all the software (released under the GPL2 and similar licenses) the participants hold copyright over. It does not affect copyright holders that are not among the participants, nor does it change the license for those copyright holders, or the GPL license itself. The participants are basically saying: "While this software is GPL2 (or similar), as copyright holders we grant you back your rights if you comply with the GPL after a violation (as if this software was GPL3)." Of course, this applies only to the copyright holders that are participants, other copyright holders' rights are unchanged.

**GreyGeek** · Mar 22, 2018, 05:37 AM

Originally posted by kubicle View Post

Not really. The difference between GPL2 and GPL3 in this context is what happens if someone violates the GPL (for example, distributes without making source available):

With GPL2, the violator will lose all the rights provided by the GPL, and can only get those rights back if the copyright holders (even with the GPL, writers of the code have copyright) restore those rights. This is commonly done after the violator ceases the violations and complies with the GPL. However, this can be tricky as a software project might have hundreds or even thousands of developers (or copyright holders), and they would basically all have to agree (unless they have ceded their copyright to someone else...like their employer, but that's another story).

With GPL3, the violator can get their rights back directly just by ceasing the violations and by complying with the GPL, provided that no copyright holder actively denies them those rights within a 60 day period after compliance (this is a bit of a simplification, but catches the main idea). This is simpler for all the "actors" in the open source ecosystem.

Developers can still choose whichever version of the license they prefer, but IMO the GPL3 is vastly preferable (in this regard, at least). After all, to spread open source software (and their licenses), it's better to "help and encourage" violators abide by the GPL thanto run them out of business (or sue for cash). We should also keep in mind that not all violations are malicious (or even intentional), so it really makes it easier for companies to use GPL software if they know that possible violations are "recoverable".

"The movement" is about the participants committing to adopting similar mechanism (as the GPL3) with all the software (released under the GPL2 and similar licenses) the participants hold copyright over. It does not affect copyright holders that are not among the participants, nor does it change the license for those copyright holders, or the GPL license itself. The participants are basically saying: "While this software is GPL2 (or similar), as copyright holders we grant you back your rights if you comply with the GPL after a violation (as if this software was GPL3)." Of course, this applies only to the copyright holders that are participants, other copyright holders' rights are unchanged.

That’s an excellent explanation and is basically what I thought about the situation. My concern, however, is how, why and when did Microsoft become a defender of “cancer”? And when did SUSE renounce its assertion that Linux violates Microsoft’s IP (for what it thought would be an economic advantage over other distros) while, at the same time, violate the terms of the GPL by forbidding users from making “archival copies” without first obtaining written permission? RedHat & IBM? Confusing.

As one commenter asks, “Embrace, extend, ...?”

After the long history of Microsoft I have been conditioned to the smell of a rat.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**kubicle** · Mar 22, 2018, 07:35 AM

Originally posted by GreyGeek View Post

That’s an excellent explanation and is basically what I thought about the situation. My concern, however, is how, why and when did Microsoft become a defender of “cancer”? And when did SUSE renounce its assertion that Linux violates Microsoft’s IP (for what it thought would be an economic advantage over other distros)

Well, the GPL isn't really all about linux (even though the linux kernel is probably the most widely known GPL project). There is a lot of GPL code out there, and GPL software is used, developed and distributed by many companies (including Microsoft).

And yes, Microsoft has recently been contributing code even to the linux kernel (obviously under the GPL). They have their own interest in doing so, naturally (submitting code that improves Windows virtual guest systems under linux hosts, or vice versa), but that's true for basically everyone that contributes to the kernel...it is not about altruism, it is "scratching your own itch".

Therefore, Microsoft does hold copyright over parts of the linux kernel (that is, over their own contributions), but since it's released under the GPL, it will be free to use for anyone, forever (provided the user's of the code follow the provisions of the GPL, of course). So they really can't use their copyright of those parts of the kernel to twist anyone's arm. (Technically, under the GPL2, they could refuse to reinstate the rights to use their contributed code that someone has lost by violating the GPL, but as part of this movement, they have declared that the rights can be recovered by complying with the GPL again, so this is definitely an improvement in that regard...and on the other hand, someone might do the same for Microsoft if they violated the GPL, which is likely part of the reason why they think this movement is in their best interest as well, since they do use GPL code themselves.[ https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/legal/products/notices ])

...components licensed under open source licenses requiring that such components remain under their original license, such as the GNU General Public License (GPL) or the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL), are being made available to you by Microsoft under their original licensing terms.

The movement also isn't really about "defending" the GPL, it's more about making the use of GPL2 software/code a safer choice (and more like the GPL3) when there are many copyright holders/contributors. GPL2 was written at a time when such a thing was quite inconceivable. The movement's effectiveness obviously depends on whether most if not all major contributors join in (it doesn't help much if you can get back the GPL rights for let's say 40% of the code, while 60% is still under someone else's (who hasn't joined the movement) copyright.

Originally posted by GreyGeek View Post

while, at the same time, violate the terms of the GPL by forbidding users from making “archival copies” without first obtaining written permission? RedHat & IBM? Confusing.

Which distributor of GPL software claims that you need written permission to make archival copies? I'm genuinely interested, as that would clearly violate the GPL.

**TWPonKubuntu** · Mar 22, 2018, 10:44 AM

I saw something like this coming when Micro$oft was allowed to join the Linux Foundation...

Camels nose under the tent...

What do you do with 1000 Lawyers with nobody left to sue? Create work for them.

**GreyGeek** · Mar 22, 2018, 12:37 PM

Originally posted by kubicle View Post

...
Which distributor of GPL software claims that you need written permission to make archival copies? I'm genuinely interested, as that would clearly violate the GPL.

An excellent reply, kubicle.

The distributor was SUSE. I began using SuSE with 5.3 in Sept of 1998. I used it until Novell bought it. The first thing Novell did on the SuSE forum was to announce that OpenSUSE (they renamed it) users needed to call a phone number (listed in msg) or write to (address given) in order to obtain permission to make archival copies of one's SuSE installation or install disks. It caused an explosive response on the forum. My response was to replace SuSE wirth a distro that honored the GPL. The explosion was apparently unanticipated by Hovsepian and his lawyers, and so was the massive drop in interest in OpenSUSE at the time. Within a couple weeks they did a mea culpa and renounced their demand. Shortly following that disaster, in 2006, they had a joint announcement with Microsoft announcing their collaboration in purchasing licenses from Microsoft to "legally" use Linux.

Fortunately, the Microsoft succeeded only in eating the heart out of Novell, not Linux.

How could Microsoft exploit the GPL? Easy. Release a lot of code under the GPL that is useful primarily only on Windows, much the way Apple did. Get people hooked on using that code if it is incorporated into Linux or Linux distros. After a period of time stop supporting the code but keep a proprietary version of it running only on Windows.

I am seeing a similar play in action now with Minecraft. Initially, MS said everything would be as it was before. And, for a couple years it seemed so. The Java edition (once the only edition) was regularly updated and improved. At the 2016 E3 Microsoft made the announcement. In part:

This is how Microsoft chose to announce the unification of Minecraft across platforms during their E3 conference. Once the Better Together Update hits in the summer, the game’s editions on Windows 10, Xbox One, Nintendo Switch, mobile, and VR will simply be called ‘Minecraft’. They will share DLC - and players - in fulfilment of a plan the publishers have been working towards since they bought out Notch in 2014.

It’s a good plan. But as a side effect, the Minecraft so many of us own and play has been sidelined. Minecraft: Java Edition - the original Minecraft - is not invited to Microsoft’s unification party, and neither is the ginormous modding community that has sustained it for this long.

Unification achieved by cutting out all non-Windows tools and platforms. It was what I feared would happen, thought it wouldn't after a couple years of nice improvements, but then the hammer came down. The last version of Minecraft Java will be the end of Minecraft for me and my grandsons. I also noted that MS is cutting off access to the server version as well. That will force users to purchase MS's online server version, which did cost $7/mo when I tried it for 3 months in 2015. Unfortunately, it did not allow access to "gamemode creative", so one could not customize a map.

Microsoft cut me off at the knees before. They acquired Visual FoxPro and within a year or two began a campaign to move VFP developers to .NET. I watched the whole campaign unfold in the VFP forum of the Universal Thread. 240,000 VFP developers were cut off at the knees, with their only options being to move to .NET or find another dev tool. Thankfully, I found a superior tool in the Qt API running on top of PosgreSQL.

I remember Microsoft corrupting the ISO certification organization itself by buying out the OOXML committee chairman in order to swing the vote away from ODT to OOXML, even though large chunks of Microsoft's OOXML was undefined. What has happened with Microsoft's OOXML since then? Only MS uses it. Britain recently adopted ODT as their document format standard.

A tiger cannot change its stripes. They are on the skin itself, not just the fur, and they are DNA deep. Microsoft's corruption goes to the core of its DNA, beginning with Gates, passing through Ballmer, and on to its current leadership. Embrace, Extend and Extinguish isn't just an idea, it is a working model that MS has finely tuned. The GPL will not be a barrier to that model, just something to go around.

**kubicle** · Mar 22, 2018, 03:20 PM

Originally posted by GreyGeek View Post

The distributor was SUSE. I began using SuSE with 5.3 in Sept of 1998. I used it until Novell bought it. The first thing Novell did on the SuSE forum was to announce that OpenSUSE (they renamed it) users needed to call a phone number (listed in msg) or write to (address given) in order to obtain permission to make archival copies of one's SuSE installation or install disks. It caused an explosive response on the forum. My response was to replace SuSE wirth a distro that honored the GPL. The explosion was apparently unanticipated by Hovsepian and his lawyers, and so was the massive drop in interest in OpenSUSE at the time. Within a couple weeks they did a mea culpa and renounced their demand.

Just out of interest, do you know of any publicly available records of this? I certainly don't doubt your words or recollections, and definitely wouldn't put it past Novell to do something like this, but I've never used suse and I'm not familiar of it's history...and couldn't find any details of this online (I mean the the demands for written permissions to make copies, not the acquisition...that one is common knowledge)

Originally posted by GreyGeek View Post

Shortly following that disaster, in 2006, they had a joint announcement with Microsoft announcing their collaboration in purchasing licenses from Microsoft to "legally" use Linux.

This one I do remember. At the time, it seemed to me that Novell was just milking Microsoft for cash (while Novell paid some money to Microsoft, there was a lot more money flowing the other way, IIRC).

Originally posted by GreyGeek View Post

How could Microsoft exploit the GPL? Easy. Release a lot of code under the GPL that is useful primarily only on Windows, much the way Apple did. Get people hooked on using that code if it is incorporated into Linux or Linux distros. After a period of time stop supporting the code but keep a proprietary version of it running only on Windows.

I wouldn't really call that "exploitation" of a license. And I don't really see the "profit" line for Microsoft in this scenario, as there are basically two ways something like this could play out:
1) Microsoft manages to create something really useful (a "killer app") that people can't live without. After they stop supporting it, the linux community picks it up and starts to maintain it (if it really is a "killer app", someone will pick it up). Microsoft has wasted resources and we get the code base for free (it's GPL licensed).
2) Microsoft creates an app that is not a killer app. After they stop supporting it, nobody cares. If some people do care (against the popular opinion), they get the code for free.
There aren't many people that would switch to windows for something that is *not* a killer app.

Originally posted by GreyGeek View Post

I am seeing a similar play in action now with Minecraft.

Minecraft is proprietary, right? If it were GPL, I'd bet someone would have forked the java version by now.

I hear your complaints about Microsoft software and business policies. They, like most companies, will maximize their profits by basically any means they can get away with...I'm just saying you can't "get away" with much under the GPL (There are some really clever minds behind most free software licenses)

**GreyGeek** · Mar 22, 2018, 06:18 PM

Originally posted by kubicle View Post

Just out of interest, do you know of any publicly available records of this? I certainly don't doubt your words or recollections, and definitely wouldn't put it past Novell to do something like this, but I've never used suse and I'm not familiar of it's history...and couldn't find any details of this online (I mean the the demands for written permissions to make copies, not the acquisition...that one is common knowledge)

...

A "forum" at that time was usually on UseNet. Today, UseNet is a subscription service and those old UseNet archives may not exist, or if they do it may cost $$$ to access them. IMO, UseNet was better than IRC.

SuSE had a UseNet account and one accessed it with a NewsReader. There were thousands of groups and hundreds of subgroups. I no longer remember exactly which group SuSE was in but when Novell bought SuSE in November of 2003 Novell took over their group on UseNet. It was in UseNet that the msg by "Mark" was posted demanding that users had to ask permission to make "archival" copies of the installation and/or the install disks was posted. The msg included the name of the secretary to call or write to to request the written permission. IOW, a license to copy, which was and is a direct violation of the GPL. The flashback was immediate and intense. Lots of users posted excerpts of the GPL which contradicted Mark's demand. At that time I had been using SuSE since Sept of 1998 (five years), and I posted that I was dropping SuSE and moving to another distro. My thinking was that if they'd try to that they'd try who knows what else? The MS + Novell thing proved that. I may even have screen captured "Mark"'s post from that time on a CD down in my garage.

**kubicle** · Mar 23, 2018, 12:47 AM

Originally posted by GreyGeek View Post

A "forum" at that time was usually on UseNet. Today, UseNet is a subscription service and those old UseNet archives may not exist, or if they do it may cost $$$ to access them. IMO, UseNet was better than IRC.

SuSE had a UseNet account and one accessed it with a NewsReader. There were thousands of groups and hundreds of subgroups. I no longer remember exactly which group SuSE was in but when Novell bought SuSE in November of 2003 Novell took over their group on UseNet. It was in UseNet that the msg by "Mark" was posted demanding that users had to ask permission to make "archival" copies of the installation and/or the install disks was posted. The msg included the name of the secretary to call or write to to request the written permission. IOW, a license to copy, which was and is a direct violation of the GPL. The flashback was immediate and intense. Lots of users posted excerpts of the GPL which contradicted Mark's demand. At that time I had been using SuSE since Sept of 1998 (five years), and I posted that I was dropping SuSE and moving to another distro. My thinking was that if they'd try to that they'd try who knows what else?

The MS + Novell thing proved that. I may even have screen captured "Mark"'s post from that time on a CD down in my garage.

Ah...newsgroups, I was subscribed to a few topics myself back in the day (including some general linux groups, but not anything tied to suse). At first I would have suspected a troll (which I recall were a real problem with newsgroup, as most topics weren't moderated), but I doubt a troll would later retract their demands. So it's likely people at Novell didn't understand the demands of GPL (not a good starting point for them).

And you don't have to hunt that CD on my account, I'll take your word for it. It's a great example of the power of the GPL, though, parties trying to get control over and against the GPL can't really get away with it.

**TWPonKubuntu** · Mar 23, 2018, 08:32 AM

Originally posted by kubicle View Post

... It's a great example of the power of the GPL, though, parties trying to get control over and against the GPL can't really get away with it.

Parties - Like Micro$oft? Who would have suspected them?

Announcement

Movement to enforce GPL compliance

Movement to enforce GPL compliance

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment