On Jul 19, 2008, Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:

> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 21:04:49 -0700 (PDT)
> Antonio Olivares <olivares14031@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> ZFS was included in FreeBSD 7.0 because the BSD license is more free than the GPL with that regard.

> And if NetApp win against Sun they can sue FreeBSD now, for triple
> damages which would be millions and the end of FreeBSD.

Err... Is there any reason NetApp would have to wait for the end of
the lawsuit with Sun to sue FreeBSD out of existence?

--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

On Jul 19, 2008, Antonio Olivares <olivares14031@yahoo.com> wrote:

> one of the authors of the GPL Alexandre Oliva.

FTR, I don't regard myself as one of the authors of GPLv3. Although I
have participated in the process to some extent, and contributed a few
ideas that ended up in the final version, I didn't write any of the
sentences in it.

--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

> Err... Is there any reason NetApp would have to wait for
> the end of
> the lawsuit with Sun to sue FreeBSD out of existence?
>
> --

Even if they did not wait, Sun would protect them

http://blogs.sun.com/jonathan/entry/harvesting_from_a_troll

<quote>
First, the basics. Sun indemnifies all its customers against IP claims like this. That is, we've always protected our markets from trolls, so customers can continue to use ZFS without concern for spurious patent and copyright issues. We stand behind our innovation, and our customers.

Second, Sun protects the communities using our technologies under free software licenses. As an example, Apple is including ZFS is in their upcoming "Leopard" OS X release. This is happening without any payment to Sun (that's how truly free software works). Under the license, we've waived all rights to sue them for any of the patents or copyright associated with ZFS. We've let Apple know we will use our patent portfolio to protect them and the Mac ZFS community from Net App. With or without a commercial relationship to Sun.
That's true for any licensee - in fact, Net App could adopt ZFS today and receive the same protection. The port is done to FreeBSD, the OS on which Net App's filers are built. They could use it without owing us a dime, and they'd be protected from our portfolio. (The quid pro quo? They'd have to agree to offer reciprocal protection to Sun.)
</quote>

Regards,

Antonio




--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

> FTR, I don't regard myself as one of the authors of
> GPLv3. Although I
> have participated in the process to some extent, and
> contributed a few
> ideas that ended up in the final version, I didn't
> write any of the
> sentences in it.
>
> --

Sorry for the misunderstanding
Since you posted a draft on the list, I thought you were one of the authors . I apologize and sorry for mentioning the Tivo battles, since I saw your name in the exchanges with Linus Torvalds. Your name is also mentioned in the cdrkit vs cdrtools thread that discusses the incompatibilites in GPL vs CDDL licenses. Like I have mentioned before some Linux Distros still keep cdrtools and have never adopted the cdrkit cd burning software(fork of cdrecord). They do not consider the issue as critical?

Your name is mentioned in the Tivo battles with GPL() and Linus Torvalds

http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/17/298

The language, the wording and clauses here and clauses there are very hard to interpret. It is no wonder that many people do not like the GPL because of the bad things, the good things are the ones that keep it going The binary kernel modules is a gray area as well

Regards,

Antonio




--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

> > And if NetApp win against Sun they can sue FreeBSD now, for triple
> > damages which would be millions and the end of FreeBSD.
>
> Err... Is there any reason NetApp would have to wait for the end of
> the lawsuit with Sun to sue FreeBSD out of existence?

For two reasons

1. Any suit before then would be held up until after the first case
decided the validity

2. Once the Sun case was decided it would be rather hard to argue any
uncertainty or doubt and avoid triple damages.

Not btw that I think netapp would do such a thing.

Alan

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

On Jul 18, 2008, Antonio Olivares <olivares14031@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> Code that is freely available doesn't need protection as nothing
>> can happen to it other then someone else using and improving it
>> which is a good thing regardless of what else happens to that copy
>> subsequently.

> I am sure many would disagree with this,

o.

It's a good thing as long as it doesn't bring harm. The control
excised through non-Free Software does bring harm.

> The code has to be protected in some way to ensure that someone/or a
> company cannot claim the code to be theirs

Does this matter?

> and start selling it

Is this a problem?

> and not give anything back. This is the good side of the GPL if
> there is one.

Forcing someone to give back would make the Software non-Free. The
GPL doesn't do that. It requires payforward, not payback. See
http://fsfla.org/blogs/lxo/draft/gplv3-snowwhite

> The components can be shared, you just have to use the GPL and
> license your work on it. This is like I scratch your back, but you
> will also scratch mine.

More like I scratch your back, you will scratch someone else's back.

In Brazil, it's common for beggers to thank with a phrase such as "May
God pay you back". They realize they probably won't ever be able to
return the favor in kind, so they resort to asking some superior being
to intervene. I'm often tempted to respond to this with something
like "The day you're in my shoes and you find someone else in yours,
please pay back then, not to me, but to this other fellow human
being."

This is the nature of the GPL.

--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

On Jul 18, 2008, Antonio Olivares <olivares14031@yahoo.com> wrote:

> However, we now now that there are GPL police out there and
> enforcing the GPL on people who modify the freely available code out
> there, but do not share their modifications

This is not a very accurate picture.

There's no GPL enforcement whatsoever involved in the actions you
describe above.

It's not a GPL violation or copyright infringement to modify software
under the GPL. It's not a GPL violatino or copyright infringement to
keep your modifications private to yourself.

What is a violation that may amount to copyright infringement is to
distribute the software, modified or not, under conditions other than
those established in the GPL, such that recipients are unable to enjoy
the same freedoms that the distributor could enjoy as to the software.

> Does the GPL protect Linux users across the globe against malicious
> lawsuits claiming ownership of programs that are used?

It can't. Anyone can sue anyone else for any reason whatsoever, no
matter how reasonable the reason is.

The GPL can't possibly say anything as to the authorship of a program.
Say, if I take some program you wrote and, without your permission,
distribute it under the GPL, as if it was mine, myself and everyone
else can be sued by you for copyright infringement, no matter what the
GPL says or could say. That I attached the GPL to it doesn't make it
a legitimate licensing action, because I don't have authority to grant
any license whatsoever over the code you wrote.

> I also wonder if the GPL is a true open source model?

Does this matter? The GPL is about Free Software. The Open Source
Definition was an attempt to spell out the Free Software Definition in
criteria easier to assess. A failed attempt, while at that, because
it accepts licenses that most definitely don't respect the 4 essential
freedoms that make up the Free Software definition.

But yes, all 3 existing versions of the GPL match both definitions,
and, perhaps more importantly, are within the spirit of both
definitions.

> Some posts here are pointing that it is not

Those stem from confusion between freedom and power. One's freedom
doesn't invade others'; one's power is used to do so. GPL doesn't
grant power, it only goes as far as respecting freedom. Its
conditions don't stop anyone from enjoying any of the four freedoms;
if someone feels prohibited from doing something by the GPL, odds are
that they're dismissing some other more fundamental restriction
they're under, or accepted from someone else, and are shifting onto
the GPL the blame for this other restriction.

, I am still confused because of too much jargon present.

> The GPL then violates #9 in the definition

> 9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software

It doesn't, really. It applies to a program, and to other works
derived from the program. It doesn't apply to works that are merely
aggregated in the same distribution medium, without forming a single
program under copyright law.

--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

> > The GPL then violates #9 in the definition
>
> > 9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software
>
> It doesn't, really. It applies to a program, and to
> other works
> derived from the program. It doesn't apply to works
> that are merely
> aggregated in the same distribution medium, without forming
> a single
> program under copyright law.
>
> --

Then how could the fork of cdrecords had to be created if it was not Restrict Other Software?

http://lwn.net/Articles/198171/

What is the real explanation then?
The explanations that I have read are not very convincing
The arguments are very much red tape and political in nature

Is this a case of a misinterpretation of the GPL?

Regards,

Antonio






--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

> > However, we now now that there are GPL police out
> there and
> > enforcing the GPL on people who modify the freely
> available code out
> > there, but do not share their modifications
>
> This is not a very accurate picture.
>
> There's no GPL enforcement whatsoever involved in the
> actions you
> describe above.
>
> It's not a GPL violation or copyright infringement to
> modify software
> under the GPL. It's not a GPL violatino or copyright
> infringement to
> keep your modifications private to yourself.

Try telling Zenwalk and Mepis that

http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS4218186268.html

http://www.mepis.org/source

http://beranger.org/index.php?page=diary&2008/01/18/22/49/54-zenwalk-5-0-is-not-an-option-mep

>
> What is a violation that may amount to copyright
> infringement is to
> distribute the software, modified or not, under conditions
> other than
> those established in the GPL, such that recipients are
> unable to enjoy
> the same freedoms that the distributor could enjoy as to
> the software.
>

This is clearly a question of what are the requirements as established by the GPL. That is why they were accused of GPL violations. They made their modifications of freely available code, but they did not release their modifications This is why they were caught and the GPL police got after them and that is why the Mepis website offers the source at their page. This is where Fedora is at its best. Even though many things are restricted , they have the sources readily available and can get the sources for most packages. There are src rpms and available on many mirrors

Regards,

Antonio




--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Bruno Wolff III wrote:


When the AT&T monopoly was sensibly split up, it was then able to


I think just plain split up is a better description. I think history has
shown that the split wasn't done "sensibly" and unfortunately we aren't
going to get a do over any time soon.


You haven't noticed the dismembered Bell's crawling back together to
resurrect the monster? Plus of, course devouring Cingular. (I'm not a
big fan of huge corporations...).


--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com


--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list