openSUSE 10.2 RC1 has been released: “I’m glad to announce Release Candidate 1 of openSUSE 10.2 codename Basilisk Lizard. It contains a large number of enhancements and updates done by the open source community and Novell’s development teams. Screenshot walkthrough here.
OpenSUSE 10.2 RC1 Released
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Quick… download now before our deal with Microsoft ends and you’re vulnerable to getting sued again…
Quick… download now before our deal with Microsoft ends and you’re vulnerable to getting sued again…
It looks good, and it is still the best distro with KDE around – apart from the rather naff looking start menu. It’s just such a pity it has to be tarnished by this stuff, and by politics. Novell doesn’t deserve OpenSuse.
Does anyone know if you can actually use an Atheros based wireless card with this thing now?
Edited 2006-11-23 22:24
+1 because IMO there is nothing off-topic or offensive in your comment
Who is the one modding valid comments down – I modded something like 5 valid comments on the WM review up again to 1 because they were at 0 .
Actually I agree with you – Novell doesnt deserbge SuSE – getting tarnished by the stuff you mentioned .
Reg Atheros – cant find anything – supossedly the madwifi packages werent included in 10.1 due to stability probs – but look for madwifi on opensuse I guess .
It looks good, and it is still the best distro with KDE around – apart from the rather naff looking start menu.
Agreed and agreed. And grateful that a simple right-click on the lizard allows you to select the old K Menu.
It’s just such a pity it has to be tarnished by this stuff, and by politics.
The agreement specifically didn’t touch openSuse, so for the people tarnishing because of reactionary politics and jumping ship, that’s fine, I say good riddance because they have little to offer and there’s a wealth of people in the community still willing to support it.
Novell doesn’t deserve OpenSuse.
I’m torn on this one because without Novell, there wouldn’t be an openSuse. Suse proper didn’t really have the community that openSuse has been able to generate, and I think Novell did raise the bar with their investment in the distro.
I wasn’t impressed with overt interference with the development team by forcing the inclusion of the pathetically untested and underdeveloped zmd infrastructure in 10.1. It was a bad decision that every other distro should learn from. Zmd was a political decision that was one-part “force mono whether it’s needed or not” and one-part “get this bugger tested in time for SLED” and the worst part was this it offered absolutely nothing tangible for the openSuse community since it was, by design, intended for use in Novell’s zenworks management infrastructure.
But then again, the developers (virtually all of whom readily admit what a bad idea that was, even at the time) have worked around it in 10.2, KDE users have the option to ditch the zmd-infrastructure and use a package manager without zmd’s resource-sucking overhead mono-dependencies (is that redundant with the first point?
) yet still offers a CLI interface, delta RPM capability, and bi-arch support. Many people fell back to Smart in 10.1, but Smart lacked the last two advantages. Plus Yast has been exponentially improved performance-wise and is more useable than it was even prior to 10.1.
Gnome users are still encumbered with zmd, at least until 10.3 comes out.
Does anyone know if you can actually use an Atheros based wireless card with this thing now?
Not OOTB. They provide most of the pieces, but won’t provide the madwifi drivers. Madwifi does maintain a repo though with builds for the current Suse kernels, and they have been maintaining them through the 10.2 test cycle so it’s simply a case of adding it as a source (http://madwifi.org/suse/) to install the kmp and remain current with updates.
More info here: http://en.opensuse.org/Atheros_madwifi
I’ve been using 10.2 since mid-Alpha with constant updates from factory, I’m running x86_64 on a Turion x2 laptop and it performs very impressively. I can forgive the mistake with package management in 10.1 since they seem to have learned from that instead of pretending there was nothing wrong and forging straight-ahead,.
And the difference between openSUSE and SLED (SUSE) is…
Why are you people trashing openSUSE’s name??? Yes, they are sponsored by Novell. So what. If RedHat would sign the same agreement with MS would you trash Fedora’s name also?
If RedHat would sign the same agreement with MS would you trash Fedora’s name also?
They never will.
If RedHat would sign the same agreement with MS would you trash Fedora’s name also?
They never will.
Never say “never”, when dealing with software, patents, or politics.
And the difference between openSUSE and SLED (SUSE) is…
Virtually nothing, apart from the ‘Enterprise‘ badge which Novell slaps on SLED to try and sell it for a grossly inflated fee. Bring back Suse Linux Professional, that’s what I say. Part of the justification for that enterprise tag and that grossly inflated fee is that you are supposedly indemnified. That’s all Novell have to sell it, and that’s the point.
Why are you people trashing openSUSE’s name??? Yes, they are sponsored by Novell.
OpenSuse isn’t just sponsored by Novell. It is run by them.
If RedHat would sign the same agreement with MS would you trash Fedora’s name also?
Probably, yes, because people don’t know where they would stand with it. Fortunately, Red Hat isn’t that stupid. At the moment, Novell, whether they mean it or not, is saying that you are only safe if you buy Novell and Suse Enterprise products. OpenSuse is a hobby project, but don’t use it for anything else.
It is just that distinction between the enterprise world and the open source world that Microsoft wants to create, which Novell is helping them to do, and it isn’t helping OpenSuse or its contributors – Suse Linux Enterprise’s feeder project.
Virtually nothing, apart from the ‘Enterprise’ badge which Novell slaps on SLED to try and sell it for a grossly inflated fee.
Gossly inflated fee to who, someone trying to use it on their play machine? Yeah maybe.
Here’s some perspective from the other side. I can buy a license for SLED at $.50, compared to $20 per desktop of Windows. I can get Novell support for SLED, can’t for openSuse. I can run the Novell client on SLED, not openSuse. I can run the cross platform groupwise client on SLED, not openSuse(at least it’s not supported). I can tie the workstation login to authenticate against eDirectory easily with SLED, not with openSuse. I’m sure there’s more in SLED that fits my environment far more than openSuse(and Ubuntu, Fedora, Slack, and Gentoo for that matter). The point is, until you’re actually in an “enterprise” environment, don’t crap over something that is geared towards organizational networks and not mom’s computer.
I’m typing this on my laptop at home running Ubuntu, because I don’t need an enterprise distribution at home. Work on the other hand…
Edited 2006-11-24 03:53
Gossly inflated fee to who, someone trying to use it on their play machine? Yeah maybe.
Firstly there’s licensing, which people moving from Windows want to get away from. Secondly there’s the cost of updates and support. This kind of overhead is acceptable on servers but not on desktops. With Windows you pay your license and then update away. Sad, but true.
That instantly makes it less attractive to people already on Windows. The less than stellar sales so far tells me that this is at least partially true.
I can get Novell support for SLED, can’t for openSuse.
Why?
I can run the Novell client on SLED, not openSuse.
Why?
I can run the cross platform groupwise client on SLED, not openSuse(at least it’s not supported).
That would be Evolution, but considering how utterly bug-ridden Evolution and Groupwise are (it’s taken about a year to get one service pack out for Groupwise 7) I would be holding off myself.
Really. These aren’t selling points.
The point is, until you’re actually in an “enterprise” environment, don’t crap over something that is geared towards organizational networks and not mom’s computer.
Newsflash: I am. Given the less than stellar sales of SLED I don’t see people in enterprise environments getting excited about SLED, and putting the overhead of a license fee and support fees on top for every desktop doesn’t exactly help. Novell should be doing all it can to aid people moving people off Windows, not putting extra baggage on.
Nobody said the desktop market was easy.
Firstly there’s licensing, which people moving from Windows want to get away from……That instantly makes it less attractive to people already on Windows. The less than stellar sales so far tells me that this is at least partially true.
Who wants to pay for licensing at all? You’re not going to find one person. I can’t speak for everyone, but like I said before, I would pay 95% less per seat to run SLED compared to windows. There are still a few technical issues, not least of which is the office suite compatibility which this deal is supposed to address at some level.
Why can’t I get Novell support for openSuse? Because it’s a Novell sponsored project, not a Novell product. Why would Novell offer support on it? Why can’t you run the Novell client on openSuse? Because the client is geared for enterprise clients. What’s the point in taking the time to make sure it works on openSuse when almost nobody needs it there?
I can’t speak much on Evolution. The windows builds are very poor, but I haven’t experienced the same on the Linux builds. How utterly bug-ridden was GroupWise exactly? 7.0 had issues, but bug-ridden is off the mark. Anyone who moved their agents to 7.0 were asking for trouble. Any admin who moves any production system to the next initial major version release would know what they are getting into and it’s not advisable. I don’t care if it’s a Novell software product, Microsoft, Sun, whoever. And GroupWise 7sp1 was far more than a few bug fixes, that’s what took them a year to get it out.
Novell continues to drop the ball in marketing. I’m not sure what their marketing department does, but it’s not marketing their products. That’s where they fail first, and that in turn hurts their bottom line. They have some damn good products, but nobody knows about them because Novell makes no effort to explain them. An ad exclaiming “Your open business is ready” does absolutely nothing to explain what they sell. That’s their problem selling SLED, not what it brings technically.
I can’t speak for everyone, but like I said before, I would pay 95% less per seat to run SLED compared to windows.
It’s not quite that simple. It’s the whole complexity of moving, testing it out to make sure that it works etc. etc. Adding in the overhead of paying for support is an additional unneeded roadblock when you are trying to kick out an incumbant monopolist.
There are still a few technical issues, not least of which is the office suite compatibility which this deal is supposed to address at some level.
And you think Microsoft are going to help?
And GroupWise 7sp1 was far more than a few bug fixes, that’s what took them a year to get it out.
Groupwise 7 was a disaster. It was left in an unworkable state for a year, and they couldn’t even release a series of patches when they realised how bad things were. And installing it……. It’s easier to install things like Web Access on Windows for heavens’ sake.
Groupwise 7 was a disaster. It was left in an unworkable state for a year, and they couldn’t even release a series of patches when they realised how bad things were. And installing it……. It’s easier to install things like Web Access on Windows for heavens’ sake.
Unworkable state? I know people who ran 7.0. It certainly had issues, but far from unworkable. Novell got it out the door too early. But again, why would you jump on an initial major rev release anyway?
The webaccess install stinks, and has always stunk. You’ll get no arguement from me on that.
“Why are you people trashing openSUSE’s name??? Yes, they are sponsored by Novell. So what. If RedHat would sign the same agreement with MS would you trash Fedora’s name also?”
Yes!
If RedHat would sign the same agreement with MS would you trash Fedora’s name also?
Unless the Fedora team distanced themselves from RedHat 100%, yes.
Hahah.
I don’t need any undisclosed liabilities on my balance sheet.
too bad people don’t seem to understand what actually is between MS and Novell.
Also too bad to see that people don’t see differences in SLES/SLED, openSUSE etc.
edit: typo.
Edited 2006-11-24 11:10
Now comes with a GNOME theme that mimics Vista and with Nautilus#
Download it now!
SLED is supported & certified by Novell & for applications I guess – & will have a lifetime guarantee i.e. patches .
Reg look : It reminds me of SuSE at round 9.2 or so .
Its too blue for my taste – I think psychologically a light desktop is better – looks like more space & slicker most often IMO
SLED is always based on the previous (open)SUSE version
so SLED 10 is based on SUSE 9.3…
No its not.
SLED 10 is based on openSUSE 10.1. The package versions correspond to that of 10.1 not 9.3.
Im sorry to inform you but SLED is based on the previous version of SUSE So SLED10 is SUSE9.3 remade as SLED10.
You probably didn’t attend the Novell launch parties ?
They specifically back out a version to cope with problems beforehand. You wouldn’t base it on something you don’t even know the status of at that moment of launch.
SLED 10 is based on SUSE Linux 10.1. After 10.1 was released Novell spent around 3 months improving it and released SLED 10 as the result.
You can also tell which version of the package in SUSE 10.1 was used to build SLED 10 by the “Release” field of the rpm package. For example, the foo-1.0-3.4 package in SLED 10 is built from foo-1.0-3 from SUSE Linux.
Compare the package versions of SUSE 10.1 and SLED 10.
http://www.novell.com/products/linuxpackages/desktop10/i386/index_a…
http://www.novell.com/products/linuxpackages/suselinux/index_all.ht…
They ship the same versions of Linux (2.6.16), Xorg (6.9), glibc (2.4), gcc (4.1.0), GNOME (2.12). You can check the rest for yourself.
screenshots anyone?
“screenshots anyone?”
Screenshot site is off and on.. pretty busy I imagine.
Is it me, or KDE still have a lot of problems with fonts?
I mean, there’s no trace of consistency within application fonts!
Some are too big, others are too small, and all of them are ugly.
Is it me, or KDE still have a lot of problems with fonts?…I mean, there’s no trace of consistency within application fonts!…Some are too big, others are too small, and all of them are ugly.
KDE has nothing to do with fonts, or how they’re configured.
Er…
yes it does. Both GNOME and KDE have font configuration applets which write a fontconfig configuration file for the active user. They’re also supposed to keep font choices consistent – most GNOME applications take their font settings from the GNOME global setting, same for KDE.
indeed. KDE even includes functionality to let gnome apps use the KDE font settings (and style and icons) when started in KDE.
they had to do that, as Gnome doesn’t understand resolutions, and always defaults to 96 dpi, instead of using the dpi settings from xorg…
yes it does. Both GNOME and KDE have font configuration applets which write a fontconfig configuration file for the active user.
Aside from storing config options, and Gnome and GTK applications helpfully defaulting to 96 dpi at times rather than getting info from X (errrrrrrr…….), no it doesn’t have anything to do with fonts. KDE certainly has nothing to do with fonts looking ugly – whatever that may happen to mean ;-).
It’s certainly possible to make fonts look amazingly ugly using nothing but GNOME or KDE config settings. Go to the font config tool, set antialiasing to the highest setting and hinting to the lowest. Voila – ugly fonts.
KDE has nothing to do with fonts, or how they’re configured.
ok, so, put it in a different way: why all the kde-based distro seems to have problems with font size and font apparence in general ?
ok, so, put it in a different way: why all the kde-based distro seems to have problems with font size and font apparence in general ?
I don’t know, as I don’t have any problems. Do you have any examples, preferably with some screenshots?
I don’t know, as I don’t have any problems. Do you have any examples, preferably with some screenshots?
without going too far, just take a screenshot from the link provided in the news header:
http://www.thecodingstudio.com/opensource/linux/screenshots/origina…
there are at least 4 different sizes of font on the same screen.
some of them are even too small to be easily readed.
the clock font is too big and ugly.
why the label “search” is so big compared to the menu items ?
It could be just my taste/opinion, but if all the other desktop environment or operating systems try to use consintent fonts size, maybe i’m not the only one that don’t like KDE approach.
there are at least 4 different sizes of font on the same screen.
some of them are even too small to be easily readed.
the clock font is too big and ugly.
why the label “search” is so big compared to the menu items ?
Fair enough, but don’t blame that screenshot on KDE. That’s the new kickoff menu that Suse produced, it’s not a component of KDE. I dislike it for many of the same reasons you’ve pointed out, and the fact that it’s control interface is inconsistent with KDE, so I’ve disabled it in openSuse. There have been requests on the mailing list about addressing the lack of font configurability, among other things.
You could just as easily run that same kickoff application in Gnome, it would be just as ugly, your points would be equally valid, and it would be no more a Gnome issue than it is a KDE one. It’s simply a developer issue.
there are at least 4 different sizes of font on the same screen. some of them are even too small to be easily readed.
You’ll find different font sizes on every desktop.
the clock font is too big and ugly.
There’s nothing wrong with it. It’s actually an improvement.
why the label “search” is so big compared to the menu items ?
Because it’s not a menu item?
Besides, this is the naff Suse start menu and it isn’t a standard part of KDE (thankfully). The part I really don’t like about it is the tabs at the bottom for Favourites, History etc. The fonts are the least of its worries.
In the screenshot you reference, everything that has a different font or size is not stock KDE, but openSUSE implementations. Compare to a pure KDE install on Slackware, for example:
http://shots.osdir.com/slideshows/722/58.gif
which has a much more consistent interface.
In the screenshot you reference, everything that has a different font or size is not stock KDE, but openSUSE implementations. Compare to a pure KDE install on Slackware, for example:
http://shots.osdir.com/slideshows/722/58.gif
which has a much more consistent interface.
Ah, ok!
That’s a much better screenshot! 🙂
Thank you for pointing out.
do a bug repport to suse
It looks very nice but the GPLv3 will be in effect in time for 10.3. This might be the last nice release of SUSE if the Microsoft/Novell patent deal remains intact.
I’m guessing everything no on will need to be forked back to GPLv2. Future versions of SLED/openSUSE will really suck because of that.
“SLED/openSUSE will really suck because of that.
”
– thats the future – they might suck – we’ll see
It looks very nice but the GPLv3 will be in effect in time for 10.3. This might be the last nice release of SUSE if the Microsoft/Novell patent deal remains intact.
That’s assuming that GPLv3 can actually do anything about the deal. The proposed clause that has been made public doesn’t do anything to prevent Novell from distributing SLED with GPLv3 included.
This whole Novell-MS thing has really gotten out of hand. Nobody really understands (including Novell, I’m afraid) what this all really means, but everyone is ready to burn them at the stake anyway.
Why don’t we all continue to do what we have always done, and wait until we can make decisions based on facts instead of all of the speculation going on now? People accuse Novell of using FUD, but I’ve seen quite a bit of it floating around that wasn’t generated by Novell or Microsoft.
This post was about the release of openSUSE 10.2 RC1. I think that openSUSE is a fine distribution that has few peers. I have looked into a “Plan B”, in the event that it is needed, but until I know, I’m going to give them the benefit of the doubt and continue to support the distro that I so admire.
So, for all of the villagers who feel a need to set someone on fire, please put down your torches. I’m sure you’ll mod me down as well, but the stupidity needs to stop, and if people don’t speak up, an innocent project (no matter what you believe, the people who have worked so hard to make openSUSE what it is today had nothing to do with any deals with the Devil) will suffer for it, which will ultimately be a loss for the OS you say you want to protect.
Think about it. I have, and I’m downloading RC1 now. 🙂
Someone did mod you down, for no good reason. This is way off topic, but this whole Novell/Microsoft situation has really shown that the moderation system needs to be reworked on this site. For whoever modded the parent down, DO NOT mod down just because you don’t agree with the post. You’re missing the point of the moderation system and abusing it.
I’ve come down more on the side of Novell on this one, but I have NOT modded down any post that disagrees with me just for disagreeing me. I’ve modded down trolls, including those who disagree or agree with me.
Edited 2006-11-24 04:19
It doesn’t matter who’s side people are on. SUSE has no future if Novell fails to comply with the GPLv3 by next March.
No one will want a crippled distribution with forked components. They will quickly become obsolete to the mainstream components used in all other distributions.
I think thats the bottom line here.
“It doesn’t matter who’s side people are on. SUSE has no future if Novell fails to comply with the GPLv3 by next March.”
What does GPLv3 have to do with it? From what I have seen the Linux kernel will remain at GPLv2, and not be moved to v3…did I miss something?
What does GPLv3 have to do with it? From what I have seen the Linux kernel will remain at GPLv2, and not be moved to v3…did I miss something?
Well, try to remove glibc from your installation, and see how it will work
(In other words, some of the key packages that make up a linux distribution – key as in they simply won’t work at all without them – are FSF software, switching to GPL v3 in a few months).
“Well, try to remove glibc from your installation, and see how it will work
(In other words, some of the key packages that make up a linux distribution – key as in they simply won’t work at all without them – are FSF software, switching to GPL v3 in a few months).”
Okay, that much I know. The question is, are they going to prevent Novell from distributing Linux or those? There is nothing in the agreement that says they are making the distro no longer OSS and proprietary. In fact, they have given much back to the OSS community. So are they going to change GPLv3 then to prevent any commercial entities from distributing Linux, even when they comply with the GPL as Novell does currently?
So are they going to change GPLv3 then to prevent any commercial entities from distributing Linux, even when they comply with the GPL as Novell does currently?
You’re completely missing the point. Novell’s patent license with Microsoft is a violation of the spirit of the GPL v2, section 7. The reason it might not be an actual violation of the letter is because Novell and Microsoft had smart lawyers to work around the GPL.
Consider it a bug in v2 that will be fixed with the next version. Novell will still be able to distribute software under the GPL v3, but not with special licenses for their customers. They’ll have to choose between not distributing software under v3, not providing a special license for the software under v3 that they distribute or providing the license to everyone that receives the software.
“You’re completely missing the point. Novell’s patent license with Microsoft is a violation of the spirit of the GPL v2, section 7. The reason it might not be an actual violation of the letter is because Novell and Microsoft had smart lawyers to work around the GPL.”
Okay, but to be honest I still don’t get it. No one is saying that Novell or linux is infringing any patents except for SCO, who no longer distributes Linux. MS is not claiming any patent infringements, but rather this agreement as it is written will allow Linux as a whole to interoperate with MS systems better. The section you quoted above basically says that the FSF can prevent anyone from distributing Linux if there is so much an allegation of a patent infringement, or if they decide they do not like the particular distributor. I must be missing something here, and that is entirely possible. I am more then willing to get educated on the subject.
It won’t matter if the kernel remains GPLv2. What does matter is the vast majority of the GNU software *will* adopt the GPLv3 and LGPLv3 licenses.
That puts Novell in a extremely difficult situation because they will have to fork every project that adopts the new licenses and maintain them in an isolated fashion, unsupported by the community.
If the Linux kernel adopted GPLv3 (unlikely ATM), Novell would have to fork it as well. Yikes!!!
I suppose Novell could deploy GPLv3 software, but they would automatically forfeit their patent protection to the entire FOSS world. That surely something Microsoft would disprove of! Novell would risk litigation upon themselves.
Enjoy openSUSE 10.2 while it lasts. It could be the last decent version of this great distribution. 🙁
As for me…
Forty minutes left until my Fedora Core 6 Live-CD is downloaded. 🙂
That puts Novell in a extremely difficult situation because they will have to fork every project that adopts the new licenses and maintain them in an isolated fashion, unsupported by the community.
Since you’re so convinced of this, please explain exactly how GPLv3 will be forced to fork or cut their ties to MS.
that exactly is the problem. People completely don’t understand what the deal is or what GPL is.
Novell doesn,t, hasn’t and won’t put closed stuff on CD’s. Just like SLES, SLED, OpenSUSE, you will have the _option_ to download a closed source blob, like firmware of your <insert wifi pccard here> or your NV/ATI card. Also, if Novell has a “better SMB” than what’s on openSUSE, they can and may give you the option to install that part (via a script & download off the web) without _any_ problems.
It’s sickenign to see how many people just go with their gut feeling instead of really understanding what’s going on….
It’s sickenign to see how many people just go with their gut feeling instead of really understanding what’s going on….
It’s not the deal itself perse but company they decided to sign a convenant with.MS doesn’t have a good reputation in FOSS.And you can’t blame them.Nobody likes to be threathened especially when the accusations are false.
And you can’t blame them.Nobody likes to be threathened especially when the accusations are false.
True. So why did everyone automatically declare Novell to be anti-gpl, anti-linux, anti-opensource, and possibly the anti-christ?
In fact, while the FSF hates the deal, even after reviewing the full contracts, the best they’ve come up with was “We’ll show them! GPLv3 will fix ’em! *cackle*”.
Seriously. So far, no one has shown that Novell has gotten anything from Microsoft that everyone else doesn’t already have.
As soon as the GPL is modified in such a way as to *deliberately* harm Novell and/or Microsoft’s business, every single corporation is going to have an emergency meeting to determine if the same thing can happen to them– And they’ll dump GPL-contaminated software as quickly as possible.
The issue is not about proprietary binary blobs being included in openSUSE. But rather a patent covenent deal between two companies that conflicts with the ideals of the free software movement.
My theory:
A) Novell forks code to remain compliant with GPLv2 while still dealing with the patent aspects of the Novell/Microsoft deal.
B) Novell ships GPLv3 software and the FOSS community recieves the same patent covenent as their customers. Microsoft gets angry, revokes the deal then sues Novell for violating contract terms.
C) Novell convinces Microsoft to extend their patent covenent to everyone, making “B” possible without conflict.
D) Novell withdraws from the patent aspect or the entire deal and returns some of Microsoft’s money.
I find both “C” and “D” very unlikely to occur.
So Novell will have “A” or “B” to choose from.
B) Novell ships GPLv3 software and the FOSS community recieves the same patent covenent as their customers. Microsoft gets angry, revokes the deal then sues Novell for violating contract terms.
Now explain just how GPLv3 accomplishes this when MS is not a distributor of GPLv3 software.
Well, as long as MS insists that they have patents on parts of Linux, then they have an argument for suing Novell (since it wouldn’t be “honoring the IP” anymore if it extended patent protection to everyone by virtue of the GPL3). Then they’d probably hope to make the legal process drag on as long as possible, all the while giving Novell more and more documentation about their products in the hope that they actually WOULD have a patent case against Novell by the end of the case (5-7 years down the road).
Except GPLv3 can’t extend the protection unless MicroSoft is a distributor of GPLv3 software.
The only way you can “force” an extension is if you somehow make all Linux users fall under the Novell customer clause.
Since it’s a two-way deal between Novell and MS, and Novell would be a distributor of GPLv3 software, then it seems possible that Novell could force an extension of the agreement to all Linux users. In truth, the matter is extremely unclear, but I think it’s exactly this lack of clarity that MS is banking on in order to be able to accuse Novell & other Linux makers of whatever it wants.
Well, as long as MS insists that they have patents on parts of Linux, then they have an argument for suing Novell (since it wouldn’t be “honoring the IP” anymore if it extended patent protection to everyone by virtue of the GPL3). Then they’d probably hope to make the legal process drag on as long as possible, all the while giving Novell more and more documentation about their products in the hope that they actually WOULD have a patent case against Novell by the end of the case (5-7 years down the road).
Well, as long as MS insists that they have patents on parts of Linux, then they have an argument for suing Novell (since it wouldn’t be “honoring the IP” anymore if it extended patent protection to everyone by virtue of the GPL3). Next, Microsoft would probably hope to make the legal process drag on as long as possible, all the while feeding Novell more and more insider knowledge about their products in the hope that they actually WOULD have a patent case against Novell by the end of the case (5-7 years down the road).
Okay, sorry for the three replies, I was under the impression it wasn’t getting submitted but apparently it’s a page display bug or something… sorry….
> Now explain just how GPLv3 accomplishes this when MS > is not a distributor of GPLv3 software.
Microsoft is claiming that Linux infringes on their patents.
As a prerequisite to the other other pieces of the deal, Microsoft has asked Novell to pay a running royalty to distribute SUSE. In exchange, Microsoft gives Novell’s customers a patent covenant.
This means Novell is effectively paying Microsoft royalties to distribute GPL software. Only the GPL software distributed by Novell will be covered. Any other distributer is liable for patent infringement.
The GPLv3 states that anyone who distributes GPLv3 software with patent protection must also share that protection with everyone else who distributes and/or uses GPLv3 software.
At least that is my interpretation from Bruce Perens and other FSF people.
“Microsoft is claiming that Linux infringes on their patents.”
Microsoft has made no such claims. If they have, please post a link to an official document.
People seem to be having difficulty understanding this. Let me put it this way:
1] GPL v.3 is specifically incompatible with the kind of deal Novell recently made with Microsoft.
2] All the GNU tools that are *essential* to every distro of linux will move over to v.3 when v.3 is finalised.
3] Therefore, Novell will not be able to include any v.3 stuff in their OS whilst their deal with Microsoft is in force.
4] Therefore, Novell will either have to renege on their deal with Microsoft (in which case they can expect MS lawyers getting a posse together and saddling up), or they will have to stick with GPL v.2 (in which case, to put it mildly, they will have a lot of coding to do).
Doesn’t seem that hard to understand to me.
P.S. Now you know why the GPL is described as ‘viral’. It is, and recent events have shown that it needs to be, to achieve the goals of its creators.
P.P.S. Now you also know why those FSF pedants insist on calling it GNU/Linux.
1] GPL v.3 is specifically incompatible with the kind of deal Novell recently made with Microsoft.
Point out the clause(s) that support this claim.
Okay.
http://www.cbronline.com/article_news.asp?guid=C1856F2A-F214-4A65-A…
From the article:
The FSF’s general counsel, Eben Moglen, is currently evaluating the Novell Microsoft patent deal to see if it is valid under the terms of the current GPL v2. He has not announced his conclusion but has already publicly stated that changes will be made to the forthcoming GPL v3 to ensure that such a selective patent peace deal cannot be repeated.
“It will surely violate GPL version 3,” he told CNNmoney.com. “GPL version 3 will be adjusted so the effect of the current deal is that Microsoft will by giving away access to the very patents Microsoft is trying to assert.”
and
“In the face of these changes, Novell will probably be stuck with old versions of the software, under old licenses, with Novell sustaining the entire cost and burden of maintaining that software,” Perens wrote, adding that Novell faces a choice of sticking with Microsoft and being left behind, or turning its back on the patent deal.
Sorry, but what you linked to and quoted does in no way prove that what Moglen said can even be done.
Maybe you can point out how someone that is not a distributor of GPL software can be forced to give a patent promise to all receivers of GPLv3 software if that someone gives a promise to one of the receivers.
I’m not a lawyer so I have no idea on what the legal language woule be, but surely you could just do something like this,
“This license (GPL 3) grants you the right to use and distribute the software in source and binary forms as long as you do not reach agreements with any outside parties which provide for priveledges and other benefits to accrue to users of the software you directly or indirectly distribute. In the event that any steps are taken on your part of provide priviledges and benefits to your users / customers you will immediately lost the right to distribute the software.”
I’m not sure it would be that “easy” considering the deal is already in effect.
Consider the implications of your proposed clause and you’ll probably easily find cases where the clause would be severely detrimental to the community.
Can you think of an example?
Here’s the thing though. Novell isn’t the only commercial distro trying to balance GPLv3 against realistic business needs. It’s all fine and good to have tenure on a college campus and rail on about evil corporations, but those same evil corporations contribute a hell of a lot of money and code to FOSS. Linux would not be where it is today without a lot of corporate backing as well as the GNU.
GPLv3 is by no means the only way to go. It would be torturous but don’t scoff at the idea of either a lot of GNU stuff getting forked or a lot of BSD stuff suddenly showing up in commercial Linux distros.
Hell, don’t forget that Novell owns Unix, they can open up the Unix source code outright if they want and suddenly they’re they only business friendly Linux distribution on the market.
The distro gravity of Fedora and Debian is getting stronger. Once “Linux” consolidates around these two communities, I think we’ll see a surge in open source robustness.
Now, don’t get me wrong: I think a lot of the fringe distros have their place, and drive a different kind of innovation than the larger distros, which are more focused on creating an integrated platform and smooth experience these days. And then you still get some bleeding-edge stuff like Ubuntu’s upstart.
SUSE has brought us many innovations, especially in setting the bar for the Linux desktop now for several years. But with all the original developers leaving, and now Novell’s burn of the community (they just don’t have the same roots of understanding about open source that Red Hat and Canonical do), I can see openSUSE going the way of Mandrake — another (formerly) great distro that lost sight of the community’s importance.
This is natural selection, though. The center of the Linux universe is going to be Fedora and Debian, with Red Hat and Ubuntu being sort of the “client-facing suit” versions of those communities.
Just look at Netcraft here and see for yourself that it’s happening:
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2005/12/05/strong_growth_for_debi…
I believe SLED 10 was based on OpenSUSE 10, or a version shortly earlier, not 9.3
Indeed, SLED is based on the version previous of opensuse 10 which happens to be…. 9.3
“I’m guessing everything no on will need to be forked back to GPLv2. Future versions of SLED/openSUSE will really suck because of that.
”
this rather assumes that GNU/Linux as a whole will move with GPLv3.
10.2 is looking better and better.
The GPLv3 and LGPLv3 licenses have won more respect from the open source community.
I imagine developers, who were once skeptical of the GPLv3 at first, now have a brand new perspective of it.
Expect an overwhelming adoption rate within the first six months after the new licenses are released.
I think the DRM (Digital Rights Management) issues associated with the GPLv3 can be solved in a means similar to how restricted multimedia formats are distributed:
The user could choose to forfeit their freedom by installing 3rd party DRM-decoding plugins onto their favorite Linux/*nix media players.
Edited 2006-11-24 23:11
The GPLv3 and LGPLv3 licenses have won more respect from the open source community.
In as much as the free software community is part of the open source community, I suppose that’s true.
I imagine developers, who were once skeptical of the GPLv3 at first, now have a brand new perspective of it.
Imagination is a wonderful thing.
I imagine that developers who were once merely skeptical of the GPLv3 will continue to remain skeptical of the GPLv3, especially after Moglen’s kneejerk reaction that v3 will have a clause added to cancel the MS-Novell deal even though he couldn’t prove a link between the patent covenant and GPL software.
If GPL v3 has any clauses added that prohibit cross-patent licensing between distributing organizations, it’s a safe bet that major GPL and GNU backers who also happen to be large patent holders like HP, IBM and Intel will have no choice but to back away. See how far GNU progresses without the corporate backing and development contributions that got them this far.
Expect an overwhelming adoption rate within the first six months after the new licenses are released.
For a second there, I thought I was reading a Vista thread since I hear that a lot from those guys as well. But since I mention Vista, I think it’s safe to assume that the majority of non-FSF affiliated developers will handle v3 the same way that Microsoft’s customers will handle Vista: Watch, wait and see. Evaluate. Discuss. And wait to see if any of the early adopters get bitten in the ass. I suspect that many will actually decide that upgrading offers no tangible advantage over the proven system that has worked well enough this long.
I think the DRM (Digital Rights Management) issues associated with the GPLv3 can be solved in a means similar to how restricted multimedia formats are distributed:
If that’s true, then you don’t really understand the “DRM” issues with GPLv3. v3 does nothing to prevent DRM. DRM can run on v3. DRM can be implemented on a v3 GNU/Hurd system with no repercussions.
The “DRM” issues with v3 refer to hardware locking that requires unmodified GPL software. This has nothing to do with downloadable modules or digital media, this is strictly about digitally signed binaries that will require the correct key to run on specific hardware platforms. The whole Tivoisation thing. The very nature of both the GPL and the intent of the new provision would make downloadable modules for circumventions a violation to distribute.
*sigh* The propaganda building behind v3 is getting out of hand. I suspect that within a month or so we’ll have people arguing passionately that v3 will eliminate greenhouse gasses and reduce cholesterol.
I really don’t like that startbar – because that is what it is, a startbar – all that is missing is a waving flag.
Otherwise it looks good – i wonder if the Mono-stuff-utilities-stuff works a bit better.
Edited 2006-11-25 18:26