LinuxQuestions.org
Visit Jeremy's Blog.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General
User Name
Password
General This forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 03-27-2018, 01:16 PM   #16
sundialsvcs
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: SE Tennessee, USA
Distribution: Gentoo, LFS
Posts: 9,078
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 3170Reputation: 3170Reputation: 3170Reputation: 3170Reputation: 3170Reputation: 3170Reputation: 3170Reputation: 3170Reputation: 3170Reputation: 3170Reputation: 3170

I suspect that the thorny problem is going to turn out to be that the "various contributors" never sold or permanently-licensed their copyrights to a recognized legal entity which now owns them and which therefore has the legal right to change the license terms governing them. The litmus test is customarily that "money," or other "consideration," changed hands. No money did. People made contributions but did not receive compensation. A contract was not entered. I'm not sure that there is any legal entity which can change the license terms without mutual consent.

Which of course does present a problem for the corporations in question, who do invest millions of their own dollars into these projects in exchange for what they can leverage out of them, and which as a matter of course require legal protection for their interests. ("Nothing's free.") These cats invest not only source-code but very considerable amounts of their own money in keeping these projects running smoothly for the rest of us. So, it's a legitimate legal question, but not an easy one with an obvious solution. What we've done here is "without precedent."

Last edited by sundialsvcs; 03-27-2018 at 01:17 PM.
 
Old 03-28-2018, 02:53 AM   #17
cynwulf
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,130
Blog Entries: 5

Rep: Reputation: 1186Reputation: 1186Reputation: 1186Reputation: 1186Reputation: 1186Reputation: 1186Reputation: 1186Reputation: 1186Reputation: 1186
Quote:
Originally Posted by ntubski View Post
Hmm, so when you said:

"rejection of GPLv3 itself" meant something different than 'not wanting to change projects to GPLv3'?
The key phrase there is "such as Linux".
 
Old 03-28-2018, 07:01 AM   #18
ntubski
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Distribution: Debian, Arch
Posts: 3,383

Rep: Reputation: 1540Reputation: 1540Reputation: 1540Reputation: 1540Reputation: 1540Reputation: 1540Reputation: 1540Reputation: 1540Reputation: 1540Reputation: 1540Reputation: 1540
Quote:
Originally Posted by cynwulf View Post
The key phrase there is "such as Linux".
I remain puzzled. Could you elaborate, please?
 
Old 03-28-2018, 08:22 AM   #19
cynwulf
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,130
Blog Entries: 5

Rep: Reputation: 1186Reputation: 1186Reputation: 1186Reputation: 1186Reputation: 1186Reputation: 1186Reputation: 1186Reputation: 1186Reputation: 1186
I'm puzzled that you're puzzled. The companies involved can only apply this to their own code. If they want the benefits of GPLv3 termination, they could simply relicense their code to GPLv3...

https://www.redhat.com/en/about/pres...urce-licensing
Quote:
To provide greater predictability to users of open source software, Red Hat, Facebook, Google and IBM today each committed to extending the GPLv3 approach for license compliance errors to the software code that each licenses under GPLv2 and LGPLv2.1 and v2.
 
Old 03-28-2018, 11:43 PM   #20
ntubski
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Distribution: Debian, Arch
Posts: 3,383

Rep: Reputation: 1540Reputation: 1540Reputation: 1540Reputation: 1540Reputation: 1540Reputation: 1540Reputation: 1540Reputation: 1540Reputation: 1540Reputation: 1540Reputation: 1540
Quote:
Originally Posted by cynwulf View Post
I'm puzzled that you're puzzled. The companies involved can only apply this to their own code. If they want the benefits of GPLv3 termination, they could simply relicense their code to GPLv3...
Ah, well it was a bit puzzling that you said "such as Linux" when you really meant "not Linux".

By the way, this might be relevant: https://www.redhat.com/en/about/gplv...ment-statement

Quote:
The large ecosystems of projects using GPLv2 (and versions 2 and 2.1 of the LGPL) would benefit from express adoption of the cure approach provided in GPLv3. One way to achieve this is for projects to switch to GPLv3 or LGPLv3, but in many cases, this is impractical, inconsistent with upstream license obligations or contrary to the general preferences and expectations of participants in these projects.
 
Old 04-08-2018, 07:53 AM   #21
dbeuscher
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Sep 2017
Location: USA
Distribution: Ubuntu Mate is my home.
Posts: 3

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: Disabled
"You can now run Linux in Windows 10"

This is a Trojan horse. (in the classic sense, not in the "virus" sense. Read the article.

http://mrco.ent.sirsi.net/client/default/
 
Old 04-09-2018, 08:23 AM   #22
YesItsMe
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2014
Distribution: Gentoo
Posts: 421

Rep: Reputation: 133Reputation: 133
Microsoft open-sourced their Windows 3.x file manager under the MIT license now.
 
Old 04-10-2018, 09:20 AM   #23
cynwulf
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,130
Blog Entries: 5

Rep: Reputation: 1186Reputation: 1186Reputation: 1186Reputation: 1186Reputation: 1186Reputation: 1186Reputation: 1186Reputation: 1186Reputation: 1186
A recent article on how MS are still attacking free software by utilising patent trolls.

http://techrights.org/2018/04/10/mic...nd-indirectly/
 
Old 04-13-2018, 10:55 PM   #24
rob.rice
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2004
Distribution: slack what ever
Posts: 1,036

Rep: Reputation: 186Reputation: 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by hazel View Post
Beware of Greeks bearing gifts!
in this case it's

Beware of Geeks bearing gifts!
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
LXer: Microsoft implicated in a news fixing scandal LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 09-29-2011 08:20 AM
News and Linus's opinion on the Microsoft code ... chigurh8 Linux - News 1 07-25-2009 11:54 AM
More news on Red Hat and Microsoft custangro Linux - News 1 07-29-2007 12:17 PM
Great News!!! No more Microsoft for Me! salmanal MEPIS 1 07-27-2005 08:15 PM
big news-microsoft buys linux ronss Linux - Distributions 10 04-03-2003 09:29 PM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:47 AM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration