BSD folks position on GPL, Novell, IBM, SCO, and MS...

This question was originally posted to the questions list,
and I was referred 
here:

I am by no means trolling here.  I just haven't heard much
of anything from 
the BSD community on the subjects, and would like to know
the general 
consensus.  If advocacy is not the place for questions like
this, could 
someone re-direct me to an appropriate list or reference, or
sending me an 
email directly is fine, too.

I have been an avid user of the BSDs (mostly FreeBSD and
OpenBSD), and have 
experimented with the Linuses for a good while now (Mainly
Debian, RH, and 
SuSe).  I pretty much get it that the BSD folks and the
Linux folks don't 
completely see eye-to-eye on licensing issues, but it seems
to me that the 
overall attempt of both communities seems to be "get
the code out there and 
keep it free."

(I was corrected on this point by a FBSD-questions member
stating essentially 
that the GPLs function is perpetuality where the BSD license
is simply to 
"release it free," if I understood that correctly)

I was just wondering what the general consensus was on the
GPL, Linux in 
general, SCOs lawsuit, Sun's open sourcing, IBMs
contributions to Linux, 
Novell's contributions, Novell's deal with MS and how this
really affects 
SuSe (there's a lot of hype on that and I literally don't
know what to 
believe at this point).

Being that most folks here would be in positions of having
to deal with a 
variety of OSs and have in the past dealt with opposing
forces at work, I 
figured there would be at least one or two educated folks I
could glean from.

I'm an avid reader of GrokLaw and LamLaw, as well as other
(not so thorough 
sources), but still haven't really heard anything as far as
the stance from 
the BSD side of the OS community.

Thanks, and sorry for the imposition,

Mike


PS...  One more question...  Being that Linux emulation is
available as a port 
for the BSDs, I would assume (but haven't taken the time to
research) that 
GPLd code is used.  If there comes to be issues with Linux,
what would that 
mean for BSDs compatibility in regards to emulation?
_______________________________________________
freebsd-advocacyfreebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-advo
cacy
To unsubscribe, send any mail to
"freebsd-advocacy-unsubscribefreebsd.org"

> PS...  One more question...  Being that Linux
emulation is available 
> as a port for the BSDs, I would assume (but haven't
taken the time to 
> research) that GPLd code is used.  If there comes to
be issues with 
> Linux, what would that mean for BSDs compatibility in
regards to 
> emulation?

No GPL'd code is used for the Linux ABI support. Have a look
at the code 
under src/sys/compat/linux/. And look at the linux(4)
manpage.

Nevertheless, you will probably use glibc and other programs
built for 
Linux that are GPL'd ...

I think you will find many answers to your other questions
in this lists 
(or the chat list) archives. I don't recall any discussion
hear about 
Novell/Microsoft deal
though._______________________________________________
freebsd-advocacyfreebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-advo
cacy
To unsubscribe, send any mail to
"freebsd-advocacy-unsubscribefreebsd.org"

Mike Hauber <mchaubergmx.net> wrote:
 > [...]
 > PS...  One more question...  Being that Linux
emulation is available
 > as a port for the BSDs, I would assume (but haven't
taken the time
 > to research) that GPLd code is used.  If there comes
to be issues
 > with Linux, what would that mean for BSDs
compatibility in regards
 > to emulation?

FreeBSD's "Linuxulator" consists of two parts: 
The kernel
ABI which implements the Linux syscalls (usually loaded as
a kernel module), and the userland part (Linux libs, some
binaries etc.) that's located in/compat/linux.  [*]
The former has been implemented by FreeBSD programmers and
therefore is under BSD license, not GPL.  The latter comes
from a stock Fedora Core 4 distribution, most of which is
under GPL license.

Personally I don't believe that the SCO issue will lead to
any problems with generic Linux code.  But _if_ there will
be such problems, then it might affect the userland part
in /compat/linux.  It will _not_ affect the Linux ABI in
the kernel.  In the worst case you won't be able to run
dynamically linked Linux programs anymore that depend on
Linux libraries for which you don't have a license.  You
will still be able to run statically linked Linux binaries
(provided you have the licenses to run them if required,
of course).

Best regards
   Oliver

PS:  [*]  There's also linprocfs, which is a synthetic file
system implementing PROCFS for Linux compatibility.  It's
usually mounted on /compat/linux/proc if required (not all
Linux programs require it).  As far as I know, it is also
a re-implementation and thus under BSD license, so there's
no problem.

-- 
Oliver Fromme,  secnetix GmbH & Co. KG, Marktplatz 29,
85567 Grafing
Dienstleistungen mit Schwerpunkt FreeBSD: http://www.secnetix.de/bsd

Any opinions expressed in this message may be personal to
the author
and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of secnetix in
any way.

"With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.  However,
this
is not necessarily a good idea.  It is hard to be sure where
they are going to land, and it could be dangerous sitting
under them as they fly overhead." -- RFC 1925
_______________________________________________
freebsd-advocacyfreebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-advo
cacy
To unsubscribe, send any mail to
"freebsd-advocacy-unsubscribefreebsd.org"

Mike Hauber <mchaubergmx.net> writes:
> I was just wondering what the general consensus was on
the GPL, Linux in
> general, SCOs lawsuit, Sun's open sourcing, IBMs
contributions to Linux,
> Novell's contributions, Novell's deal with MS and how
this really affects
> SuSe (there's a lot of hype on that and I literally
don't know what to
> believe at this point).

Why should we care?

The SCO lawsuits are doubly irrelevant: firstly because SCO
is not
going to win, secondly because BSD is immune by virtue of
the 1994
settlement with USL.

As for the Novell-MS deal, I don't see how it affects BSD at
all.

DES
-- 
Dag-Erling Smørgrav - desdes.no
_______________________________________________
freebsd-advocacyfreebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-advo
cacy
To unsubscribe, send any mail to
"freebsd-advocacy-unsubscribefreebsd.org"

On 11/28/06, Dag-Erling Smørgrav <desdes.no> wrote:
> Mike Hauber <mchaubergmx.net> writes:
> > I was just wondering what the general consensus
was on the GPL, Linux in
> > general, SCOs lawsuit, Sun's open sourcing, IBMs
contributions to Linux,
> > Novell's contributions, Novell's deal with MS and
how this really affects
> > SuSe (there's a lot of hype on that and I
literally don't know what to
> > believe at this point).
>
> Why should we care?
>
> The SCO lawsuits are doubly irrelevant: firstly because
SCO is not
> going to win, secondly because BSD is immune by virtue
of the 1994
> settlement with USL.
>
> As for the Novell-MS deal, I don't see how it affects
BSD at all.

You are right, there is no direct affect on BSD however
software
patents is in issue no matter if it's GPL or BSD mostly in
United
States, in EU we are still fighting the patent problematics.

Today is voting in ITRE (Information, Technology, Research
and Energy)
committee within European Parliament about IPRED
(Intelectual Property
Rights Enforcment Directive) which basicly means,
criminalization of
abusing of patents, trademarks and copyright (e.g. sentece
to jail,
freeze of accounts and so on)


-- 
 -----------------------------------
|      Jan Husar
|      Chairman
|
|   http://www.skosi.org
 --------------------------
| freedomeurope.blogspot.com
| GnuPG 1024D/DDB1C1AE
| http://www.opensource.org
_______________________________________________
freebsd-advocacyfreebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-advo
cacy
To unsubscribe, send any mail to
"freebsd-advocacy-unsubscribefreebsd.org"

On Tuesday 28 November 2006 07:08, Jan Husar proclaimed:
> On 11/28/06, Dag-Erling Smørgrav <desdes.no> wrote:
> > Mike Hauber <mchaubergmx.net> writes:
> > > I was just wondering what the general
consensus was on the GPL, Linux
> > > in general, SCOs lawsuit, Sun's open
sourcing, IBMs contributions to
> > > Linux, Novell's contributions, Novell's deal
with MS and how this
> > > really affects SuSe (there's a lot of hype on
that and I literally
> > > don't know what to believe at this point).
> >
> > Why should we care?
> >
> > The SCO lawsuits are doubly irrelevant: firstly
because SCO is not
> > going to win, secondly because BSD is immune by
virtue of the 1994
> > settlement with USL.

I don't think the USL settlement matters to SCO.  After all,
Linux is immune 
by virtue of the GPL (in addition to SCOs claims being
fraudulent), but that 
didn't stop SCO from making fools of themselves.  It's not
Darl and company 
specifically that I'm worried about.  It's other companies
that can come 
along and pull the same stunts.  How long would it take
before prospective 
customers get weary of the idea of open source as a whole if
litigation 
claims (fraudulent as they may be) continue?

> >
> > As for the Novell-MS deal, I don't see how it
affects BSD at all.
>
> You are right, there is no direct affect on BSD however
software
> patents is in issue no matter if it's GPL or BSD mostly
in United
> States, in EU we are still fighting the patent
problematics.
>
> Today is voting in ITRE (Information, Technology,
Research and Energy)
> committee within European Parliament about IPRED
(Intelectual Property
> Rights Enforcment Directive) which basicly means,
criminalization of
> abusing of patents, trademarks and copyright (e.g.
sentece to jail,
> freeze of accounts and so on)

This was pretty much my concern as far as OSS goes.  If SCO
actually succeeded 
with their claims (which I know they won't), or if other
SCOs come along, I 
don't think the only target would be the GPL.  I see patent
issues becoming a 
real problem not just for the GPL side of things but the
BSDs as well (my 
stance, of course, is that it shouldn't because patents
lately have been 
blindly awarded and seemingly requested for the purpose of
fraudulent 
lawsuits).  If companies are scrambling for patents in order
to bring 
litigation or to protect themselves from litigation via
counter-suits, I 
doubt that when the fingers start pointing, the GPLd or BSDd
code would be 
excluded...  In fact, I tend to think they would be a
preferred target just 
because it's open source, and we are by far the biggest
threat that 
proprietary companies have.

I see this basically as a threat to everyone, not just the
few it's starting 
out with.  That's why I asked, and I hadn't really heard
much at all from the 
BSD side of the aisle.

What if Sun pulls a SCO with their Java?  If IBM pulls a SCO
with their 
contributions?  If Novell pulls a SCO with their
contributions?  I would like 
to think that their intentions are honest, but after SCO,
and then MSs very 
weird deal with Novell, who knows?  (and by the way, is IBM
working with the 
BSD community as well?  I hadn't read anything on that, and
would be 
interested to know more if they are).

Although my preference is the BSD license, I'm very much a
fan of OSS, whether 
it be licensed under the BSD or GPL, and I'm just concerned
about whether or 
not this could escalate into a trend against OS code in
general.

Appreciate your inputs.  Thanks,

Mike
_______________________________________________
freebsd-advocacyfreebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-advo
cacy
To unsubscribe, send any mail to
"freebsd-advocacy-unsubscribefreebsd.org"