Fedora Desktop future- RedHat moves

[Les Mikesell]

Francis Earl wrote:

>> RedHat, of course has a 
>> huge vested interest in keeping others from being able to add 
>> improvements that they can't also automatically obtain but that's not my 
>> point here.
> 
> Actually, they don't. It is simply a matter of law. RedHat contributes
> ALL of its code under GPL or similar licenses BECAUSE of that law. All
> of the companies that contribute to Linux do so understand that the
> other parties will do the same.

Yes, I understand that is why the large companies are involved and why 
they want to protect their own interests at the expense of their users. 
  However, that is not why a lot of open source software is written, and 
a lot that was originally written without such restrictions has 
subsequently had the viral GPL applied.

> Why should one company be able to leech off of them without investing in
> the code themselves? Why should other companies benefit from the work of
> those companies that DO NOT WANT THEM TO? That is the point of GPL, you
> scratch my back, I'll scratch yours... translated into legal-speak.

I'm speaking from a user's perspective, not a distributor making money 
on support.  I'd much rather not have any such restrictions prohibiting 
others from improving the code under their own terms.  I'd rather make 
up my own mind about those terms.  Tivo's OS-X, etc. are all good things 
from a consumer perspective.

> RedHat believes Linux isn't ready on the consumer desktop because there
> are so many huge holes in what the consumer desires.

And correctly so because of the nature of the GPL.

> 
>>> Take a look at http://www.linux-foundation.org/en/Members to see how
>>> anti-competitive Linux is in the tech industry. Anyone that wants in can
>>> contribute and have a say in the direction of it... No one owns Linux,
>>> all you have to do is play by the rules.
>> But you can't include content already under different restrictions. 
>> There's a lot of that content - some with no legal alternative 
>> replacements possible.
> 
> You can distribute that code under GPL if you have the copyrights to it.

Not if the functionality is covered by patents and you don't have those 
rights.  Unlike copyrights, patents cover the technique, so rewriting 
the code is not sufficient to give you the right to use or distribute it.

 >> The way to oppose
>> overpriced proprietary software is to make usable replacements for as 
>> much of it as possible - which necessarily involves using it with code 
>> under different restrictions for as long as there are no free 
>> alternatives.  Instead, the license forces users to continue to use all 
>> non-free code since they can't be mixed.
> 
> So the way to counteract expensive proprietary software is to use
> proprietary software in the making of the alternative? No, the best way
> to counteract such things is to replace the ENTIRE product.

That's not one of the choices.  You can't replace a patented product 
with one that does the same thing.

> Also, the point of Linux is NOT to be a cheap alternative. That is in
> fact a stated NON-GOAL. The GPL explicitly allows making money from the
> code. If I want, I can charge you $5 million dollars for a copy of GIMP
> on CD-ROM, if you're dumb enough to pay it  :P 

That's pretty much irrelevant.

>>> oh well. Windows users have been perfectly fine using a system that
>>> doesn't even support their hardware out of the box.
>> Windows doesn't change its driver interface on a monthly basis, so users 
>> have no problem getting and installing a vendor-provided driver that 
>> normally continues to work for the life of their machine.  That scheme 
>> is not a problem.
> 
> I'll state again, Linux currently provides an interface for drivers that
> is stable, but it's only available to those willing to release their
> code under GPL.

Stating it often doesn't make it true.  Drivers that are accepted 
in-kernel have someone that will fix them as things change but that does 
not resemble stability.  One of the main reasons that people pay for 
RHEL is that they do keep the driver interface stable for the life of a 
release.  And of course it is in their interest for fedora not to do the 
same useful thing so people are encouraged to pay for RHEL.

>>> No one is suing ATI
>>> or Nvidia, but they are some of companies not abiding by the rules.
>> If their software uses components already under different restrictions 
>> they can't possibly abide by the law while releasing under GPL terms.
> 
> Uhh, hence my insinuating that their drivers are illegal.

No you missed the point entirely.  They can't do a GPL release.  Some 
people might claim that a driver is a work derived from one of the 
kernels it might be used with (which is the only thing that would make 
it illegal with respect to the GPL) but that is a controversial and in 
my opinion, unlikely, claim.  They are staying legal in respect to 
whatever pre-existing restrictions may be on included components.

>>> DRI
>>> is working as fast as they can though to create a good story despite
>>> that. 
>> Video drivers are a tiny part of this problem.
> 
> What do you consider the more important area for the discussion?

All code under any other restrictions falls into the same category as 
something you simply can't have in Linux, at least combined with 
anything containing GPL code.  All code covered by patents can't be 
worked around by writing a new implementation.  We don't have any way of 
knowing how much this might cover in existing code (samba, for example 
seems almost certain to duplicate functionality that Microsoft has 
patented), and anything that we do know is patented that we need has to 
be isolated across interfaces that prevent it from being considered a 
'combined work' when used with any specific instance of other code or 
for either part to be considered a derived work of the other.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell at gmail.com