Microsoft, Linux e GPL

Hoje em dia as coisas já não passam tão desapercebidas como antes. Um exemplo disso é que não tardou para ficarmos sabendo da verdadeira história por trás do recente anúncio dessa tal contribuição da Microsoft para o desenvolvimento do kernel Linux:

"Tem coisas que são boas demais para serem verdade. Você se lembra daquele anúncio da Microsoft, que havia contribuído com cerca de 20000 linhas de código para o kernel Linux, licenciadas sob GPL? Pois bem, acontece que a abertura do código foi simplesmente resultado de uma violação da GPL.

A história começou quando Stephen Hemminger, engenheiro-diretor do projeto Vyatta e contribuidor do Linux, verificou que um driver de rede no Hyper-V da Microsoft possuía componentes licenciados sob GPL. Esses componentes foram 'linkados' estaticamente aos binários de código fechado, fato que a GPL não permite claramente. Depois deste episódio, Hemminger contatou o chefe do Linux Driver Project, Greg Kroah-Hartman, que trabalha pra a Novell, que afirmou que iria trabalhar no caso sem furdunço e sem atrair muita atenção da mídia (visto que a Novell possui acordo com a MS). O tempo passou, e para não passar aperto, a MS lançou o código sob a GPL, fazendo um marketing em cima como se fosse algo completamente voluntário.

Para verificar a história, a jornalista especializada na Microsoft, Mary-Jo Foley, contatou Kroah-Hartman, que realmente confirmou que Hemminger estava correto: o código foi aberto devido à violação da GPL.

Que tiro no pé... Claro, nada como um bom marketing para abafar o caso."

Fonte: Guia do Hardware

Uh Oh. Another Smooth Move from Microsoft: Watch out, Ruby. Watch out OSI. (Groklaw)

Monday, July 30 2007 @ 02:42 PM EDT

I guess you saw the news about Microsoft submitting some licenses to OSI hoping for approval as "open source" licenses. You can watch Bill Hilf of Microsoft giving his talk at OSCON, which is where the stories emanated from.

That, to me, wasn't the news, since a Microsoft license was submitted once before, although I gather not by the company. But what I'm noticing is reactions. ComputerWorld collected some truly astonishing responses, and if you follow their links, it gets worse. First, though, the reaction that matters, from Michael Tiemann:

Michael Tiemann, president of the non-profit Open Source Initiative, said that provisions in three out of five of Microsoft's shared-source licenses that restrict source code to running only on the Windows operating system would contravene a fundamental tenet of open-source licenses as laid out by the OSI. By those rules, code must be free for anyone to view, use, modify as they see fit. "I am certain that if they say Windows-only machines, that would not fly because that would restrict the field of use," said Tiemann in an interview late Friday.

Why would this need to be said? What nerve Microsoft has to even dream of trying for such a restriction. A license that restricts use to only the Windows operating system. Why would OSI even consider that? Have we lost our minds? At least two years ago, folks began noticing the erosion of the meaning of "Open Source" by Microsoft. It moves like a glacier, but while it may be slow, it's hard to be in a glacier's path and win. But unless someone stands up, and soon, Open Source is dead as we know it, and Microsoft will take it over and remake it in its image. All that will be left standing will be GPLv3 and Free Software. Personally, I hope that doesn't happen. I have always seen the need for both, and I hope OSI has the vision to see what needs to happen next.

Leia na íntegra [aqui].

Como fica a parceria entre Linspire e Canonical?

Sobre a Linspire, resta saber como fica a parceria firmada com a Canonical?

Principalmente depois da sedução e abandono sofridos com a Microsoft.

Apple compra CUPS

Transcrição do TUAW:

"Filed under: Apple Corporate, UNIX / BSD

Big UNIX news this morning. Apple has bought out CUPS, the common UNIX printing system. The name may not sound familiar, but it's part of every Mac OS X installation. CUPS implements a cross-platform printing system based on the Internet Printing Protocol and is, according to its web page, the defacto standard printing system for Linux. Until now, CUPS has been distributed by Easy Software Products under the GNU general public license. Although the purchase was announced today, it seems the actual deal went down this past February. In addition to acquiring the CUPS source code ownership, Apple has also hired Michael R. Sweet, its creator. CUPS will retain its GNU GPL2/LGPL2 licensing terms and Sweet intends to continue maintaining and supporting the product. FAQs about the change of ownership can be found here.As our own Mike Rose points out, the license exceptions seem to allow third party plug-in developers to keep their source code private. Developers (including Apple) can distribute derivative work and be exempt from the mandatory source code release clauses of the GNU GPL so long as the exception is limited to Mac OS X and not for use on other operating systems. Just remember: we are not lawyers, and the exception language is convoluted.

Thanks, Daniel.

Update: Nilay Patel from Engadget adds: Apple isn't affected by the license terms of CUPS, since they own it. A license only affects licensees, not owners. Apple could fork CUPS and close the source tomorrow and no one could do anything about it, although I'm certain the terms of the sale included a promise that Apple would keep it GPL'd for a certain period of time. The exception appears to be geared to printer manufacturers so they can write drivers and not have to open their code -- which is interesting, since the GPL already provides a mechanism for this sort of distribution, called the "mere aggregation" clause.. Disclaimer: Although Nilay is a lawyer, this information is not legal advice or analysis and should not be construed as such. Thanks Nilay."

Questão envolvendo Parallels e LGPL resolvida

A questão envolvendo o projeto WINE, Parallels e LGPL parece estar resolvida.

Leia mais sobre isso no OS News.

Fonte: LGPL Issue Parallels Solved - OS News

Parallels Acusado de violar a LGPL

Tradução livre de notícia do OS News:

Parallels Acusado de violar a LGPL

SWSoft, a empresa por trás do Parallels Desktop para Mac está possivelmente violando a licença LGPL por usar bibliotecas do projeto WINE sem acesso ao código fonte. O projeto WINE descobriu a violação no princípio de junho e após várias tentativas sem sucesso de obter o código fonte para as bibliotecas, foi criada uma página wiki para registrar a evolução do caso. O projeto WINE deseja resolver a questão sem a necessidade de recorrer a ações legais. Agradecemos a MacWereld pela informação [Holanda].

Referência: SWSoft Out of Compliance With the GPL - Slashdot

iPhone restringe o usuário, GPLv3 o liberta

Com todo o hype e cobertura da mídia em torno do iPhone, outro importante lançamento desta sexta-feira, 29 de junho, quase passou despercebido para a maioria das pessoas.

Hoje, às 12h da costa leste norte-americana a FSF liberou, depois de 18 meses de trabalho, a versão final da mais popular licença de software do mundo, a GPLv3!

Leia mais sobre isso aqui.

GPLv3 e Apache License 2.0

Guide to the "Last Call" draft of GPLv3
The process is finally heading to a close. I'll need to take time to review this over the next week or so.

QotD: FSF on Apache License 2.0 compatibility
The fact that GPLv3 will be compatible with the Apache License v2 (as Cliff Schmidt and Eben Moglen disclosed on my panel at JavaOne) is excellent news, congratulations to those who negotiated the resolution.

Fonte: Simon Phipps, SunMink

Linus, Eben Moglen e o FUD da Microsoft

Dica de Leitura: Linus Torvalds diz que falar sobre patentes é fácil, mas cadê a lista das violações?

"It's certainly a lot more likely that Microsoft violates patents than Linux does," said Torvalds, holder of the Linux trademark. If the source code for Windows could be subjected to the same critical review that Linux has been, Microsoft would find itself in violation of patents held by other companies, said Torvalds.

"Basic operating system theory was pretty much done by the end of the 1960s. IBM probably owned thousands of really 'fundamental' patents," Torvalds said in a response to questions submitted by InformationWeek. But he doesn't like any form of patent saber rattling. "The fundamental stuff was done about half a century ago and has long, long since lost any patent protection," he wrote.

(Linus Torvalds Responds To Microsoft Patent Claims - Information Week)


Fonte: BR-Linux.org