<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><?xml-stylesheet title="XSL_formatting" type="text/xsl" href="rss_style.xsl" ?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
        <title>ZDNet Blogs</title>
        <link>http://blogs.zdnet.com</link>
        <description>ZDNet Blogs Focus: GPL</description>
<item>
<title>GPL will get its day in court</title>
<link>http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=6343</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 21 Sep 2007 07:53:34 -0700</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Larry Dignan</dc:creator>
<guid>http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=6343</guid>
<description><![CDATA[The Software Freedom Law Center says it has filed the first ever U.S. copyright infringement lawsuit based on the GNU General Public License.   The Software Freedom Law Center (SLFC) said Thursday it is filing the lawsuit (see complaint, statement and Techmeme) against Monsoon Multimedia on behalf of the two developers behind BusyBox, described as a "lightweight set of standard Unix utilities commonly used in embedded systems and is open source software licensed under GPL version 2."  The crux of the case seems to be this:    One of the conditions of the GPL is that re-distributors of BusyBox are required to ensure that each downstream recipient is provided access to the source code of the program. On the company's own Web site, Monsoon ... ]]>
</description></item>
<item>
<title>Free Software Foundation: No GPLv3 exemptions for Microsoft</title>
<link>http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=678</link>
<pubDate>Tue, 28 Aug 2007 11:54:01 -0700</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Mary Jo Foley</dc:creator>
<guid>http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=678</guid>
<description><![CDATA[It took the Free Software Foundation almost two months. But the organization has finally issued an official statement regarding Microsoft's claim that it won't be bound by terms of the GNU General Public License (GPL) version 3 as part of its patent-protection deals with open-source vendors.    In its press release dated July 5, 2007, Microsoft announced that it was not going to provide patent protection to Novell customers using software licensed under the GPL v3.  "We regard Microsoft's decision (not to be willing or able to provide patent protection for GPLv3 software) with satisfaction," said the FSF in a statement issued on August 28.  "We do not, however, agree with Microsoft's characterization of the situation involving GPLv3.  Microsoft cannot by any act ... ]]>
</description></item>
<item>
<title>Microsoft: We're not a party to GPLv3</title>
<link>http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=5592</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 06 Jul 2007 04:22:54 -0700</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Larry Dignan</dc:creator>
<guid>http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=5592</guid>
<description><![CDATA[Microsoft says it's not a party to the third version of the General Public License and assumes it's not under any legal obligations under the license.   The statement, made on Thursday, is the first remarks on the GPLv3, which was released in its final form June 29.  Here's what Microsoft says (see Techmeme discussion):      While there have been some claims that Microsoft   s distribution of certificates for Novell support services, under our interoperability collaboration with Novell, constitutes acceptance of the GPLv3 license, we do not believe that such claims have a valid legal basis under contract, intellectual property, or any other law. In fact, we do not believe that Microsoft needs a license under GPL to carry out any aspect of its collaboration ... ]]>
</description></item>
<item>
<title>It's finished. It's done. GPVv3 that is.</title>
<link>http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=1177</link>
<pubDate>Mon, 02 Jul 2007 06:54:12 -0700</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Dana Blankenhorn</dc:creator>
<guid>http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=1177</guid>
<description><![CDATA[Why is this GNU smiling?    Because with a political flourish the Free Software Foundation has released the final versions of both GPLv3 and LGPLv3.    IBM has given its blessing but there is, as yet, no white smoke rising from Portland, where Linus Torvalds has expressed his preference for GPLv2.    The new license makes an explicit grant of patents on GPL code, and aims to prevent future Microsoft-Novell deals, in which patent claims are used for competitive advantage.    Torvalds is most unhappy about the "anti-Tivoization" provisions of the new license, which mandate that people be allowed to modify GPL code when it's found inside hardware. TiVos run on Linux, but can't be modified inside it.    In addition to Linux, GPLv3 also faces threats from Google, which ... ]]>
</description></item>
<item>
<title>Sun demurs from adopting GPL v3 for OpenSolaris, keeps CDDL only</title>
<link>http://blogs.zdnet.com/Gardner/?p=2489</link>
<pubDate>Sat, 30 Jun 2007 07:21:55 -0700</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Dana Gardner</dc:creator>
<guid>http://blogs.zdnet.com/Gardner/?p=2489</guid>
<description><![CDATA[I wonder what that was all about. I mean the last dozen months of Sun Microsystems seemingly interested in and participating in the definitions of GPL v3, only to come out now that GPL v3 is defined to say they will stick to CDDL for OpenSolaris and (for now) GPL v2 for Java EE.    Should we surmise that Sun did not get what it wanted, or surmise that Sun did get what it wanted? If GPL v2 -- after a long haul of end-runs, badmouthing, FUD, and backtracking -- finally became good enough for Java EE (in addition to CDDL), what is different about v3? Why is any GPL good enough for Java but not OpenSolaris? Shouldn't OpenSolaris compare on equal ... ]]>
</description></item>
<item>
<title>GPL v3 due Friday -- don't trip over the lawyers at the Apple Store</title>
<link>http://blogs.zdnet.com/Gardner/?p=2488</link>
<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2007 02:21:12 -0700</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Dana Gardner</dc:creator>
<guid>http://blogs.zdnet.com/Gardner/?p=2488</guid>
<description><![CDATA[Talk about timing ... just as the iPhone hysteria whips into a physical location frenzy near you, a probably more significant development will unfold on Friday.    Reports have it that the postponed but widely anticipated latest GLP open source license, version 3, will become available.     Red Hat had some comments on it.     So all those lawyers at Microsoft can kill two birds with one off-campus trip. They can buy their Apple iPhone (they can afford one), connect to their iTunes on their Windows laptops, set it up on WiFi and then listen and watch the video stream of the GPLv3 launch on the pristine iPhone screen -- all while still in their cars outside the Apple Store in Bellevue.    Can't do that ... ]]>
</description></item>
<item>
<title>GPLv3 myth#2: You can't mix GPL software with other software</title>
<link>http://blogs.zdnet.com/Burnette/?p=331</link>
<pubDate>Thu, 07 Jun 2007 07:48:44 -0700</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Ed Burnette</dc:creator>
<guid>http://blogs.zdnet.com/Burnette/?p=331</guid>
<description><![CDATA[Now that the    Final Draft    of the GNU General Public License version 3 (GPLv3) is out I thought it would be a good time to take a look at some of the least well understood provisions in the license. In part 1, we explored the notion of selling GPL software. This part looks at mixing GPL (v3 and v2) software with software covered by other licenses.    Disclaimer: This information was culled from a variety of sources, including the GPLv3 web site, interviews with experts involved in the process, and analysis from various industry watchers. However this isn   t intended as legal advice.    Myth 2: You can't mix GPL software with other software.    False. According to experts in open source licenses this is possible, especially ... ]]>
</description></item>
<item>
<title>Top 5 myths of GPLv3 dispelled (part 1)</title>
<link>http://blogs.zdnet.com/Burnette/?p=325</link>
<pubDate>Mon, 04 Jun 2007 04:21:59 -0700</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Ed Burnette</dc:creator>
<guid>http://blogs.zdnet.com/Burnette/?p=325</guid>
<description><![CDATA[Now that the "Final Draft" of the GNU General Public License version 3 (GPLv3) is out and we're 30 days away from the official published version, I thought it would be a good time to take a look at some of the least well understood provisions in the license. These are things you might have heard and accepted, but the truth may be different from what you believe.    Disclaimer: This information was culled from a variety of sources, including the GPLv3 web site, interviews with experts involved in the process, and analysis from various industry watchers. However this isn't intended as legal advice.    Myth 1: You can't sell GPLv3 software.    False. Technically speaking, you've always been able to "sell" GPL software. GPLv3 spells ... ]]>
</description></item>
<item>
<title>FSF publishes 'last call' draft of GPLv3; looks good for Novell</title>
<link>http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=5242</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 01 Jun 2007 07:31:35 -0700</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Larry Dignan</dc:creator>
<guid>http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=5242</guid>
<description><![CDATA[The Free Software Foundation published its near final draft of the third version of the General Public License and expects to officially publish the license on June 29.    The GPLv3--you know the one that's a big risk to the Microsoft-Novell pact--has been tweaked to incorporate feedback and address license compatibility. Overall though the latest GPL (blog focus, all news and Techmeme) looks good for Novell. eWeek's Peter Galli concluded that the latest GPL preserves Novell's Microsoft deal.    For its part, Novell said the following on its blog:    Nothing in the last call draft of GPLv3 suggests that the final version of GPLv3 will inhibit Novell   s ability to include GPLv3 technologies in SUSE Linux Enterprise, openSUSE, and other Novell offerings as these technologies become ... ]]>
</description></item>
<item>
<title>GPV V3 and hardware modification</title>
<link>http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=1094</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 01 Jun 2007 06:24:01 -0700</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Dana Blankenhorn</dc:creator>
<guid>http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=1094</guid>
<description><![CDATA[The Free Software Foundation has released its "last call" draft of GPL V3, along with a personal plea from Richard Stallman for folks to upgrade from V2. (This gadget-loving Tux was found at Computer Shopper.)    Most discussion of the new release will focus on Novell, which won clearance for its Microsoft deal "because the patent protection they arranged with Microsoft last November can be turned against Microsoft to the community's benefit." (Huh?)    But instead I want to relate the new draft to yesterday's discussion of hardware. From the PDF "explanation of changes" distributed with the release:  we condition the right to convey object code in a defined class of "User Products," under certain circumstances, on providing whatever information is required to enable a ... ]]>
</description></item>
<item>
<title>New Microsoft-funded study finds developers don't want GPL to cover patent deals</title>
<link>http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=462</link>
<pubDate>Tue, 22 May 2007 06:55:10 -0700</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Mary Jo Foley</dc:creator>
<guid>http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=462</guid>
<description><![CDATA[Microsoft is expending an awful lot of time and energy to try to derail the next version of the Free Software Foundation's General Public License (GPL). On May 22, yet another in a long line of Microsoft-commissioned open-source studies made its debut. The latest, conducted by Harvard Business School professor Alan MacCormack in conjunction with Keystone Strategy Inc., is titled "A Developers Bill of Rights: What Open Source Developers Want in a Software License." You probably can guess what the study concludes, given Microsoft's decision last week -- in the name of attempting to derail the looming GPL version 3 -- to claim that open-source software violates 235 of its patents. The Bill of Rights study found that rank-and-file open-source developers don't want ... ]]>
</description></item>
<item>
<title>Microsoft and patent claims: 'Business as usual'?</title>
<link>http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=458</link>
<pubDate>Sun, 20 May 2007 06:59:15 -0700</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Mary Jo Foley</dc:creator>
<guid>http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=458</guid>
<description><![CDATA[Bill Hilf, Microsoft's General Manager of Platform Strategy, has finally blogged about Microsoft's decision to go public with  its claims that it has found 235 patent violations by open source software on various Microsoft products.  "Our IP strategy has not changed," said Hilf and Microsoft's head of the company's open-source-software lab, Sam Ramji, in a blog posting dated May 18. "Where we have unique and valuable intellectual property (as indicated by our high scores on the science strength of our patents) we will seek to license it to commercial entities (such as Samsung and Fuji Xerox).    "It   s not us versus the free world. It   s about commercial companies working together around IP issues     it   s business as usual," the pair added.  Hilf and ... ]]>
</description></item>
<item>
<title>Survey says: Microsoft's patent might worries few, angers many more</title>
<link>http://blogs.zdnet.com/Gardner/?p=2464</link>
<pubDate>Thu, 17 May 2007 10:02:26 -0700</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Dana Gardner</dc:creator>
<guid>http://blogs.zdnet.com/Gardner/?p=2464</guid>
<description><![CDATA[We all gained some illuminating feedback through the poll I conducted this week in my blog commentary on Microsoft's escalating aggression through patents-posturing about open source software's legitimacy.    And while I will assume that the poll is not scientific, with a response tally of around 4,000, it does provide insight into the thinking of those inclined to vote. The ongoing poll, incidentally, was begun last November soon after Microsoft announced it's alliance with Novell on SuSE Linux, and CEO Steve Ballmer alluded to injurious violations of Microsoft's intellectual property in other Linux distributions.    The latest poll results remain consistent with the first sets of voting on blog readers' sentiment: Linux as white satin-clad Princess Leia, Microsoft as imperial strongman Darth Vader.    The highly ... ]]>
</description></item>
<item>
<title>GPLv3 the impetus for Microsoft's latest Linux attack campaign</title>
<link>http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=437</link>
<pubDate>Mon, 14 May 2007 04:35:47 -0700</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Mary Jo Foley</dc:creator>
<guid>http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=437</guid>
<description><![CDATA[With one stroke, Microsoft has ended any illusion that it planned to try to build bridges with the open-source community. And it appears the primary reason for Microsofts decision to go back on the public attack against Linux and other open-source software is the looming Version 3 of the Free Software Foundations General Public License (GPL).  In a newly published interview with Fortune magazine, Microsoft licensing officials go on the record claiming that the company believes free and open-source software infringes on 235 of Microsofts patents. At the same time, Bill Hilf, Microsoft director of platform strategy -- and the companys main liaision to the open-source community -- was quoted on a tour in Southeast Asia as saying that ... ]]>
</description></item>
<item>
<title>Free, as in responsible</title>
<link>http://blogs.zdnet.com/Murphy/?p=852</link>
<pubDate>Tue, 01 May 2007 12:15:04 -0700</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Paul Murphy</dc:creator>
<guid>http://blogs.zdnet.com/Murphy/?p=852</guid>
<description><![CDATA[Consider   this  comment by Krehbiel on last Thursday's blog about my inability to see  a driving vision behind recent Linux kernel development:    What you may refer to as "Linux," what Richard Stallman wants labelled "the GNU/Linux system," is even more than  that. The "Linux distribution" you install (be it Red Hat, Suse, Ubuntu, Gentoo, what have you) has aggregated  software from a wide variety of different and *independent* creators, where those creators have agreed on a common  ideal called "Open Source". *That* is the vision. It's about giving over to you the freedom to use it, copy it, and  customise it any way you like.    Have your employees installed a ... ]]>
</description></item>
<item>
<title>Children of GPL</title>
<link>http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=997</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 06 Apr 2007 06:57:35 -0700</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Dana Blankenhorn</dc:creator>
<guid>http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=997</guid>
<description><![CDATA[In all the hubbub over GPL Version 3, a lot of you may not know this is just one license that the Free Software Foundation manages. (The image stood at the top of Georg Greve's Brave Gnu World columns from 1999-2004.)    They also manage the LGPL, or the Lesser GPL. A new draft of this license was released April 3. As with the GPL itself, you can comment on the new LGPL, using an interface which does virtual highlighting of text and tells you how many comments are on any section when you mouse-over it.    Now for the news. The FSF has decided it will update a third license, creating Version 2 of the Affero GPL, or AGPL. This license is designed ... ]]>
</description></item>
</channel>
</rss>
