FOSSwire

Now that the GPLv3 has been finalised and is now released (and we're starting to see projects adopting it), many of us in the free software community have been wondering what Linus Torvalds' stance is on the final version.

There has been controversy surrounding Linus' views on the new version of the licence and considerable speculation as to whether he would consider moving the kernel to GPLv3.

Linus particularly has quite strong feelings about the anti-Tivoisation clause in the GPLv3 which prevents embedded device manufacturers from limiting their devices from running modified versions of GPL-covered software.

No. The anti-DRM language is still there, and no, it was never a
misunderstanding. Now it's been limited to "consumer devices" (after I
pointed out some of the _obvious_ problems with the original language),
and the only people who called anything a "misunderstanding" were the ones
that tried to point to *other* points in the license altogether (ie there
was also a "drm section", which didn't really seem to say anything much at
all).

Rms calls it "tivoization", but that's a word he has made up, and a term I
find offensive, so I don't choose to use it. It's offensive because Tivo
never did anything wrong, and the FSF even acknowledged that. The fact
that they do their hardware and have some DRM issues with the content
producers and thus want to protect the integrity of that hardware.

The kernel license covers the *kernel*. It does not cover boot loaders and
hardware, and as far as I'm concerned, people who make their own hardware
can design them any which way they want. Whether that means "booting only
a specific kernel" or "sharks with lasers", I don't care.

It is all quite complex and ultimately just boils down to the age-old issue of idealism (as shown by Stallman and the FSF) versus the pragmatism of Linus and many of the kernel developers.

It's always difficult when you have such a diverse set of opinions within the free software community and inevitably because of the strong opinions on both sides people will disagree. Ultimately, it's an issue that is unlikely to go away.

Still it isn't all that clear what the final decision on the kernel licensing will be and it looks like for now the kernel will remain GPLv2 only.

It's official: the free (as in freedom) edition of Ubuntu has been named Gobuntu.

Mark Shuttleworth describes in his blog:

Thanks to Colin and Evan’s efforts we now have daily images of a freedom-focused flavour of Ubuntu, “Gobuntu”. This is a call for developers who are interested in pushing the limits of content and code freedom - including firmware, content, and authoring infrastructure, to join the team and help identify places where we must separate out pieces that don’t belong in Gobuntu from the standard Ubuntu builds.

Currently, the alpha builds (based off of Ubuntu 7.10) are available, but the only modification is the lack of proprietary hardware drivers.

It seems there are no separate versions for GNOME and KDE (or XFCE, for that matter), but using the repositories you should be able to install either for the time being.

CNN have a very interesting article about Microsoft, FOSS and all of the controversy surrounding their claim that Linux infringes upon Microsoft's patents. Apparently, Ballmer reckons the exact number of violations is at 235.

Microsoft counters that it is a matter of principle. "We live in a world where we honor, and support the honoring of, intellectual property," says Ballmer in an interview. FOSS patrons are going to have to "play by the same rules as the rest of the business," he insists. "What's fair is fair."

Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith and licensing chief Horacio Gutierrez sat down with Fortune recently to map out their strategy for getting FOSS users to pay royalties. Revealing the precise figure for the first time, they state that FOSS infringes on no fewer than 235 Microsoft patents.

The fact remains that the software idea patenting system is a complete mess and you would be hard pressed to find a non-trivial application that infringe's someone's patents. As far as I'm concerned, Microsoft's move here is just FUD and hyperbole.

Nevertheless, it's actually a very interesting (and long) article on the subject, so it's well worth a read through if you're interested.