Language Selection

English French German Italian Portuguese Spanish

`Open' chat on Linux

Filed under
Interviews
SUSE

Novell recently launched version 10 of SUSE Linux Desktop. eWorld caught up with Revathi Kasturi, managing director, West Asia SUSE Linux, to check out the level of activity amongst users of open source software. Excerpts from the conversation:

We hear that there is some controversy regarding the third version of GPL3, what with Linus Torvalds (the person to whom Linux owes existence in its current form) saying that he disagrees with parts that deal with Digital Rights Management?

Since we build the operating system (OS) from the open source, the respective components of the OS follow the licence of what we are doing. A lot of the components that Novell releases in the Open Source gets released in the GPL 2. One is not forced to use GPL3. It is not an automatic `upgradation'. It is up to the software licence. A lot of them release under the LGPL licence, which is the `lesser', or modified, GPL.
If, for instance, one is developing a tool that is to be embedded into a device, and he wants to build an application around the tool... and, if the tool is under GPL, then the application that is wrapped around that also comes under the GPL.
But if one does not want to do that, then he can use the LGPL, and in that case the application need not be released under an open source licence.

Aren't there enough applications in the open source arena taking off? Is that obstructing the spread of open source software?

Full Story.

More in Tux Machines

Mir 0.8 Works On Less ABI Breakage, Touchspots, Responsiveness

While Ubuntu 14.10 on the desktop isn't using Mir by default, Mir 0.8.0 is being prepared for release by Canonical and it has a number of interesting changes. Read more

Open source history, present day, and licensing

Looking at open source softwares particularly, this is a fact that is probably useful to you if you are thinking about business models, many people don't care about it anymore. We talk about FOSS, Free and Open Source Software, but if we really are strict there's a difference between free software and open source software. On the left, I have free software which most typically is GPL software. Software where the license insures freedom. It gives freedoms to you as a user, but it also requires that the freedoms are maintained. On the right-hand side, you have open source software which is open for all, but it also allows you to close it. So here we come back to the famous clause of the GPL license, the reciprocity requirement which says, "If I am open, you need to be open." So software that comes under the GPL license carries with it something that other people call a virus. I call it a blessing because I think it's great if all software becomes open. Read more

Mozilla Wants to Save the Open Web, but is it Too Late?

Again, I think this is absolutely correct. But what it fails to recognise is that one of the key ways of making the Web medium "less free and open" is the use of legally-protected DRM. DRM is the very antithesis of openness and of sharing. And yet, sadly, as I reported back in May, Mozilla has decided to back adding DRM to the Web, starting first with video (but it won't end there...) This means Mozilla's Firefox is itself is a vector of attack against openness and sharing, and undermines its own lofty goals in the Open Web Fellows programme. Read more

Open source is starting to make a dent in proprietary software fortunes

Open source has promised to unseat proprietary competitors for decades, but the cloud may make the threat real. Read more