Submitted by Microsoft cleared the air July 5 on its obligations to GNU General Public License Version 3 support, declaring it will not provide support or updates for GPLv3 under the deal it penned in November with Novell to administer certificates for the Linux distribution. Microsoft also said July 5 that its agreement with Novell, as well as those with Linux rivals Xandros and Linspire, were unaffected by the release June 29 of GPLv3 by the Free Software Foundation.
Microsoft Says It Is Not Bound by GPLv3
251 Comments
2007-07-06 2:36 pm
2007-07-06 5:42 pm
graigsmith
“MS gave customers SUSE vouchers. A person who got such a voucher can come in and redeem it to receive the SUSE distro from MS. They can do that at any point in time, since the vouchers have no expiration date. If they do that after GPLv3 came to be, and if the SUSE version they get from MS contains GPLv3-licensed code, it binds MS with the GPLv3 terms, because they are distributing GPLv3 code.”
i would argue against this. they are just selling a package that SUSE distributes. they aren’t distributing it themselves. or are they?
“Guess again.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070518124020691
”
what’s to say Microsoft has to give out the newest version of suse? they could just give the old version out. heck they could do that forever if they wanted.
2007-07-06 5:48 pm
theARE
what’s to say Microsoft has to give out the newest version of suse? they could just give the old version out. heck they could do that forever if they wanted.
If the old version of SUSE contains code licencesd under “GPLv2 or later” (which it does), then that code comes under the GPLv3 once it was officialy published.
2007-07-06 6:15 pm
cb_osn
If the old version of SUSE contains code licencesd under “GPLv2 or later” (which it does), then that code comes under the GPLv3 once it was officialy published.
This is entirely incorrect. The “GPLv2 or later” clause does not automatically relicense the code under the GPLv3. The code would have to be explicitly relicensed under the GPLv3 to prevent distribution under the GPLv2.
2007-07-06 6:25 pm
theARE
This is entirely incorrect. The “GPLv2 or later” clause does not automatically relicense the code under the GPLv3. The code would have to be explicitly relicensed under the GPLv3 to prevent distribution under the GPLv2.
Your right, sorry, But updates that consumers ar entitled to might contain updated GPLv3 packages.
So Novell will either have to mantain a fork of the entire codebase under GPLv2 which is just not feasible in the long run, or ship GPLv3 packages.
And if a new version of SUSE comes out with GPLv3 software, and people then redeam the coupon then Microsoft could be seen to have “conveyed” that software as defined under the GPLv3
2007-07-06 6:33 pm
2007-07-06 8:37 pm
DrillSgt
“If the old version of SUSE contains code licencesd under “GPLv2 or later” (which it does), then that code comes under the GPLv3 once it was officialy published.”
That is a false statement. The software was released under, and is still licensed under GPL v2. As I said in an earlier post that statement is like that to allow the developer of the software to change the license terms to a newer version if they so desire. It is not an automatic upgrade. To be licensed under the GPL v3 that statement needs to be changed per the GPL v3. Requirements for applying the GPL v3 to your code are listed at the end of the GPL, found here:
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
2007-07-06 8:45 pm
rhavyn
Sorry, wrong. The “or later” clause allows anyone who has a copy of the software to distribute it under either the version of the GPL the software was originally licensed under OR a later version at their discretion. It has nothing to do with the original author of the software. That said, it’s not necessarily automatic either since someone, somewhere needs to decide to distribute it under the GPL version 3 for it to take effect. And, of course, there would still be copies available under the GPL version 2.
The original author, on the other hand, can license the code under whatever license he wants to regardless of whether it was originally licensed under the GPL because they own the original copyright.
2007-07-06 8:59 pm
DrillSgt
“Sorry, wrong. The “or later” clause allows anyone who has a copy of the software to distribute it under either the version of the GPL the software was originally licensed under OR a later version at their discretion. It has nothing to do with the original author of the software.”
That was a misunderstanding of it on my part then. From the FAQ’s and such I did not realize that anyone could update the license and redistribute it. Thanks for the correction 
2007-07-06 5:58 pm
galvanash
Let me make this simple for you. MS gave customers SUSE vouchers. A person who got such a voucher can come in and redeem it to receive the SUSE distro from MS. They can do that at any point in time, since the vouchers have no expiration date.
That is simply bullsh*t. MS does not EVER touch a copy of SUSE Linux in this process. It doesn’t offer it for download. It doesn’t email it. It doesnt put it on disks. It simply NEVER touches it. It gives out a voucher which does 2 things: It gives the recipient patent protection from MS and it gives them a coupon which is redeemable BY A 3RD PARTY (i.e. Novell).
This interpretation of the GPL3 by Moglen is just frick’in silly. No one who isn’t a brain-washed zealot could possible take this seriously. Claiming that something that is the equivalent of a newspaper coupon can be construed as a “propagate by procuring conveyance” is ridiculous.
If I loan someone $50 to purchase a SUSE CD would that make me a legally bound to the transaction? How about giving them a ride to the store? What if I let them borrow $5 for gas and THEN they used the gas to get to the store to get the CD????? See where this goes… Its stupid. No judge on earth would ever uphold interpretation of this clause like this.
Sorry folks, you can all move along. This is a big puff of hot air, nothing more. You can all mode me down for not being a die-hard GPL zealot, I don’t care. I call ’em like I see ’em.
Edited 2007-07-06 17:59
2007-07-06 1:26 pm
ubit
Except they are all parties to an agreement over their code.
I guess all the customers of Novell, openSUSE developers, and non-commercial “hobbyists” who didn’t sign anything with MS aren’t covered by MS’s blessing either. Except they are. Except that MS did such a deal concerning code subject to “any later version”.
Any other outcome would mean the end of the MS EULA. So MS can get out now, or face a poison pill.
2007-07-06 1:52 pm
MaratR
Apparently Microsoft claims that doesn’t apply to them.
As long as the software covered by Microsoft’s “covenants not to sue” is not licensed under GPLv3, that really doesn’t apply to them.
2007-07-06 2:30 pm
dylansmrjones
Microsoft is releasing several GPL-products, incl. Suse and Unix Services.
MS will be hit by GPLv3 the moment one (or more) of the protected distributions upgrade to v. 3. This is particularly true for Suse distributions obtained from Microsoft since the MS vouchers have no end date.
2007-07-07 12:22 am
glarepate
Does Microsoft make or sell any products directly based on GPL’d code?
As the other poster pointed out they do in fact sell/distribute GPLed code.
However your strawman objection, possibly unintentional, doesn’t address the licensing issue. The license doesn’t say make or sell.
I was under the impression that the GPL deals with code, not with support of products.
If you wish to find out more rather than maintain your current impression then I recommend you do so. If not, I still recommend that you do so, but it seems unlikely that you will if you aren’t interested in what is actually going on.
2007-07-06 1:54 pm
_mikk
I think you are right, given the latest advances in that area, where Microsoft EULA allows them to gather an awful lot of information about you.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Forget-about-the-WGA-20-Windows-Vist…
2007-07-06 2:43 pm
2007-07-06 11:28 am
iskios
The difference would be in proving to a judge that Microsoft knowingly accepted the terms of the license.
If you buy Windows and find you cannot accept the license, return it. (I think the license should be on the outside of packaging, since most places will not accept opened returns on software) But I think the idea of forcing a company to open source its software or code in this way is tantamount to a tyrannical takeover, and I find it a bit disturbing.
-
2007-07-06 11:33 am
KenJacksonBut I think the idea of forcing a company to open source its software or code in this way is tantamount to a tyrannical takeover, and I find it a bit disturbing.
But it seems to be symmetrical. If I don’t like the license that Microsoft uses, I take the software back. If Microsoft doesn’t like the license that GNU software uses, it can chose to not do business. Neither of us should be able to just ignore the license.
-
2007-07-06 11:35 am
2fargoneThey are bound by the license if they distribute the code or they’re guilty of copyright infringment. Other than that license, they have no other protection to distribute. This isn’t a contract, MS doesn’t have to accept the terms to anything, UNLESS, it distributes the code.
There is nothing distrubing about this other than MS thinks they can have their cake, and eat it too.
-
2fargone
I should also point out there is no code or software that’s being opensourced. This is about patents.
-
2007-07-07 12:07 am
melkorHuh? Microsoft didn’t need to make a deal with Novell. It didn’t need to make a deal with GNU GPL’d software. It was Microsoft’s choice. Microsoft knows what the GPL is about, what it entails. It knows that you have to give back to the community from which you take. This is simply Microsoft arrogance. This will be part of a 2 pronged attack – patents deals from one end, and a direct legal attack on the validity of the GPL in the other. Of course, the 3rd pronged attack is the SLAF (SCO legal attack FUD), which doesn’t look too healthy.
Talk about FUD…and innaccurate FUD at that.
Dave
2007-07-06 11:30 am
sgibofh
I think MS is really starting to find out that the briliant things they thouht they have done, in fact is starting to explonde in their faces.
This leaves only the positive parts: the atent deal is useless (at least in the netherlands) and the interoperability stuff is the good part.
they do find that they are above the law but it’s being proven otherwise and it will now too.
2007-07-06 11:42 am
Soulbender
“declaring it will not provide support or updates for GPLv3”
What? Support or updates *for the license*? Maybe it’s just me but this statement makes things more confusing, not less.
-
2007-07-06 12:16 pm
g2deviBasically, Microsoft is saying, that their patent license only covers non-GPLv3 works since the GPLv3 wasn’t even created when the Novell-Microsoft deal was in place. In the EULA case, if you agree to a EULA and then Microsoft changes the EULA one month later to say “You agree to hand over all your money to Microsoft”, you’re not bound by this EULA since you didn’t agree to it.
But this means, when SAMBA, the GCC and the GNU foundation libraries, and any other GPLv3 libraries/applications are released, Novell will either have to fork the GPLv2 release and maintain them (that’s too expensive) or they will have to opt out of the patent protection scheme for this critical infrastructure or face a law suit from Microsoft for giving a universal license to all Microsoft’s patents on the GPLv3 software (assuming even one exists). So, for all intents and purposes, the Novell-Microsoft patent deal will be dead if the GPLv3 becomes popular.
Things are more grim for Linspire and Xandros if the GPLv3 becomes popular, since they aren’t excused by the grandfather clause which states that if you make an exclusionary patent deal, you’re forbidden from shipping GPLv3 software. Basically, their choice is to fork the old GPLv2 code (impossibly expensive, unless they want to remain obsolete) or opt out of the patent deal completely.
-
2fargone
Just to add to what you said, the real threat to Microsoft is the coupons they are distributing do not specify between GPLv2 or GPLv3 code, but instead offer a subscription to SUSE, whether or not it’s GPL v2 or v3. And there is no time limit on it either.
So if the FSF is holding onto a coupon, and Novell eventually bends and starts distributing v3 software, theoretically, the FSF could use the coupon and gain a copy of the GPL v3 software from Novell. If that happens, MS’s contract with Novell would be extended to every user because of the GPL v3 and the wording of MS/Novell’s contract. MS would have a hard time to defend against it, for many reasons. Although I’ve a of a couple of defenses for either side, IANAL so I’ll I’ll shut up now before I speak wrongly.
-
2007-07-06 4:16 pm
lemur2So if the FSF is holding onto a coupon, and Novell eventually bends and starts distributing v3 software, theoretically, the FSF could use the coupon and gain a copy of the GPL v3 software from Novell.
SFS can redeem their coupon today, if they want.
Large chunks of SLED/SLES code is licensed as “GPL v2 or later”. Guess what? V3 is later than v2.
-
Xaero_Vincent
People. Its a coupon–a piece of paper.
So Microsoft isn’t bound.
But Microsoft shouldnt have to be for the GPLv3 to take full affect to discriminating vendors.
If it does, the new license is a failure at it’s mission.
-
2fargone
If MS is bound, it won’t JUST be the coupon that ties them to it, there’s a lot more going on than that.
-
glarepate
People. Its a coupon–a piece of paper.
So Microsoft isn’t bound.
The MS EULA isn’t even a piece of paper. What implications should I draw based on your assertions here?
-
2007-07-09 10:23 am
xxmfIt doesn’t bind me and I don’t feel bound by it?
Actually I believe that is fairly accurate too
– xx
-
DrillSgt
“SFS can redeem their coupon today, if they want.
Large chunks of SLED/SLES code is licensed as “GPL v2 or later”. Guess what? V3 is later than v2.”
Yes and no. That clause of “GPL v2 or later” means that the software is currently licensed under GPL v2. That clause is there so the author can change the licensing of the same code to a later version of the GPL, but that change is not automatic. The clause will need to be changed for the software to be licensed under the GPL v3. Below is a snippet from the section of GPL v3 concerning how to apply the license.
“This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.”
-
Xaero_Vincent
Novell is safe under all this because the deal occured prior to March 28, 2007.
But Microsoft made sure that the GPLv3 does not offer protection so if Novell goes GPLv3, they’ll be in the same boat as everyone else.
The GPL doesnt stop companies from signing deals and continuing to use the GPLv2 as their base. The GPLv3 just states that whom ever holds software covered under the GPLv3 or LGPv3 may not do discriminating patent coverage agreements with any enity.
The only distributors really opposing all this are the 3-4 vendors that have signed deals. With the GPLv3 now in effect, they will be further and further isolated from the movement as more and more projects relicense.
-
melkor
And this is why the Linux kernel MUST go to GPL v3 – it will force 3rd parties that are trying to rort the system to abide by it. I cannot fathom why Linus does not see this (well, I can, but many of you wouldn’t like me to say what my opinion of Linus and the other lead kernel developers are). If the Linux kernel stays at GPL v2, it will inherently do much harm to the rest of the GPL’d software. Think about that.
Dave
-
lemur2
And this is why the Linux kernel MUST go to GPL v3 – it will force 3rd parties that are trying to rort the system to abide by it. I cannot fathom why Linus does not see this (well, I can, but many of you wouldn’t like me to say what my opinion of Linus and the other lead kernel developers are). If the Linux kernel stays at GPL v2, it will inherently do much harm to the rest of the GPL’d software.
Doesn’t matter. The kernel is but a small part of GNU/Linux.
All of the GNU stuff is licensed as “GPL v2 or later” … so right now it is under the GPL v3.
No-one can give out a Linux distribution right now, today, that would actually work which contained only “GPL v2 only” code.
2007-07-06 11:43 am
Almafeta
Microsoft is “not a party to the GPLv3 license”
Join the club.
Seriously. How is this news? If it was some copyleft corporation saying this, it would be news, but Microsoft pays their coders; Microsoft saying they’re not using some copyleft license is like Microsoft saying they charge money for their products.
-
2007-07-06 1:29 pm
wirespotYou’re wrong. Microsoft will be bound by GPLv3 the moment it distributes SUSE, if SUSE at that point contains GPLv3 code.
-
2007-07-06 2:21 pm
MarcellusBut they’re not distributing SUSE… Novell is.
No matter how you twist and turn things around, that’s the way it is and MS is not covered by GPLv3 until the day they actually redistribute something that is covered by GPLv3, which is not likely to ever happen.
-
dylansmrjones
Yes. Microsoft is distributing SUSE. Some vouchers for an instance was sold to Dell, which equals distribution. The moment anything from Linspire, Novell or Xandros is relaesed under the GPL3 Microsoft is caught.
-
DrillSgt
“Yes. Microsoft is distributing SUSE. Some vouchers for an instance was sold to Dell, which equals distribution. The moment anything from Linspire, Novell or Xandros is relaesed under the GPL3 Microsoft is caught.”
Let me understand this. MS gives people a piece of paper which essentially says “Go to Novell and they will give you SUSE”. One has to go to Novell as MS does not let you download or get the distribution directly from them, nor ship boxed sets, etc. So that means that if I give someone a piece of paper that says “Go to opensuse.org, you can get OpenSuse from them by downloading it”, I am then a distributor of Linux? There is no difference in the scenarios that I can see, even if I were to sell the piece of paper to the person.
-
-
glarepate
Let me understand this.
In order to do that you will need to understand what is actually happening rather than make inaccurate comments/assumptions and then draw [inaccurate] conclusions from them.
MS paid Novell $240 million for those vouchers. Now they have given some of them away. Under what authority do they distribute the vouchers for GPL products? Well, they own them, don’t they? Are they not bound by the license because they don’t charge end users?
And they are distributing them. Or they were. They told Novell to give vouchers to Dell. But they still paid for them. And the license doesn’t say “if MS distributes Linux” it says conveys or causes to be propagated. Got a fire extinguisher? Your strawman is burning. (^;
There is no difference in the scenarios that I can see, even if I were to sell the piece of paper to the person.
Can you see yet?
-
DrillSgt
“In order to do that you will need to understand what is actually happening rather than make inaccurate comments/assumptions and then draw [inaccurate] conclusions from them.”
They are conveying them as I pointed out in another post. That is not distribution, as the GPL considers distribution giving the code. The vouchers are conveying them. No strawman here, as you will see when you read my other posts. There is a difference between conveying and distribution, is what I was trying to clear up. MS is still not distributing Linux, though they are conveying it under Chapter 11 of the GPL v3. I am well aware of the whole deal between Novell and MS.
That said maybe we will finally get the GPL proven in court, which will put a lot of questions to rest.
-
dylansmrjones
The voucher does not say so. The voucher is something Microsoft sells and gives you the right to a license for Suse.
Microsoft is in this sense a distributor of Suse, in the sense that Microsoft is reselling Suse. The fact you have to get it yourself from the factory outlet doesn’t change the fact Microsoft is a distributor.
Microsoft is NOT merely redirecting you. They are selling rights to licenses (vouchers).
-
2007-07-06 2:58 pm
sappyvcvIs Microsoft selling access to the software or support for it, and also giving you a voucher that tells you where to get it?
-
glarepate
Are they giving the vouchers away for free after paying Novell for them? Shouldn’t that be illegal because they are putting hard working Open Source programmers out of work? <($^8)<
Giving the product away (through a fulfillment house) somewhat like many other Linux distributors do?
Does the license say they have to sell the vouchers in order to be bound by the terms of the license for the software they are propagating with these vouchers?
Time will tell. Not everyone will want to know the answers though.
-
lemur2
Does the license say they have to sell the vouchers in order to be bound by the terms of the license for the software they are propagating with these vouchers?
Good question. The answer is no, the license doesn’t say that.
The GPL v3 license says you are bound to the provisions in the license if you “convey” the licensed software.
The license defines “convey” as follows: “To “convey” a work means any kind of propagation that enables other parties to make or receive copies.”
It doesn’t say anything at all about “selling” the software or coupons or anything else … the only requirement to become bound by the conditions of the GPL v3 license is if you “convey” the licensed code. Further to that, “convey” is defined as “enabling others to receive it”.
Edited 2007-07-07 06:36
-
lemur2
the only requirement to become bound by the conditions of the GPL v3 license is if you “convey” the licensed code. Further to that, “convey” is defined as “enabling others to receive it”.
Here is an article that explains better exactly how Microsoft is “hooked” by the GPL v3:
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,2155245,00.asp?kc=EWRSS03129TX…
-
2007-07-06 5:26 pm
JonathanBThompson“in a sense” doesn’t always apply in the legal proceedings in a court room, however: things that are rather more explicit tend to take hold.
Unless I misunderstood the coupon and protection thing, what the coupon states is “Microsoft will not sue the customer using this coupon if they get a license to the software sold/distributed by party X” which means Microsoft is not at all a distributor of the GPL’ed software, but is only giving out coupons that state that if they get the distribution through party X, they promise not to pursue them in court for real or imagined claimed patent infringements.
So, if my understanding is correct, Microsoft isn’t at all distributing a single bit of GPL’ed code or their binaries: they’re only distributing Microsoft Blessings 1.0 to the customers of party X.
I can see this being a very sticky thing in what seems to be an inevitable lawsuit.
-
theARE
From the Microsoft/Novell deal
As part of the business cooperation agreement, Microsoft will make an upfront payment to Novell of $240 million for SUSE Linux Enterprise Server subscription certificates. Microsoft may use, resell or distribute them over the term of the agreement, allowing customers to redeem a single or multi-year subscription for upgrades, updates and technical support from Novell.
So Misrosoft has paid novell for “subscription certificates” that it can give to it’s customers – the so called coupons or vouchers.
If you receive one of these, you can get a licensed copy of SUSE.
To me that would be interpreted as “conveying” as defined by GPLv3.
-
JonathanBThompson
Here’s a very important part, at least in how US law works:
” allowing customers to redeem a single or multi-year subscription for upgrades, updates and technical support from Novell. ”
This states that the distributor is Novell, and that’s where they get it from, and all the subscription certificates (in this case) are is a piece of paper stating that if you buy these, you may obtain the product from Novell and Microsoft will not prosecute any court case now or in the future: Microsoft in fact is only stating that they bless the arrangement of people getting Novell products in that way, and they themselves do not at all touch the actual distribution of the code or binaries.
This is a very important piece of legal detail, which is the logic I can easily see Microsoft making, because this is the sort of legal stuff you find in such things as annoying Home Owners Association covenants, leases, etc. and that’s how you can expect it to be argued in US courts.
As I stated before, implicitly or otherwise, this is likely to be a big court case, and that’s how I believe Microsoft will argue it, and I strongly suspect they’ll win on that logic, like it or not, whether you believe it’s right or wrong.
-
DrillSgt
“Microsoft is in this sense a distributor of Suse, in the sense that Microsoft is reselling Suse. The fact you have to get it yourself from the factory outlet doesn’t change the fact Microsoft is a distributor.
Microsoft is NOT merely redirecting you. They are selling rights to licenses (vouchers).”
Distribution under the GPL specifically refers to distribution of code, so to be a distributor you would need to deliver code, not just a voucher or whatever they want to call it. However, the following from the GPLv3 deals more with the MS deal with Novell and most likely is the relevant portion. This is from Part 11 covering Patents.
“If, pursuant to or in connection with a single transaction or arrangement, you convey, or propagate by procuring conveyance of, a covered work, and grant a patent license to some of the parties receiving the covered work authorizing them to use, propagate, modify or convey a specific copy of the covered work, then the patent license you grant is automatically extended to all recipients of the covered work and works based on it.”
-
Marcellus
Even if you count that as distribution, you seem to ignore the fact that MS expressly excludes GPLv3 software from being included in what you can get from the voucher.
Their agreement with Novell with regards to what is included could easily say something like “SLED any version except any parts that are covered by GPLv3” and leave it to Novell to include those GPLv3 parts if they want to.
Don’t know much about the Xandros or Linspire deals so I’m ignoring those for now.
-
dylansmrjones
Sources?
I haven’t been able to find anything like that – but in that case nobody using GPL3-versions of SLED is protected efficiently making the deal worthless.
-
lemur2
I haven’t been able to find anything like that – but in that case nobody using GPL3-versions of SLED is protected efficiently making the deal worthless.
Large chunks of SLED right now come under GPL v3.
This is the whole intent of v3 … that Microsoft should not be able to collect license revenue from Linux code which Microsoft did not write or contribute to in any way.
Yes, the idea is exactly that … the Microsoft/Novell deal is now worthless.
The interesting thing is, it is structured in such a way that Novell can happily continue right on with their Linux business … just that it must continue without the Microsoft deal.
Edited 2007-07-06 15:46
-
Marcellus
*sigh*
Try reading the article if you need a source for anything…
And worthless? MS already paid Novell, so what do you have to complain about if the vouchers are now worthless? You should be celebrating that MS paid for stuff they can’t redistribute if things are as you claim.
-
lemur2
Even if you count that as distribution, you seem to ignore the fact that MS expressly excludes GPLv3 software from being included in what you can get from the voucher.
There exist critical parts of SuSe Linux today that are “GPL v 2 or later” … so right now, that menase those parts of SuSe are licensed as GPL v3. v3 is later than v2.
MS cannot “convey” SLED/SLES Linux to any party right now without expressly “conveying” GPL3 licensed code. In this context, the definition of “convey” is that found in GPL v3.
-
theARE
But since the vouchers it gave out have no expiry date they can be used to receive GPLv3 licensed code right now (because of the v2 or later condition).
So basically MS is “conveying” GPLv3 and as such any patent protection it has promised to give their customer on a particular piece of software then also applies to everyone else that uses that software.
-
melkor
That’s true, but that choice is Novell’s. If they only choose GPL v2 software for SLED, then it’s obvious that Novell is no friend of the FSF and the GPL. If Novell’s GPL v2 based distribution lags behind other GPL v3 based distributions, people will not buy it. Hell, a lot of people won’t touch Novell now as it is, imagine how bad it’ll be for them when they’re distributing old software.
So, if Novell doesn’t go with GPL v3 (or do costly forking of GPL v2 software to keep it up to date), they can forget about Linux as a source of income, or at least, a realistic source of income. If they do go to GPL v3, Microsoft will cut the contract with Novell in an instant, to avoid any GPL v3 issues. The best thing Novell can do is to release GPL v3 SLED and people instantly cash in their SLED vouchers – it only takes a few minutes to do this. If it’s all timed right and people are given forwarning…
My suspicion is that Novell intends to prove it owns UNIX copyrights (via the SCO case), before attacking Linux code a la SCO. If it can do so successfully, it will weaken Linux and the GPL. Only time will tell if I’m right.
Dave
-
lemur2
But they’re not distributing SUSE… Novell is.
No matter how you twist and turn things around, that’s the way it is and MS is not covered by GPLv3 until the day they actually redistribute something that is covered by GPLv3, which is not likely to ever happen.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt
Definition:
To “convey” a work means any kind of propagation that enables other parties to make or receive copies.
Section 2 … basic permissions:
You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains in force. You may convey covered works to others for the sole purpose of having them make modifications exclusively for you, or provide you with facilities for running those works, provided that you comply with the terms of this License in conveying all material for which you do not control copyright. Those thus making or running the covered works for you must do so exclusively on your behalf, under your direction and control, on terms that prohibit them from making any copies of your copyrighted material outside their relationship with you.
Conveying under any other circumstances is permitted solely under the conditions stated below.
…
Section 10
10. Automatic Licensing of Downstream Recipients.
Each time you convey a covered work, the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensors, to run, modify and propagate that work, subject to this License. You are not responsible
for enforcing compliance by third parties with this License.
The Microsoft/Novell deal involves the act, on Microsoft’s part, of conveying Linux to end users. Remember, “To “convey” a work means any kind of propagation that enables other parties to make or receive copies. The SuSe certificates that Microsoft gives out certainly fall within this definition.
Furthermore, SuSe Linux contains a lot of GNU/FSF code, which is currently licensed as “GPL v2 or later”. That means that code in SuSe Linux right now is licensed under GPL v3, since v3 is later than v2.
-
-
Marcellus
I believe you (and others) are misunderstanding the “or later” clause.
A distributor can distribute under GPLv2, but you as a customer may re-distribute it under the “or later” clause. The distributor above you is not bound by any later version, but may also not remove the “or later” part that is given to you.
It would never hold in court if you argue that someone distributing “GPLv2 or later” covered stuff is automatically subject to GPLv3.
-
-
dylansmrjones
Microsoft will be a part the moment Novell upgrades to v. 3.
In order to avoid that Novell and Microsoft must declare their deal null and void – or they must fork the projects into GPL v. 2 – which is quite used by Microsoft.
Using Copyleft license has nothing to do with not charging and using a proprietary license is not the same as saying they are charging.
You are trying to spread the old MS-lie that Copyleft is communistic, anti-capitalistic, anti-commercial and anti-competitive. It’s not nice of you to create fake profiles, Balmer.
2007-07-06 12:05 pm
SReilly
It looks to me like MS is beating it’s chest in the hope that IT managers will continue to believe that the MS/Novell deal is still enforcible. The fact that they’re latest statement deals only with the distribution of Novell products misses the point and is another attempt at miss direction. Nothing has been said of the patent and IP clauses of said deal.
The fact remains that MS cannot legally disregard a license if they help to distribute software covered by said license.
Easy to see through and typical of the MS behemoth.
-
sappyvcv
Don’t you have to modify the code before distributing it for the rest of the license to kick in?
-
2fargone
No, if you distribute the code, you are bound by the license. GPL is about copyrights and that’s what distribution is about.
2007-07-06 12:07 pm
happycamper
I think it does. let me see novell admits linux infrindes to somee Ms ip by doing an Ip-pact with micorsoft and microsoft is not only letting novell still sale linux but microsoft is giving away suse linux certificates to customers to buy novell suse linux. so the way i see it ms is touching linux with a ten foot pole
and the GPLv3 does apply to MS.
Edited 2007-07-06 12:07
2007-07-06 12:44 pm
lemur2
Microsoft says:
Microsoft is “not a party to the GPLv3 license, and none of its actions are to be misinterpreted as accepting status as a contracting party of GPLv3 or assuming any legal obligations under such license,” Horacio Gutierrez, Microsoft’s vice president of intellectual property and licensing, said July 5.
Horacio Gutierrez, Microsoft’s vice president of intellectual property and licensing said that, no less.
OK Horatio, lets take you at your word. You are not a party to the GPLv3 license, and you do not distribute any GPLv3 code.
OK, lets take that as a given.
Horacio, that means that you have said you do not provide any GPLv3 code. You provide nothing for Linux.
OK, lets take that as a given.
Horacio, my dear fellow, that means you cannot charge anybody anything for using Linux. You have no stake … you are not a stakeholder in Linux.
Horacio, you said so yourself.
Now go away you silly little man.
-
Soulbender
“Horacio, my dear fellow, that means you cannot charge anybody anything for using Linux”
Since when does MS charge anyone for Linux?
-
ubit
Well, MS or one of their licensing subsidiaries gets royalties from Novell (I believe 40 million or more per 5 years), Xandros, Linspire (apparently Samsung, Fuji, Xerox, etc too) use of Linux. So they’re taking ‘royalties for imaginary patents…and now saying nothing is applicable to them.
-
2007-07-06 3:45 pm
TBPrinceWell, MS or one of their licensing subsidiaries gets royalties from Novell (I believe 40 million or more per 5 years), Xandros, Linspire (apparently Samsung, Fuji, Xerox, etc too) use of Linux. So they’re taking ‘royalties for imaginary patents…and now saying nothing is applicable to them.
They take royalties on intellectual property, not Linux itself. Novell could use their IP to write XYZ operating system and they would have to pay royalties as well (unless declared void). That’s all. Microsoft is not licensing anything using GPL (AFAIK, but could be wrong about Unix services) so it’s clear they’re not bind to its terms.
-
lemur2
Microsoft is not licensing anything using GPL
In one sense, no, but in another sense, Oh yes they are!
http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/
http://www.patent-commons.org/
-
ubit
You cannot have royalties on GPL’d software…and yet MS is doing just that. Their supposed undisclosed “IP” in Linux.
THey are taking the royalties from how much GNU/Linux these distros and companies sell.
-
TBPrince
You cannot have royalties on GPL’d software…and yet MS is doing just that. Their supposed undisclosed “IP” in Linux.
That’s not right. If any GPLed software infringes any IP, you can ask them for royalties.
But anyway, I agree with you on Linux infringment: I wouldn’t pay on undisclosed violations. But stop and think: do you really think Novell would pay based on nothing or threats only? I don’t think so. I tend to believe people like to keep their money when they can…
-
glarepate
But stop and think: do you really think Novell would pay based on nothing or threats only? I don’t think so.
Do you think they would do it for $240 million? If they hadn’t done it their finances would be in very dire straits instead of just bad.
Remember. Novell approached MS on this deal, not vice versa.
-
trenchsol
Everyone can write the license, but will it hold in court , that is another question ?
http://www.actonline.org/library/GPLv3-Contract-or-Copyright.html
-
TBPrince
Very good link. If true, the whole anti-MS clause in GPL 3 (the one they buzzed so much about) would be void and they would have solved nothing.
-
lemur2
Very good link. If true, the whole anti-MS clause in GPL 3 (the one they buzzed so much about) would be void and they would have solved nothing.
It wouldn’t be the GPL v3 clause that is void … it would be the ability of Microsoft to give out licenses for code they did not write, do not own or control and have no license to “convey” to anyone … that is what would be void.
-
TBPrince
It wouldn’t be the GPL v3 clause that is void … it would be the ability of Microsoft to give out licenses for code they did not write, do not own or control and have no license to “convey” to anyone … that is what would be void.
The posted link talks about GPL 3 clauses (designed after Microsoft-Novell deal) which would be inapplicable to Microsoft and it would serve nothing to stop such deals.
And moreover, that could backfire other companies while not hitting Microsoft itself.
As I said, “if true” (which I’m not able to say as I’m not an expert of US law), that would be an hit to FSF: won’t prevent such deals, could backfire other companies.
-
melkor
And of course, the Microsoft EULA is non enforceable as well. Good argument, I can’t believe crap like this gets modded up to +5…all I can conclude is that osnews.com is now filled to the brim with Microsoft and anti-GPL fuddites.
Dave
-
lemur2
Since when does MS charge anyone for Linux?
When Microsoft say that “we want to have interoperability” … that is code for “we want Linux to understand Microsoft formats” … it doesn’t mean they want Windows/Office to utilise the open formats that linux uses.
When Microsoft say “we want to make license deals about our IP, we don’t want to litigate” … then that is code for “because Linux now understands Microsoft formats the we want to charge Linux users a license fee, even though Microsoft wrote none of the code in Linux”.
-
Soulbender
“then that is code for “because Linux now understands Microsoft formats the we want to charge Linux users a license fee, even though Microsoft wrote none of the code in Linux”.”
That’s entirely different from charging people for Linux though.
-
Xaero_Vincent
The GPL isn’t viral but percieved as so because of it’s explicit nature. The fault of the GPL is that the articles written in a way only easily discerned by lawyers and not ordinary distributors.
Patents and free software are incompatable because one cannot dominate enforingly without the other faultering.
In the case of free software…it becomes unfree to distribute if the requirement is to pay a running royalty to an enity for the right in the first place. The GNU movement decided not to forfeit its ideals and sole purpose for existance to work within the boundaries of corrupted U.S. patent laws.
The much more sensible solution–if it ever got to that point–would be to leave the U.S. entirly.
The U.S. is largely controlled and manipulated by large companies with their campaign contributions. Therefore many bills and laws are introduced to cater to the wishes of these companies.
Edited 2007-07-06 19:11
2007-07-06 1:34 pm
Morin
“Microsoft Says It Is Not Bound by GPLv3”
Well… unless they actually distribute v3-licensed software, of course they aren’t. And even if they do, they are bound only as far as this distribution is concerned. I rate this as a minor problem for MS.
It’s Novell that is hit by v3. They are violating the GPLv3 if they don’t make sure that downstream recipients don’t get a “patent license” (*) – which of course won’t happen. MS is “safe” as far as legal action is concerned, but of course they will be hit by secondary effects due to Linux distributors no longer accepting their deals.
(*) The GPL defines the term “patent license” for this issue in a way that the MS/Novell deal is included.
-
2fargone
It’s not just the GPL that’s involved here. There is also MS’s contract with Novell. When MS and Novell made their deal, they just assumed it would be for GPL v2 software and didn’t do anything to differentiate between v2 or v3. Combine v3 with that contract and that means that it was MS who has given the patent peace to everyone, not Novell. MS is realizing it’s pretty much too late to stop it and is trying to do damage control. There may be a way out yet, but I don’t see it happening at the moment so I don’t think MS is going to be able to block this.
In the end, this is not a minor problem for MS, but a potential killer of their Linux patent plans for the next few years.
-
2007-07-06 2:53 pm
RandomGuyIn the end, this is not a minor problem for MS, but a potential killer of their Linux patent plans for the next few years.
I’m not a lawyer but I don’t think GPLv3 can or will be retroactively applied to the MS/Novell-deal. MS “protection” is very likely limited to GPLv2 software since this is what existed when the deal was made.
You can’t just come along, create a new license and say “Hey, MS, you handed all of your patents to us on a silver plate, a couple of months ago”.
MS won’t extend this deal to GPLv3 software and RMS knows it.
This clause is not about MS itself, it is about preventing divide and conquer tactics in Linux-land. It forces every single distribution out there to make a choice:
They can either have MS patent protection for their customers or use GPLv3 software, not both! Well, actually this is over simplified.
They could have patent protection on GPLv2 software and use GPLv3 software without patent protection.
But it does not make much sense to offer your customers “a little bit” of protection.
A bit that will actually shrink as more and more free software adopts GPLv3.
So in the end, the “betrayer” distributions got screwed and rightly so.
If I had any Novell stock, I’d sell it RIGHT NOW!
There are only two things MS could possibly do about this:
a) Try to develop every important piece of software that goes GPLv3 as a GPLv2 fork.
b) Sue the hell out of Redhat and co.
Option a) would drain a lot of money and developers while option b) would very likely lead to the biggest patent war in history.
This could even lead to the end of software patents when people see everybody suing everybody else about some ridiculous crap that’s not even worth granting a patent for in the first place.
It will be interesting to see how this develops…
Edited 2007-07-06 14:56 UTC
-
2fargone
IANAL either, but…
What I’ve described above is what the FSF is doing and it’s the reason the patent deal was grandfathered into the license.
Whether it will be successful or not, remains to be seen. But on the surface, it seems to be legal and binding. And from what I’ve seen, there isn’t a thing MS can do to change it. They just can’t rewrite a contract with Novell just because. Novell needs to either agree to the new terms or violate the contract with Microsoft in order order for MS to change the terms.
-
lemur2
Well… unless they actually distribute v3-licensed software, of course they aren’t.
No. Not so.
The GPL v3 is invoked by the act of “conveying” GNU/Linux. The GPL v3 includes a definition of “convey”. Microsoft giving out certificates for SuSe Linux certainly falls well within that definition.
GPL v3 doesn’t require the act of “distribution” … it has changed to “conveying”. Look it up.
2007-07-06 3:06 pm
Kishe
If I go to computer store, buy a copy of SLED 10, then I’m entitled to get a copy of every software license sold in the store?
COOL! THANK YOU GPLv3!!!
-
-
glarepate
If I go to computer store, buy a copy of SLED 10, then I’m entitled to get a copy of every software license sold in the store?
You are entitiled to a copy of any license anywhere a licensed product is offered to you. Why wouldn’t you be? Oh, yeah, EULAs that you can’t see until you open the product. Well, that isn’t the case here.
It’s the product you aren’t authorized to receive unless you conform to the license. Not the license you are authorized to receive by buying a copy of it.
Do you actually buy licenses? Where?
Now, what are you trying to say that someone else is trying to say …
2007-07-06 3:21 pm
jpick
Microsoft is planning on distributing to users versions of SLES with GPLv3 software, and an idemnity certificate.
The GPLv3 has a clause written into it specifically saying that a condition of distributing it is to idemnify everyone.
Microsoft either has to idemnify everyone, or not distribute the software.
Piracy, anyone?
Browser: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; ; Linux armv5tejl; U) Opera 8.02 [en] N770/SU-18_0.2005.42-1_PR
2007-07-06 3:31 pm
jayson.knight
Microsoft has enough viruses to worry about, so I suggest they deal with GPL v3 the same way they deal with other viruses.
Edited 2007-07-06 15:32
-
jayson.knight
I can see my attempt at humor fell a bit short.
Regardless, is there anyone here who can argue that GPL v3 is not viral in nature?
-
Xaero_Vincent
The GPL serves to provide the four freedoms. Licenses like 2-clause BSD provide that but also ways to exploit and take advantage of those developing the software.
That is why the GPL and other more restrictive (distribution wise but not usage) free software licenses have overwhelming adoption in comparison.
Edited 2007-07-06 16:31
-
-
TBPrince
The GPL serves to provide the four freedoms. Licenses like 2-clause BSD provide that but also ways to exploit and take advantage of those developing the software.
In theory. But actually, the only ones making money out of GPLed software are those big companies / corporations you were meant to be protected from. Sad.
-
2007-07-06 7:25 pm
ichiWrong, you are not meant to be protected from companies but from anyone reducing your freedoms.
As long as companies play by the rules, they have all the right to make as much profit as they can.
-
2007-07-06 6:09 pm
sbergman27“””
I can see my attempt at humor fell a bit short.
“””
It was a dangerous bit of humor to float in these forums.
I bumped you up one.
And MS *is* dealing with it like they deal with other viruses, by treating it as a PR problem.
GPLv2 and v3 are indeed quite viral. They’re a PITA, and arguably unfair to other, more permissively licensed FOSS projects, and also happen to be my favorite licenses, as a user and FOSS advocate, because despite all their problems, their advantages *usually* outweigh their significant disadvantages. In my opinion, of course.
Edited 2007-07-06 18:09
-
ubit
“GPLv2 and v3 are indeed quite viral. ”
True, but copyright is viral. Therefore everyone with copyright is just as evil
GPL stops the MS embrace/extend tactic that kills competition and increases fragmentation and lowers the quality of software. See embedded BSD vs. the embedded GNU/Linuxes.
Edited 2007-07-06 18:59
-
sbergman27
“””
True, but copyright is viral. Therefore everyone with copyright is just as evil
“””
Not really. It would be very hard to argue that, say, the BSD license is effectively as viral as GPLv2 or v3.
Note my use of the word “effectively”. One might make an argument that all licenses are viral on some sort of academic technicality, I suppose. I don’t know. But I’m really only concerned about how things play out in the real world that we actually live in.
The GPLs have warts. And I really think that it is in the best interest of the promotion of FOSS and even the GPLs in particular, to acknowledge, up front, that they do have warts.
So often, I see people wanting to paint the GPLs as being pure white, when in fact, and like most things in life, they are actually some varying shade of grey.
It just so happens that I usually see them as a lighter shade of grey than some subjective shade that I consider to be the border between “preferred” and “not preferred”.
The GPL is not the divinely revealed Word of God. Just a license which has been very effective in cultivating cooperation. Even between entities (think corporations) which have never been able to effectively cooperate before.
Edited 2007-07-06 19:56
-
jayson.knight
“True, but copyright is viral. Therefore everyone with copyright is just as evil
”I disagree. Take creative commons…if I publish my site under a specific type of creative commons copyright which permits usage outside of my site so long as that author gives me attribution, he doesn’t have to change the entire copyright on his site to match mine.
By viral I meant that once GPL’d code gets into a non-GPL’d codebase, that codebase effectively becomes GPL’d. I didn’t mean viral in a negative connotation, it just happens to be a fitting description.
I personally will not touch GPL code, though I’m happy to use binaries and whatnot.
-
lemur2
Regardless, is there anyone here who can argue that GPL v3 is not viral in nature?
The GPL is not viral … the GPL refers only to software that is released by the original author under the GPL.
Take a look at what happened recently to Parallels inc. They used some code from Wine. Wine is GPL. Did Parallels have to release all their code under the GPL? No, they did not. The only thing they had to release source code for was the bits of Wine they used.
-
-
glarepate
…so I suggest they deal with GPL v3 the same way they deal with other viruses.
No. Your attempt at humor didn’t fall short. It fell back on you and crushed your attempt.
You are suggesting that MS wil make a perfect platform for hundreds of thopusands of “GPLs” (viruses) by making “user choice” more important than security and stability. Well, they might very well do that. Just not on purpose.
-
2007-07-08 10:39 am
merdeMicrosoft has enough viruses to worry about, so I suggest they deal with GPL v3 the same way they deal with other viruses.
Actually, they do. Denial is their way of dealing this sort of problems
Edited 2007-07-08 10:40
2007-07-06 3:43 pm
jpick
In the event that this did go to court, and Microsoft wiggled out, the FSF could then come out with a GPLv4 to remove the loophole.
What’s the point in distributing a certificate to customers that says “we won’t sue you, except if you use the software on this CD we’re giving you.”?
Browser: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; ; Linux armv5tejl; U) Opera 8.02 [en] N770/SU-18_0.2005.42-1_PR
2007-07-06 4:00 pm
elsewhere
From a business point-of-view, MS is doing the smart thing by explicitly dis-asscoiating themselves from any connection to any GPL v3 software being distributed as part of SLES. They’re avoiding the murkiness of the the applicability of the clause, they’re sending a message to the enterprise community that OSS can’t address commercial concerns for IP indemnification (“We tried, really, we want to protect you from lawsuits but the OSS community won’t let us!”), and at the end of the day, MS has only implied IP infringement towards the kernel itself and OpenOfffice. So waiving indemnity from GPLv3 software is fine, because MS has never actually pointed out software such as Samba that infringes, the packages going to v3 aren’t relevant to MS.
Aside from that, v3 cannot impact the agreement anyways, for the very same reason that v2 couldn’t. There is no *explicit* patent license provisioning for GPL protected software. The protection is *implied*. The text of v3 itself describes patent licensing as including parts or technology *knowingly* utilizing patented technology. If Microsoft and Novell signed an agreement that specifically indemnifies customers for using technology under patents x, y and z in current and previous versions of the linux kernel, for instance, that would be explicit. Providing blanket coverage for customers using a product that is an aggregate of various different licenses, not only GPL, is implied protection.
It was pointed out many times during the drafting process that the FSF would have to balance patent wording and recognition in terms of “punishing” the Novell deal without alientating organizations like HP and IBM who are large patent holders and OSS supporters. Putting in anything resembling an ambiguous clause acknowledging implied patent consent would have immediately ended support from these organizations.
So there is in fact no patent licensing for GPL licensed software under these agreements, and there will remain no licensing as long as Novell, Xandros, Linspire and Microsoft refrain from specifying particular patents and particular applications. Certainly one could argue the intent of the GPL licensing, one could start whining about loopholes and stuff and such, but at the end of the day the US legal system has very specific definitions and interpretations of how these things work (and don’t forget that it’s strictly the US legal system at work here, since that’s the only real jurisdiction where this nature of IP licensing is a legitimate concern), and they have to fit within the existing framework of copyright and contract law. The GPL itself cannot change that. This is basically the reason the distros have been non-plussed over the impact of GPLv3 and the MS agreements; they have access to corporate lawyers specializing in IP law, they’re not concerned.
And as to the voucher issue “hooking” Microsoft, won’t happen. You basically can’t retroactively apply conditions to an existing contract that didn’t exist at the time of the original contract, particularly when you’re a third party and not a direct party to that contract. I suspect the FSF will talk but they will not try to go down this route.
So the FSF scored a victory with this whole fiasco by dramaticizing a problem that doesn’t really impact the community and addressing it with a new license they had been trying to drive support for that doesn’t really address the issue at all.
MS continues to score a victory in their own mind by demeaning the OSS community in the eyes of their enterprise market base as being naive and unprepared to deal with their requirements, the way MS naturally can.
And life goes on.
-
lemur2
They’re avoiding the murkiness of the the applicability of the clause
No they aren’t. The clause isn’t murky at all. Microsoft giving out certificates for SuSe Linux clearly is an act that invokes the GPL v3, and there is code in SuSe Linux right here and now that is covered by the GPL v3 license.
So there is in fact no patent licensing for GPL licensed software under these agreements
Yes, there is. If Microsoft want to “convey” SuSe Linux to customers (as they are clearly doing by giving out certificates for it), then the only license the Microsoft has today that allows them to do that (remembering that large chunks of SuSe Linux code is neither Novell’s or Microsofts) is the GPL v3 license.
Either Microsoft abide by the terms of the GPLv3 license (and then they can give out certificates), or they cease and desist from giving out something they do not own.
Edited 2007-07-06 16:12
-
Xaero_Vincent
Microsoft is giving out certificates (coupons) but not actual source code itself.
Microsoft does distribute GPL code with their Unix subsystem package for Windows but its only GPLv2.
Its irrelevent whether or not Microsoft is bound by the new GPL. It only serves to affect the real Linux distributors who embarced on discriminating deals that only serves to mortally tarnish the well being of free software.
-
lemur2
Microsoft is giving out certificates (coupons) but not actual source code itself.
This doesn’t matter.
By giving out coupons (which act is a “prorogation” of coupons), Microsoft have “enabled” the recipient of each coupon to get a copy of GNU/Linux code.
This falls under the definition of “convey” in the GPL v3 license. Large chunks of SLES/SLED today, right now, are in effect licensed under GPL v3.
Ergo, Microsoft are bound by the provisions of the GPL v3 by the act of giving out coupons for Linux.
Edited 2007-07-07 02:08
-
elsewhere
This doesn’t matter.
By giving out coupons (which act is a “prorogation” of coupons), Microsoft have “enabled” the recipient of each coupon to get a copy of GNU/Linux code.
This falls under the definition of “convey” in the GPL v3 license. Large chunks of SLES/SLED today, right now, are in effect licensed under GPL v3.
Ergo, Microsoft are bound by the provisions of the GPL v3 by the act of giving out coupons for Linux.
Follow the links and you can download a copy of SLES.
Oh, snap! Guess I’m now bound by the GPL for conveying a protected work, right?
Aside from that, has Novell actually stated that they’re distributing the “GPL v2 or later” licenses under v3? No? Then guess what, they’re still v2.
Oh, snap! You’re wrong, but then that simply comes from failing to understand your own arguments. Don’t feel bad, judging from this whole thread, you’re not alone.
-
lemur2
Guess I’m now bound by the GPL for conveying a protected work, right?
Yep. If you have any patent interest in the code you conveyed, then you have said that you approve all downstream recipients may use the software you conveyed without threat of lawsuit from you.
You’re wrong, but then that simply comes from failing to understand your own arguments.
Bzzt. I do understand what the plain words of the license say.
Aside from that, has Novell actually stated that they’re distributing the “GPL v2 or later” licenses under v3?
Here is where you don’t understand. It is not Novell who get to say … it is the authors and copyright holders of the FOSS code which Novell distributes who get to decide this point.
The FSF holds the rights to decide the license conditions for GNU software. Not Novell. It doesn’t matter what Novell say … GNU says its software is now licensed under GPL v3.
Edited 2007-07-07 06:27
-
elsewhere
Here is where you don’t understand. It is not Novell who get to say … it is the authors and copyright holders of the FOSS code which Novell distributes who get to decide this point.
The FSF holds the rights to decide the license conditions for GNU software. Not Novell. It doesn’t matter what Novell say … GNU says its software is now licensed under GPL v3.
* big heavy sigh*
Please, drop an email to RMS and ask him to clarify how the GPL works, you likely won’t take my word for it.
The “v2 or later” clause means that the distributor of that code has the option of distributing it under v2 or any later version at their discretion. It is not a legally binding obligation to use the most recent version of the license.
Anyone using the GPL “v2 or later” code from Novell can subsequently elect to modify and/or distribute it under the terms of v3 only, if they see fit, but that decision is not retroactively applied to Novell.
So the mere fact that v3 has been released, and the FSF will be updating the licenses on some of the GNU projects to “v3 or later”, does not hold any impact on Novell’s distribution rights for the existing software that was obtained and distributed under “v2 or later”.
Hope this clear is up? If not, drop that email to RMS and he’ll confirm what I’m saying.
-
lemur2
The “v2 or later” clause means that the distributor of that code has the option of distributing it under v2 or any later version at their discretion. It is not a legally binding obligation to use the most recent version of the license.
Anyone using the GPL “v2 or later” code from Novell can subsequently elect to modify and/or distribute it under the terms of v3 only, if they see fit, but that decision is not retroactively applied to Novell.
Sigh! Double sigh!
Please tell me where you got this fantasy from.
Copyright law is very clear. Authors and copyright holders have exclusive rights to decide how a given work is licensed, not distributors.
What is more, authors and copyright holders may decide at any time to change the terms at their whim. The copyright holder of one work called Microsft Windows changes the EULA for this work all the time at their whim, and introduces new restrictions such as “WGA” without any agreement from distibutors or end users about these changes to the terms.
The exact same rights apply to the authors and copyright holders of FOSS code. This is the law.
Please come up with some valid reference, anywhere, which indicates that it is not, or just go away.
-
2007-07-08 5:34 pm
ctl_alt_del“Copyright law is very clear. Authors and copyright holders have exclusive rights to decide how a given work is licensed, not distributors.”
That is correct, but the GPL is about guaranteeing rights for both “copyright” (licensor) AND “copyleft” (licensee). As the author/copyright holder choosing the GPL for your published “work” you in essence have copyrighted your work, but have also provided the Four Freedoms (copyleft) to anyone that follows the version of the GPL you released your work under.
One of those freedoms (#2) is to copy and distribute the licensed work (GPL v2, paragraph/clause #2), as long as you follow the license it was originally released under. Paragraph/clause #9 of the GPL v2, clearly states that any work released with the “any later version” after the version number, further allows “you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.”
Paragraph/clause #9 is included in the GPL for the benefit of the licensee/distributor not the licensor/copyright holder. As you have already stated, the copyright holder has the right under copyright law to change the license of the work.
Ergo, any work licensed “GPL v2 or any later version”, MAY be (re)distributed as “GPL v2 or any later version”, “GPL v3” or “GPL v3 or any later version”. The benefit of changing the GPL version, as a distributor, is unclear to me. But the copyleft provisions of the GPL do allow it to occur at the distribution level.
-
lemur2
One of those freedoms (#2) is to copy and distribute the licensed work (GPL v2, paragraph/clause #2), as long as you follow the license it was originally released under.
Paragraph/clause #9 is included in the GPL for the benefit of the licensee/distributor not the licensor/copyright holder. As you have already stated, the copyright holder has the right under copyright law to change the license of the work.
Freedom #2 and Paragraph #9 only work together for a particular release (or version) of code.
GNU software is already changed (at source) to GPL v3. While a distributor like SuSe can continue with existing GNU code it has already distributed under the GPL v2 conditions, any upgrade to GNU they wish to use will have to be GPL v3 … or Suse will have to maintain a very large contingent of programmers to maintain their own fork of all of GNU stuff.
From a practical sense, Novell will have to use a large proportion of GPL v3 stuff in their very next release of code. It is not feasible for SuSe, or for any other Linux distibutor, to maintain their own fork.
SuSe has already said as much.
http://www.cbronline.com/article_news.asp?guid=AEB85190-AC1C-4B2E-8…
“Microsoft has committed to buy from Novell and resell 70,000 “coupons” or certificates, each of which entitle the bearer to a period of SUSE Linux support, over the next five years. It paid Novell $240m for this privilege.”
Novell cannot maintain 5 years of support for a fork of all of the FOSS software that will be going to GPL v3. It is simply not possible.
“A Novell spokesperson had told us in late March: “Nothing in this new draft of GPL3 inhibits Novell’s ability to include GPL3 technologies in SUSE Linux Enterprise, openSUSE, and other Novell open source offerings, now and in the future.”
Novell are correct. This quote more or less gives the game away … Novell will be distributing GPL v3 code in the near future.
Edited 2007-07-09 00:36
-
lemur2
* big heavy sigh*
Please, drop an email to RMS and ask him to clarify how the GPL works, you likely won’t take my word for it.
The “v2 or later” clause means that the distributor of that code has the option of distributing it under v2 or any later version at their discretion. It is not a legally binding obligation to use the most recent version of the license.
No. Not the distributor. The author or copyright holder has this option.
I do believe I have figured out the source of your confusion, however.
The GNU foundation is the author of the GPL license text itself. Here is the critical point about that:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html
“The GNU General Public License is often called the GNU GPL for short; it is used by most GNU programs, and by more than half of all free software packages.”
You see, the GNU foundation writes the license, and uses it for its own GNU software, but also it allows a lot of other authors to use the license text as a template, if they so desire.
So, a project like Samba for example is not GNU, but it uses the GNU GPL as its license text, and it is currently licensed as “GPL v2 or later”.
http://us3.samba.org/samba/docs/GPL.html
Since Samba is not GNU software, it is up to the Samba project if Samba continues to be licensed as GPL v2 or if it moves to GPL v3.
Both Samba software and GNU software is used as part of the Novell SuSe distribution, as well as Novell’s own software.
GNU gets to decide the license terms from GNU software. The Samba project gets to decide the license terms from Samba. Novell, who distributes both Samba and GNU along with its own software, gets to decide the license terms only for Novell’s own software. Things like Ximian and Evolution and Mono … that is software for which Novell is the copyright holder. Novell gets to decide “GPL v2” or “GPL v3” for those programs … but Novell has no say over Samba or GNU software.
Do you finally get it?
Here is some “help” for you to digest:
http://samba.org/~tridge/gplv3_sydney.pdf
http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS7188736246.html
Do you understand yet? Novell (the distributor of SuSe) does not get to say, one way or another, if Samba (a program which is part of SuSe) goes to GPL v3 or not. The authors and copyright holders of Samba get to determine that, not SuSe (and not Microsoft, and not even the GNU foundation … it is all down to the authors and copyright holders of the code in question).
Edited 2007-07-08 10:00
-
sappyvcv
If I build a computer for someone (and they pay me for it obviously) who did not have access to a computer before, and I tell them how and where to get GPL software.. does that mean I’m conveying it and I am obligated to follow those provisions?
I’m willing to bet the courts would say NO.
-
lemur2
If I build a computer for someone (and they pay me for it obviously) who did not have access to a computer before, and I tell them how and where to get GPL software.. does that mean I’m conveying it and I am obligated to follow those provisions?
I’m willing to bet the courts would say NO.
If you give out coupons for someone to get software which you did not write, which you do not own, and for which you hold no copyright, then your are obligated to have a valid license for the software which lets you distribute your coupons.
That is the law.
I’m willing to bet the courts will back that up 100%
Of course, Microsoft do have a valid license to issue coupons for software if they simply stick to the terms in the GPL which the software is licensed under, so all would be sweet.
-
sappyvcv
I didn’t say anything about coupons. I enabled the person to get the software they did not otherwise know how to get.
As far as the coupon, as long as I don’t charge them for it and/or the coupon tells them where to get it on a server/location NOT provided by me, I need no f–king license.
-
lemur2
As far as the coupon, as long as I don’t charge them for it and/or the coupon tells them where to get it on a server/location NOT provided by me, I need no f–king license.
Yes, you do, if the software is not yours and the copyright holder has said you do need a license. This is the law.
Charging for it or not is irrelevant. P2P streams don’t charge for music downloads for which the copyright holder has not given permission … yet the P2P streams are still in trouble … in the case of most P2P systems (especially Bittorrent) the trackers do not actually hold a copy of the music, they merely point to a place where it can be copied from. This is still enough to get Bittorrent P2P tracker sites taken down where the P2P tracker site is not the copyright holder.
This is the law.
Edited 2007-07-07 14:41
-
sappyvcv
No shit the software is not mine. I am simply giving someone INFORMATION on how to get the software. That is not illegal. The software is free, so I am not telling them how to do anything illegal either.
From the GPLv3:
To “convey” a work means any kind of propagation that enables other parties to make or receive copies. Mere interaction with a user through a computer network, with no transfer of a copy, is not conveying.
Edited 2007-07-07 17:18
-
lemur2
No shit the software is not mine. I am simply giving someone INFORMATION on how to get the software. That is not illegal. The software is free, so I am not telling them how to do anything illegal either.
Yes it is illegal, if you do it against the terms of the license. It is illegal in exactly the same way that a Bittorrent site providing a tracker to download copyrighted music is illegal if the site does not have the permission of the copyright holder.
The authors of the FOSS code offer anyone a license to their work, and the terms of that license include the ability to give out copies of it to downstream recipients, or to aid distribution of it in a Bittorrent tracker – like fashion, as long as you keep to the terms of the license.
One of the terms of the license is that you promise not to sue anyone (anyone at all) who receives the same software for patent interests that you might think you have in the code.
If you choose to ignore these terms, then you have no rights to distribute it or facilitate its distribution. Hence you are in violation of copyright law in exactly the same way that a Bittorrent site offering illicit music files is in violation even though the Bittorrent site does not have any actual copyrighted music files on the site and the Bittorrent site has not charged anyone for the downloads.
-
-
lemur2
So the license controls flow of information. Nice. Real nice license.
It is a nice license, isn’t it? It maintains as much freedom as it can in the face of the need to protect the licensed software from attempts to subvert it by greedy monopoly corporations.
It does so in a way that uses the monopolies own rules of engagement.
It is really quite elegant, when you look at it.
Freedom my ass.
… and the rest of you too!
-
sappyvcv
Scary license. Tries to reach too far to control that which it should have no control.
Let my address your bittorrent comparison.
In hosting torrent files, you are enabled someone to download something which they do not have the right to do. Basically… “You can get this file here [but if you do, you are breaking the law]”. They are enabling a crime.
In the case of telling someone where to get GPL3 software, you are NOT enabling or telling them to do something illegal. You are telling them where to get it, which is the same place others get it, legally. They would be getting it, legally.
So bad comparison, try again.
Edited 2007-07-09 04:03
-
lemur2
Scary license. Tries to reach too far to control that which it should have no control.
An interesting concept.
Would you also claim that Microsoft’s EULA should have no control over how Microsoft’s software is distributed and copied?
-
sappyvcv
I’m not claiming that for GPL3 software, so not I’m not claiming that for a Microsoft EULA.
-
lemur2
In the case of telling someone where to get GPL3 software, you are NOT enabling or telling them to do something illegal. You are telling them where to get it, which is the same place others get it, legally. They would be getting it, legally.
Not at all.
All the license says is that you do not have permission from the authors of the software (and therefore you do not have the right) to tell another party where they can get a copy of the software from, and then sue them if they legally get the same software from somewhere else.
-
sappyvcv
And a license may not legally have the right to do that. Only time will tell.
I personally don’t think it should have such a right. It’s nice in theory to think about. It’s good natured. But it’s bad to let a license reach that far. It opens doors and sets a really bad precedent. Corporations would leveage that type of ability to reach that far and abuse it. It has bad implications.
Edited 2007-07-09 04:15
-
lemur2
And a license may not legally have the right to do that. Only time will tell.
Well, the license really is only setting the conditions under which the software may be distributed or copied. Copyright law gives the authors/copyright holders broad discretion to set those conditions. I can’t see why Microsoft’s EULA should get a right to set very onerous conditions yet the GPL does not get a right to set most reasonable conditions.
But it’s bad to let a license reach that far.
I really don’t understand this comment? Why is it bad the the GPL should reach to stopping Microsoft’s attempted extortion attempts over software that does not belong to Microsoft, yet it apparently is quite OK for Microsoft to write a EULA that completely ignores legal concepts such as “invasion of privacy”?
It is Microsoft’s EULA that reaches way too far, not the GPL. Clearly.
It’s nice in theory to think about. It’s good natured.
It is more than that. It stops Microsoft from having to endure a RICO extortion investigation and an anti-trust investigation also.
Edited 2007-07-09 04:47
-
sappyvcv
What don’t you understand? It’s reaching BEYOND distribution/copying. No distribution or copying is going on by Microsoft. The “conveying” part was added because they wanted to reach beyond distribution/copying, else they wouldn’t have even added it. THAT is the gray area.
-
lemur2
What don’t you understand? It’s reaching BEYOND distribution/copying. No distribution or copying is going on by Microsoft. The “conveying” part was added because they wanted to reach beyond distribution/copying, else they wouldn’t have even added it. THAT is the gray area.
What don’t you understand? This would not have been necessary had not Microsoft tried to find a way around the GPL v2 in the first place.
The GPL license’s clear intent, chosen by the authors of the software, is to preserve the four freedoms. This is now and always has been the intent.
Microsoft is desperate to try to find a way divide the FOSS community and to find a way to make FOSS users liable for a license fee for Linux payable to Microsoft. Microsoft are dead keen to utterly ban all of the four freedoms.
All the while Microsoft have been consistently throwing every obstacle in the way of FOSS, trying to hinder and destroy FOSS, trying to slow its adoption through attempts to smear its name, and trying legal lobbying to get it banned, and mounting third-party lawsuits to try to throw a spanner in the works.
Microsoft offer no product for FOSS, they refuse to inter-operate with FOSS, they avoid open formats like the plague and they try their best to prevent wide adoption of any open format, and they try to insist that their closed formats be the standard and that everyone owes them money to use said formats.
Yet Microsoft want us to pay them?
Fat chance.
What don’t you understand? Microsoft are out to destroy FOSS. Payback is a bitch.
Edited 2007-07-09 08:57
-
sappyvcv
Microsoft is not limiting the “four freedoms” with their vouchers. RMS simply wants to control Microsoft’s actions any way possible.
Are you admitting that the license is a purposeful retaliation to Microsofts past actions, trying to attack them back?
That’s pretty petty of the FSF.
-
-
-
ichi
geez, you could do some research on your own.
Does the whole community benefit from the covenant that “protects” SuSE users? no? There you go.
-
-
ichi
Fourth freedom: “The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.”
Does the MS patent pledge extend to those getting Suse from anyone besides Novell? Does it extend if what you’re redistributing is not Suse but just some of it’s packages?
The MS covenant divides the community in two classes, even when both might be getting the same software: those who are “protected” and those who don’t.
You cannot distribute the code to everyone under the same conditions, hence it’s limiting freedom.
-
lemur2
Microsoft is desperate to try to find a way divide the FOSS community and to find a way to make FOSS users liable for a license fee for Linux payable to Microsoft. Microsoft are dead keen to utterly ban all of the four freedoms.
All the while Microsoft have been consistently throwing every obstacle in the way of FOSS, trying to hinder and destroy FOSS, trying to slow its adoption through attempts to smear its name, wriiting letters to congress calling FOSS “communist”, funding bogus think tanks calling FOSS “derived from UNIX”, and trying legal lobbying to get it banned, and mounting third-party lawsuits to try to throw a spanner in the works.
Microsoft offer no product for FOSS, they refuse to inter-operate with FOSS, they avoid open formats like the plague and they try their best to prevent wide adoption of any open format, and they try to insist that their closed formats be the standard and that everyone owes them money to use said formats.
“That’s pretty petty of the FSF.”
Petty? Petty!!!!!????
Shakes head in bewilderment.
Sigh!
2007-07-06 4:44 pm
theARE
1) Microsoft signed a deal with Novelle that ensured that “Novell’s customers receive a covenant not to sue directly from Microsoft.”
For supposed patent infringement that Microsoft claims it is aware of.
2) As part of the agrrement, Microsoft gave out coupons that allowed customers to get a licensed copy of SLED
4) Parts of SLED has software licenced explicitly under GPLv2, other parts under GPLv2 or later.
5) GPLv3 changed the wording from “distribute” to “convey”
Definition: To “convey” a work means any kind of propagation that enables other parties to make or receive copies.
6) On release GPLv3 became the valid licence for any software previously released as “GPLv2 or later”
7) There is no time limit on microsofts vouchers, therefore they can be used to get a copy of SLED that containes pieces of software that is licenced under GPLv3
8) Under the GPLv3 Microsoft is “conveying” GPL’d code and is therefore subject to the GPLv3
9) IANAL but from my understanding of it you can’t grant patent protection to one goup of people that use a particular piece of software, without giving the same protection to everyone else that uses that piece of software.
Microsofts actions do fall under the GPLv3 and they therefore must abide by it, or be in breach of it.
Edited 2007-07-06 16:45
-
-
2fargone
I thought I knew what was going on before I started to read this thread, but I’m starting to realize this goes a few steps deeper than what I thought it did. I can see if MS gets the right lawyer with the argument in front of the right judge, they could get out from under this. But from a matter for going from point a to b to c as far as the law is concerned, it seems to me that MS has quite the uphill battle ahead of them. It’ll be interesting to see what happens no matter what.
-
Marcellus
If you actually understood the “or later” clause, you’d know that you have written is simply not true.
If software A is distributed under “GPLv2 or later” it means the receiver can redistribute under “GPLv3 or later” if he so choose. The “original” distribution in this case is governed by GPLv2, but allows redistribution to use later versions of the license.
It does NOT mean that the original distributor is bound by later versions of the license.
If the voucher exclude any GPLv3 code, and Novell still includes said code as a service to the customer, MS walks free of any GPLv3 clauses. Net effect: GPLv3 has zero impact on the deal between Novell and MS.
-
lemur2
f software A is distributed under “GPLv2 or later” it means the receiver can redistribute under “GPLv3 or later” if he so choose.
Where did you get this from?
The author of the software or whoever holds the copyright decides how his/her software is licensed … no one else.
That is the law … it has nothing to do with the GPL.
If the author or copyright holder (it is possible for the author to transfer the copyright) licensed the work originally under “GPL v2 or later”, and then later a “GPL v3” license is released … then the author or copyright holder decides if his/her software is now licensed under GPL v2 or GPL v3. The downstream distributors have no say.
This is the law.
-
Marcellus
Maybe if you actually read the licenses you’d understand better. Because right now you’re spreading lies.
How about you quote exactly what provisions of the GPLv2 makes you think you’re right in this?
GPLv2 does not contain any clause that allows license changes to arbitrarily propagate to any and all receivers of “GPLv2 or later” software.
If you receive software under “GPLv2 or later”, then it is “GPLv2 or later” that you can choose from when you redistribute it.
The original author may relicense his/her software under “GPLv3 or later”, but that only applies to receivers that receive it under that license.
-
lemur2
GPLv2 does not contain any clause that allows license changes to arbitrarily propagate to any and all receivers of “GPLv2 or later” software.
Of course the GPL doesn’t contain such a clause.
The right of copyright holders to set license conditions doesn’t stem from the license they choose … rather those rights stem from the law of the land.
It is copyright law which grants copyright holders the right to set (and change at whim) the permissions under which others may use or copy their work … it is not the license text itself which grants these rights.
If you want an example of the power a copyright holder has over his/her work … you should read a Microsoft EULA!!!
BTW, it is not wise to claim other people are lying if you don’t actually know the applicable law yourself …
-
Marcellus
Sorry, but if you’re not intentionally lying, then you’re simply uninformed both with regards to the GPL and with regards to applicable law.
Go ask FSF and see what they have to say about your claims (hint: they’ll tell you that you’re wrong).
-
lemur2
Sorry, but if you’re not intentionally lying, then you’re simply uninformed both with regards to the GPL and with regards to applicable law.
Go ask FSF and see what they have to say about your claims (hint: they’ll tell you that you’re wrong).
Sorry to disappoint you, but I am not wrong.
The GNU foundation gets to decide what version of GPL now applies to GNU software.
The Samba project now gets gets to decide what version of GPL now applies to Samba.
Sun Microsystems now gets to decide what version of GPL now applies to OpenOffice.
Linus Torvalds and the kernel developers now get to decide what version of GPL now applies to the Linux kernel (and they have so far indicated that they will stick to GPL v2 only).
Novell now gets to decide what version of GPL now applies to Mono and Evolution (for example) … but even though Novell includes all of the software above in its SuSe distribution, Novell does not make the decision on how the pieces mentioned above are licensed.
http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2191012/novell-trembles-wake-clos…
“GPLv3 is in its final draft stage and is scheduled for release by July. It will be up to developers to decide whether their applications will migrate to the new licence, but it is generally expected that at least some GPLv2 applications will move over.”
Are you ready to call “uncle” on this point yet?
-
Marcellus
Changing the license to GPLv3 or later applies to NEW distributions from the original source or anyone that WANTS to use GPLv3 or later for their redistribution…
The license change is NOT automatically propagated like you seem to believe. And copyright law does NOT contain anything that entails such propagation.
Is that so hard to understand?
If your interpretation was correct, companies wouldn’t have touched GPL with a 10foot pole, and branching to keep it GPLv2 or later for those who want would not be possible. But it IS possible to branch a project in order to prevent at least a branch of it from going to GPLv3 or later.
You say you’re not wrong, and yet you are afraid to ask FSF to confirm your views. Please don’t bother posting anything more until you actually know what you are talking about.
-
lemur2
You say you’re not wrong, and yet you are afraid to ask FSF to confirm your views. Please don’t bother posting anything more until you actually know what you are talking about.
Bluff. You are bluffing now. I found a number of references that back up what I said, and you have come up with nothing to support your contention, other than your own bluster.
You have absolutely no support for your wrong-headed idea on this. Nothing. Zilch. Nada. Squat.
The license on GNU software has already changed to GPL v3. That was the whole point of “releasing” the final version of the GPL v3 license.
Samba will very likely be the next project to do this.
But it IS possible to branch a project in order to prevent at least a branch of it from going to GPLv3 or later.
Yes, it is possible. You can fork an new version of GPL code at any time and control subsequent releases of it. That will however not stop the original project from doing its ongoing thing.
A company like Novell has no hope of forking and subsequently maintaining all of the code which will go to GPL v3. Novell would have to keep a large team to maintain GCC, GNOME, coreutils, binutils, GNU utilites, bash, emacs, Samba … etc, etc, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_GNU_packages
-
2007-07-09 3:22 am
WrawratAt least two pages of comments were probably wasted on small misunderstandings…
You can fork an new version of GPL code at any time and control subsequent releases of it. That will however not stop the original project from doing its ongoing thing.
That is exactly what people kept saying to you since the beginning, no?
The FSF are free to change the licence for their software collection. They could even use a licence completely different from the GPL. As they are the copyright holders, Novell (or anybody) can’t do anything about it. However, this change isn’t made retroactively. For instance, the GNU software acquired by Novell (or anybody) just before the change is still under the GPL version 2. The FSF can’t do anything about it.
To what I understand, the “or later” clause of the licence was meant to give special permissions to its users… Although users don’t have the right to relicense a package they don’t own under their own terms, this clause gives them the opportunity to use a more recent version of the GPL. I took this entry from the GNU FAQ as a reference (read up the second sentence of the answer):
* http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#v2OrLaterPatentLicense
Note that the clause does make it easy for users in a distributed environment to “upgrade” the licence. Basically, you could take ANY software under the terms of the GPLv2 and make a GPLv3 fork of it. Without this clause, you would need to get the explicit agreement of the owners, which can be thousands of developers… It seems to be one of the issues with the Linux kernel right now. Even if they would like to use the GPLv3, they cannot override licence which omit the “or later” clause. Since v3 is incompatible with v2, an hybrid version cannot exist :
* http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#v2v3Compatibility
Thus, Novell will need to agree with the GPLv3 if they are incorporating changes from GNU software using the explicit “version 3 or later” clause. However, they are free to use the GPLv2 on any code that is newer than what they already got that is still under the terms of the GPLv2, including or excluding the “or later” clause. Even though they are merely packing a software in a different way, they are still using the code, thus bound to the licence. That said, they will need to fork the original projects if they ever want to continue development, just as you mentioned.
As for the Novell/MS patent saga, it’s quite a complex legal situation… While Novell would definitely be bounds by the terms of the GPLv3 if they are ever distributing/conveying/whatever software using this licence, it seems unclear whether the patent protection provided by Microsoft would apply to users outside the agreement. This is open to interpretation, which is why we are having this debate here! It will probably up to the court — if the case ever lands there — to decide who is protected… Anyway, it’s a non-issue in most parts of the world.
-
lemur2
That is exactly what people kept saying to you since the beginning, no?
No. Someone was trying to say that the distributors of the code got to say what the license was to be.
That was incorrect.
However, this change isn’t made retroactively. For instance, the GNU software acquired by Novell (or anybody) just before the change is still under the GPL version 2. The FSF can’t do anything about it.
Of course. Who would assume otherwise?
It doesn’t matter though. Novell will not be able to release a new version of SuSe (and still be able to maintain it) without including GPL v3 software.
A new version of SuSe is already in the alpha stages.
Edited 2007-07-09 03:36
-
Marcellus
No. Someone was trying to say that the distributors of the code got to say what the license was to be.
What I said was that if someone receive software under GPLv2 or later, that someone can choose to continue with GPLv2 or later OR take up on the “or later” clause and switch it to GPLv3 or later. I have not a single time claimed that you can go from GPLv3 to GPLv2 or from GPL any version to some other license.
I also pointed out that a change in license from the original author does not propagate to everyone that’s received the software prior to that change.
If your points have been based on misunderstanding what I have been saying, then I’m just sorry that both of our time has been wasted.
It doesn’t really matter anyway, as the vouchers you can get from MS is apparently for a support agreement and not for the distribution itself and for now they are excluding all GPLv3 parts from getting support from MS.
It seems MS exclude GPLv3 covered parts for now because it seems to be unclear what effects even giving support would have. Once it’s been cleared up, it will either be permanented that no GPLv3 parts are covered, or MS extends the support to those parts too.
I don’t think this is the place to discuss that particular issue though.
2007-07-06 5:01 pm
JeffS
The expansion of open source is completely inevitable. It’s an rising tide that is unstoppable.
But MS keeps trying to fight it, with FUD, legalese, divide and conquer patent agreements, etc.
And their tactics keep on failing. This latest turn of events, the release of GPL3, which SuSE will absolutely have to use with crucial bits like GCC, glibc, the shells, Samba, and many others, will make the patent deals apply to all users, and MS’s patent threats against Linux completely useless (if they weren’t already).
And with these tactics, and the fact that every other corporation in IT is 100% behind open source, and most governments and businesses are using open source at an increasing rate, it’s time for MS to stop fighting open source and simply co-opt it, like everyone else is.
MS can still maintain it’s Windows and Office franchises and expand other products while completely co-opting open source.
Heck, I would love to see a Microsoft Linux distro, with a full, working version of Win32 and .Net, and other nice MS goodies attached on top. That way, I wouldn’t have to deal with crappy Windows and it’s stability and security problems, and use Linux as a core with great efficiency, stability, security, flexibility, and still take advantage of the great APIs and development tools and software platform that MS has.
MS could still sell the heck out such a thing, because it would have compatibility, and their overhead would go down.
If MS continues it’s “us against the world” strategy, they will lose.
They just need to adapt to the changing times, like IBM did.
-
-
2007-07-06 7:26 pm
TaterSaladYour statements are so wrong its almost as if you were purposely trying to spread the FUD. Microsoft has embraced open source. They have released source code to sourceforge which became one of the top downloads. They have an open source lab at their headquarters where they stated they have many different linux distros, bsd’s, and a few other operating systems. They opened their labs to the open source community but the community shunned them and now for some odd reason you think they should bend over backwards for open source. Don’t try to come here and tell us that Microsoft needs to co-opt open source when they have done everything possible to get along open source community but yet that same community keeps rejecting them. Perhaps its open source that needs to change and not Microsoft.
-
2007-07-06 11:23 pm
twenexYour statements are so wrong it’s almost as if you were purposely trying to spread the FUD. Microsoft embraced open source long before they opened their labs…and only for what they can get out of it. They have released source code of stuff like FoxPro which they don’t want to support anymore. They have an open source lab at their headquarters where pay lip service to open source. They “opened” their labs to the open source community but the community saw through their tactics. And now for some odd reason you think they should be believed. Don’t try to come here and tell us that Microsoft are the canine’s testicles when they have done everything possible to screw the open source community (or have you forgotten their patent (pun intended) linux-violates-patents-and-we’re-not-going-to-tell-you-
what-they-are-even-although-patents-are-by-definition-
publicly-available bullshit already?) Perhaps it’s Microsoft that needs to change and not open source.
-
2007-07-06 7:57 pm
tomcatAnd their tactics keep on failing.
How is MS failing? It has a monopoly on desktop operating systems that shows no sign of abating, and its server market share is growing faster than Linux, according to some sources. If that’s “failing”, then I’m sure that many companies would like to similarly fail.
-
twenex
How is MS failing? It has a monopoly on desktop operating systems that shows no sign of abating,
Except for the Dell (and now HP?) Linux desktop offerings and the fall in the number of developers working on Microsoft platforms, to Linux’ advantage. And that’s just on Microsoft’s home turf. I’m willing to bet that the UK falls behind the curve set by the US, as usual, but I wouldn’t place money on much of the European Union doing so, never mind ROW.
and its server market share is growing faster than Linux, according to some sources.
Sources which I’m sure are eager to count all the Microsoft Windows shipments as gains for Microsoft even although there’s no telling how many of those shipments are replaced by free (as in beer) Linux installations. Not to mention there’s no way of telling how many purchases of bare hardware go the same way – though I’ll grant you, there’s no way of telling how many pirated copies of Windows find their way there either. But then that means you have discount those statistics; you can’t use them as evidence for gains to either Microsoft or to Linux.
But, don’t mind the truth if it stops you from drinking the Microsoft Kool-Aid.
-
tomcat
Except for the Dell (and now HP?) Linux desktop offerings and the fall in the number of developers working on Microsoft platforms, to Linux’ advantage.
There’s no evidence that anybody is actually buying those machines–yet. So, how is that to Linux’ advantage?
Sources which I’m sure are eager to count all the Microsoft Windows shipments as gains for Microsoft even although there’s no telling how many of those shipments are replaced by free (as in beer) Linux installations.
I know this might come as a shock to you, but in the server market, the only real metric that means anything to the commercial supply chain — you know, the big Linux contributors such as IBM, HP, etc — is the sales volume. On that count, MS is growing faster, and it has been noticed by IBM et al. I’m not making this up. It’s common knowledge.
-
twenex
There’s no evidence that anybody is actually buying those machines–yet.
What about the reviews of the machines? No, I’m not going to post any, you can post here so you’re capable of googling them. And the fact that they have reportedly been taken aback by the amount of demand?
“Nobody buying them”? I’m STILL waiting for them to be sold in the UK; once they are, I will. What’s next for you? Quoting some sub-zero percentage of supposed Linux desktop use and predicting its slow demise “year after year after year” a la NotParker?
I know this might come as a shock to you, but in the server market, the only real metric that means anything to the commercial supply chain — you know, the big Linux contributors such as IBM, HP, etc — is the sales volume.
So if (just a for instance) in quarter 10,000 people buy servers and install Linux on it for free, and 300 people buy Windows servers (with paid-for, licenced copies of Windows), that means Windows is doing better than Linux because Windows had more sales?
Get real. No, scratch that: Get somewhere a little farther from fantastical.
Seems to me you’re one of the last hate-Linux-love-Windows trolls around here. That tell you anything?
-
tomcat
What about the reviews of the machines?
Tell me something: If nobody buys these machines, how is that to Linux’ advantage? I don’t care how good the reviews are. Show me the money.
So if (just a for instance) in quarter 10,000 people buy servers and install Linux on it for free, and 300 people buy Windows servers (with paid-for, licenced copies of Windows), that means Windows is doing better than Linux because Windows had more sales?
Except that’s not the way it works in the vast majority of cases. Most organizations buying servers purchase hardware, OS, and support at the same time. They don’t buy raw hardware.
-
twenex
Tell me something: If nobody buys these machines, how is that to Linux’ advantage?
It occurs to me that the people doing these reviews might be telling the truth when they say that they are buying the machines they’re reviewing.
Just a thought.
I don’t care how good the reviews are. Show me the money.
Well, I made no comment on the positivity or otherwise of the reviews. And even though it’s pure laziness and wishfulness on your part to believe that Linux sucks compared to Windows and that all the reports of it doing well are lies, how about this quote from SJVN’s latest piece?
While Dell has declined to announce any sales figures for its new Linux laptops and desktops, sources indicate that the sales have exceeded expectations.
http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS7159701171.html
Now, I’m sure you’ll find some “valid” objection now that I’ve provided some evidence. Fortunately the universe doesn’t seem to take much notice of tomcat when it’s deciding what’s true or not.
Except that’s not the way it works in the vast majority of cases. Most organizations buying servers purchase hardware, OS, and support at the same time. They don’t buy raw hardware.
Really? Then how do you explain the fact that Linux got in the door in the first place?
-
tomcat
It occurs to me that the people doing these reviews might be telling the truth when they say that they are buying the machines they’re reviewing.
If that’s what you’re depending on to build market share, you’re in trouble.
Just a thought.
Not a very good one.
Now, I’m sure you’ll find some “valid” objection now that I’ve provided some evidence. Fortunately the universe doesn’t seem to take much notice of tomcat when it’s deciding what’s true or not.
Again, Dell hasn’t offered any evidence that they’re selling. It’s certainly TRYING — but that’s not evidence of success.
Really? Then how do you explain the fact that Linux got in the door in the first place?
Many corps are replacing their big iron Unix boxes — which came packaged with hardware/OS/support — with Linux boxes from major OEMs. It has nothing to do with companies buying raw hardware and installing Linux on ’em. That’s not the way that corps operate.
-
jayson.knight
Easy there killer…take a deep breath and relax a little.
Repeat after me: “Everything I read on Slashdot isn’t necessarily true. Sometimes it’s good to form opinions of my own.”
Where is this fight you’re speaking so much of? And MS is failing? There are a bunch of execs over at MS that would love to hear exactly where they are failing right now.
“And with these tactics, and the fact that every other corporation in IT is 100% behind open source”
IT departments don’t get behind open source because of the whole FOSS mantra, or because they are anti-MS. IT adopts technology strategies for one reason, and one reason alone: What is going to give us the best ROI. Sometimes it’s solutions that are FOSS in nature, and other times it’s something proprietary. If it happens to be FOSS, well all the merrier…if they want to give something back to the community then that’s up to them. In the end, IT doesn’t care about the philosophies behind a technology product though.
“They just need to adapt to the changing times, like IBM did.”
Are you serious? IBM is the poster child for how to not do things correctly, and lose billions of dollars at the same time. Microsoft’s business model is about as airtight as they come…if anything, businesses wishing to succeed could take a page from MS.
2007-07-06 6:13 pm
CrazyDude0
What if I make a license which says if you visit my website you give me full rights to your property and your wife;)
I really doubt that GPLv3 will stand ground in courts.
As a side note – I think GPLv3 is going to do more damage to OSS than MS or Novell ever did. Whacko stallman has gone crazy with his single family-less life…
-
g2devi
It’s not legal because you don’t give people the option of declining. It’s also not legal because you don’t know who I am or that I’m actually logged into the computer.
Now, if I sent you a signed statement that I visited your web site and are thus subject to your terms, I’d be in deep trouble (except for the wife issue since slavery and unilateral power of attorney isn’t legal).
The GPLv3 is a simple quid pro quo license that says, if you try to make an agreement to allow others to do an endround the license, you’re also complicit. It doesn’t apply to innocent third parties, just patent mafias.
-
theARE
It’s not legal because you don’t give people the option of declining. It’s also not legal because you don’t know who I am or that I’m actually logged into the computer.
Sorry, but I have to reply to this. Is the Windoes EULA legal? because it says that Microsoft can modify the terms on a page on it’s website, and by continuing to use Microsoft software you are agreeing to those terms.
MS might want to proclaim “Not me gov” about GPLv3, But it’s exactly the same for their EULA. I can say “I didnt agree to that” as much as I like, but if it applies to me, then it applies to them.
Live by the sword…
2007-07-06 6:32 pm
mind!dagger
Personally, I would like to see Linus step up and tell Microsoft it owes him for it licensing his kernel through Novell.
Microsoft is full of $h!t.
For example, The consortium of global automakers have built their cars and are selling them on the free market. Microsoft builds the Model 3.1, 3.11, 95, 98 Me, 2000, XP and new one called Vista. They also have a few truck models named NT 3, 4, 2000 and 2003.
They are the largest automaker on the planet and don’t like competition. Even when said competition really isn’t hurting the bottom line at the Redmond auto dealership.
So the Redmond chief makes allegations that the other car makers have stole their ideas. Basically wheels, ball-bearings, door handles and really basic stuff.
They go to three struggling auto makers Novell, Linspire and some real unknown Redmond wanna be named XanderOS and say your wheels, door knobs and balls violate our ideas. Really needing a cash flow to boost their poor sales they accept the cash while not really reading the big auto makers terms.
The larger non-Microsoft automakers RedHat and Ubuntu are finanially sound companies and well as a few smaller ones chime in they do not need Microsoft’s cash or the terms that come with it.
Microsoft has heard the automakers have come up with a new contract system to protect themselves from potential abuses by the big automaker and its tendancy to fly rip-shod over the rights and property of the smaller shops and businesses.
Sure enough, the large automaker now says its not bound by the terms and conditions of the smaller businesses and is above the law.
2007-07-06 6:44 pm
theARE
Microsoft would never risk the chance that they could be forced to divulge exactly what IP it thinks as been violated and it has given indemnification for.
There is no way in hell they can risk that if they want to keep the FUD tactics going, which is the only real wepon they have to try and slow the spread of open source.
Even if they won the case, if that information is divulged then they have no wepons left.
Edited 2007-07-06 18:46
2007-07-06 10:20 pm
Bounty
To me the article seems to read that “Novell will give it’s customers what they want.” I don’t know what the MS deal exactly said, but Novell probably doesn’t want to piss off MS intentionally at this point.
MS gives vouchers for SLED. Their intention is for the GPL v2 version (non-cough up my patents), which Novell can distribute. But (as a bonus) since Novell wants to do what’s best for it’s customers, IT will throw in GPL v3 stuff. Now who’s distributing what?
2007-07-06 10:26 pm
Bounty
Also, what about Mandriva club? What if MS sold Mandriva club vouchers?
I mean we are talking about the “free” software part? If I just wanted the free software, I’d download it… it’s GPL they have to provide it. Isn’t SLED just a box and support, maybe with some proprietary Novell stuff in it?
2007-07-07 12:47 am
tomcat
It’s stunning how clueless many of the posts on this thread are. MS ain’t distributing Linux. It’s handing out vouchers for service. GPL3 has no relevance at all to its activities.
-
lemur2
It’s stunning how clueless many of the posts on this thread are. MS ain’t distributing Linux. It’s handing out vouchers for service. GPL3 has no relevance at all to its activities.
It stunning how clueless some people are about what the GPL v3 license actually says.
The GPL v3 is no longer “invoked” by distribution of Linux, it is invoked by the act of “conveying” Linux.
Look i up. What Microsoft is doing falls under the definition in the GPL v3 of “conveying” Linux to people.
Ergo, GPL3 is directly related to Microsft’s activities with respect to the coupons.
-
elsewhere
It stunning how clueless some people are about what the GPL v3 license actually says.
The GPL v3 is no longer “invoked” by distribution of Linux, it is invoked by the act of “conveying” Linux.
Er, no. GPL v3 is invoked by the conveying of GPL v3 licensed works, of which linux is NOT.
Look i up. What Microsoft is doing falls under the definition in the GPL v3 of “conveying” Linux to people.
I did look it up, couldn’t find anything credible beyond some random babbling on Groklaw and a bunch of anti-MS/Novell sites. How exactly are you convinced this is the case? And more to the point, can you provide references that correlate to actual copyright law? No, I suspect not.
Ergo, GPL3 is directly related to Microsft’s activities with respect to the coupons.
Ergo implies a rational conclusion to a logical argument, so it’s a bit inappropriate to use that particular word here.
-
lemur2
GPL v3 is invoked by the conveying of GPL v3 licensed works, of which linux is NOT.
You score a minor point there. Linux (the kernel) itself is not GPL v3, but GNU certainly is. It is GNU/Linux which Microsoft are propagating coupons for.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html
0. Definitions.
…
To “convey” a work means any kind of propagation that enables other parties to make or receive copies.
Does Microsoft propagate coupons “that enables other parties to … receive copies (of GPL v3 licensed code)”? Why yes, Microsoft does do exactly that.
I did look it up, couldn’t find anything credible beyond some random babbling on Groklaw
You didn’t look very hard. It is in the plain text of the first few paragraphs of the license itself, which in turn is posted very prominently on the site of the authors of the license.
Ergo implies a rational conclusion to a logical argument, so it’s a bit inappropriate to use that particular word here.
Au contraire, ergo is the exact word appropriate for the place where I used it.
Edited 2007-07-07 06:28
-
Marcellus
To “convey” a work means any kind of propagation that enables other parties to make or receive copies.
Person A gives person B the FTP address and path to a GPLv3 covered work on a public FTP site run by C.
Does A have to agree to GPLv3 to do that? No.
Does A convey the work? Yes.
You see any problem there?
-
theARE
But think about torrent sites that RI/MPAA are trying to shut down. Do the sites actually have any copyrighted material on them? No. Do they enable people to download copyrighted material? Yes
Microsofts coupons are the same, they are enabling users to receive software. Under the GPLv3 if you do that, you have to abide by the terms of the GPL. If you dont agree to the licence then you cant “convey” code released under it.
-
Marcellus
And if MS explicitly excludes GPLv3-licensed work from the voucher, they’re safe.
What the voucher includes is between MS and Novell.
Novell can’t force MS to become subject to GPLv3 if they still include GPLv3-licensed work with the other things that the voucher entitles you to.
And in case you have missed it, it has to be “GPLv3 only” or “GPLv3 or later” to fall directly under GPLv3.
-
lemur2
And if MS explicitly excludes GPLv3-licensed work from the voucher, they’re safe.
Yes, but the coupon is worthless. You can’t actually do anything at all with just a kernel. GNU/Linux is non-functional without the GNU parts … and the GNU parts are licensed now under GPL v3.
Novell can’t force MS to become subject to GPLv3
Correct … Microsoft themselves have to do that. Microsoft have done it by propogating coupons that have enabled some people to obtain some code that is licensed under GPL v3.
And in case you have missed it, it has to be “GPLv3 only” or “GPLv3 or later” to fall directly under GPLv3.
No, not at all. AFAIK, if software was released by an author under “GPL v2 or later”, and than later a “GPL v3” shows up, then the author decides if the software is now licensed under GPL v2 or GPL v3. In the case of GNU software, the FSF have decided that it is now licensed under GPL v3.
This is the law, AFAIK. The authors/copyright holders decide how their software is licensed … no-one else.
-
Marcellus
Yes, but the coupon is worthless. You can’t actually do anything at all with just a kernel. GNU/Linux is non-functional without the GNU parts … and the GNU parts are licensed now under GPL v3.
And Novell can, if they so choose, “upgrade” the distro to the full version including GPL v3 software if THEY so choose. MS is still in the clear, the customer gets what he wants, and you can continue your rabid and uninformed comments.
No, not at all. AFAIK, if software was released by an author under “GPL v2 or later”, and than later a “GPL v3” shows up, then the author decides if the software is now licensed under GPL v2 or GPL v3. In the case of GNU software, the FSF have decided that it is now licensed under GPL v3.
And what you “know” is wrong.
This is the law, AFAIK. The authors/copyright holders decide how their software is licensed … no-one else.
And the GPL does not contain a clause that causes any and all “GPLv2 or later” software receivers to suddenly become subject to GPLv3 the moment the original author decides to switch to the new license.
-
lemur2
MS is still in the clear, the customer gets what he wants, and you can continue your rabid and uninformed comments.
MS is not in the clear. MS needs permission from the copyright holder to do their deals with “coupons”. The GPL is Microsoft’s permission. If Microsoft do not follow the provisions in the GPL, then Microsoft have no permission from the copyright holders to give out those coupons.
The GPL sets this all out quite plainly. The GPL gets its power from copyright law, which is the same law that lets Microsoft put terms in Microsoft’s EULA.
It really is that simple. If Microsoft expect people to be bound by the terms in their EULA, then just as clearly Microsoft themselves are bound by the GPL in respect of the software which is licensed under the GPL.
And the GPL does not contain a clause that causes any and all “GPLv2 or later” software receivers to suddenly become subject to GPLv3 the moment the original author decides to switch to the new license.
No, it doesn’t. That clause is in the copyright law.
-
-
lemur2
Microsofts coupons are the same, they are enabling users to receive software. Under the GPLv3 if you do that, you have to abide by the terms of the GPL. If you dont agree to the licence then you cant “convey” code released under it.
Exactly. Hit the nail on the head.
-
KenJackson
Go back and re-read those posts before you call them clueless. GPL3 has a new section that says, “the patent license you grant is automatically extended to all recipients of the covered work“. A big part of the Novell deal is patent licensing, so GPL3 is explosively relevant.
-
elsewhere
Go back and re-read those posts before you call them clueless. GPL3 has a new section that says, “the patent license you grant is automatically extended to all recipients of the covered work”. A big part of the Novell deal is patent licensing, so GPL3 is explosively relevant.
Well, as long as we’re quoting:
“Knowingly relying” means you have actual knowledge that, but for the patent license, your conveying the covered work in a country, or your recipient’s use of the covered work in a country, would infringe one or more identifiable patents in that country that you have reason to believe are valid.
Key words are identifiable patents. To date, I’m not aware of Microsoft or any of the distro partners actually identifying one or more patents that they believe to be valid. The fact that Novell, Linspire and Xandros have explicitly denied the argument that linux infringes is slightly more than relevant here.
To simplify things for you, this means that unless MS and their “partners” explicitly state particular patents that customers are being protected from, there is no patent licensing occurring. This is what RMS originally referred to as the “loophole”, and ironically enough this “loophole” remains otherwise they’d risk scorching many other commercial contributors to GPL protected projects.
edit: quote tags
Edited 2007-07-07 03:07 UTC
-
theARE
Key words are identifiable patents. To date, I’m not aware of Microsoft or any of the distro partners actually identifying one or more patents that they believe to be valid.
And are’nt MS just absolutly terrified of that? If it ever came out what the so called IP actually are, then any such infringements would be worked around within a short space of time, by the OSS community.
It’s in MS’s favor that what the so called identifiable patents never ever see the light of day in any media or any court of law, or they would be quickly deprived of their last FUD wepon.
Edited 2007-07-07 03:29
-
elsewhere
It’s in MS’s favor that what the so called identifiable patents never ever see the light of day in any media or any court of law, or they would be quickly deprived of their last FUD wepon.
Absolutely. There’s no way in a hundred million years that MS will actually enumerate the particular patents they feel are violated by linux. They don’t want to risk the community working around them, but more importantly, don’t want to risk the community having them overturned.
MS is playing bullsh!t poker with their patent portfolio, that’s all this amounts to. The Novell/Linspire/Xandros deals were essentially a response to the business realities of dealing with the unbalanced patent system in one particular jurisdiction of the global community. Tasteless they may be, I can’t help feeling the community should let go of the anti-MS diatribe, it simply plays into the MS marketing machine’s intent. If there’s no actual “clear and present danger” to the community at large, I don’t understand why so much vitrolic is being wasted on this issue.
The real problem is the system, that’s what people should be attacking. Get to the cause of the problem, not the symptom. And it will take more than a license to accomplish that.
Anyways, just my 2c…
-
lemur2
There’s no way in a hundred million years that MS will actually enumerate the particular patents they feel are violated by linux.
… and as long as Microsoft do not enumerate the patents there is no reason at all why anyone should worry about using GNU/Linux or making any license or royalty deal with Microsoft over GNU/Linux use.
-
elsewhere
… and as long as Microsoft do not enumerate the patents there is no reason at all why anyone should worry about using GNU/Linux or making any license or royalty deal with Microsoft over GNU/Linux use.
Sure, and by extension, as long as Microsoft do not enumerate the patents there is no reason at all why anyone should worry about Linux distros making a royalty deal with Microsoft over Linux use.
-
lemur2
To date, I’m not aware of Microsoft or any of the distro partners actually identifying one or more patents that they believe to be valid.
True, they haven’t. It doesn’t matter … by the act of “conveying” (via the propagation of coupons) software which is licensed under GPL v3 (specifically, GNU software), Microsoft has said they will not sue any users of that software for any patents Microsoft may hold.
Either that, or Microsoft have been indirectly giving out software belonging to someone else without any license to do so … pirates!
-
KenJackson
To simplify things for you, this means that unless MS and their “partners” explicitly state particular patents that customers are being protected from, there is no patent licensing occurring.
Master didn’t clarify it enough for dunce pupil, so let dunce pupil help master.
You are saying that in typical Microsoft style, Microsoft is having it both ways. They promise to not using patent infringement as a club against partners, but they refuse to identify any patents so they are not actually doing any licensing.
That may very well be Microsoft’s strategy to avoid GPLv3 infringement, but it won’t work. In order for the the threat to non-partners to be valid, Microsoft must be able to identify a specific patent violation. But as soon as they do, paragraph 6 of section 11 kicks in which extends protection to everyone.
GPLv3 makes Microsoft’s carrot and stick mechanism null and void.
-
elsewhere
You are saying that in typical Microsoft style, Microsoft is having it both ways. They promise to not using patent infringement as a club against partners, but they refuse to identify any patents so they are not actually doing any licensing.
That is precisely what I’m saying.
That may very well be Microsoft’s strategy to avoid GPLv3 infringement, but it won’t work. In order for the the threat to non-partners to be valid, Microsoft must be able to identify a specific patent violation. But as soon as they do, paragraph 6 of section 11 kicks in which extends protection to everyone.
If, and only if, a) Microsoft could be considered to be distributing the work by virtue of providing the coupons, and b) the courts elected to uphold the patent indemnity as a consequence of indirect distribution. Neither a) nor b) is a given, regardless of what the license text says; it’s no different than Microsoft’s EULA. Just because it’s written in legalese doesn’t mean it’s legally valid.
GPLv3 makes Microsoft’s carrot and stick mechanism null and void.
And by the same token, unless MS and the partner distros start naming GPL-protected apps and specific patents, then the anti-MS/Novell clause of the GPLv3 is also null and void.
I’m not defending Microsoft’s strategy here, but I’m frustrated seeing the community jump up and say “problem solved” when really, it isn’t, nothing has changed and the core issues with the system remain.
2007-07-07 4:47 am
abdavidson
I really dislike this whole situation.
Why is it that there has to be this deemed battle between proprietary and open source/’free’ software?
GPL3 seems to have been created as a battering ram to try and stifle proprietary development. That is how it comes across, and that is petty.
While the ideology of people wanting their software to be open and ‘free’ is all well and good, I don’t see why it has to be all of nothing.
And this kind of twisted logic where a new licence is provided to try and provide backdated shackles to anyone using previously licenced software is just barmy.
As someone that uses both FOSS and proprietary software, this kind of stouch makes me feel inclined to steer clear of the GPL and it’s associated software and that to me is a shame.
-
lemur2
GPL3 seems to have been created as a battering ram to try and stifle proprietary development. That is how it comes across, and that is petty.
While the ideology of people wanting their software to be open and ‘free’ is all well and good, I don’t see why it has to be all of nothing.
Say what? How did you arrive at this nonsense?
The GPL applies ONLY to software for which the author of the software has decided to release it under the GPL license.
The GPL has absolutely nothing to do with proprietary software.
Edited 2007-07-07 06:26
-
KenJackson
GPL3 seems to have been created as a battering ram to try and stifle proprietary development. That is how it comes across, and that is petty.
A few mongths ago, Microsoft claimed that GNU/Linux infringes over a hundred Microsoft patents but they have steadfastly refused to identify a single case. That leaves an ambiguous threat hanging in the air that maybe the use of GNU/Linux (or even the users themselves) will be subject to legal danger at some point.
Was that petty or a kind of battering ram?
I also dislike the battle–the legal maneuvering for leverage. But I see Microsoft as the antagonist. For one thing, open-source software doesn’t hide anything.
-
abdavidson
“Was that petty or a kind of battering ram?”
Sure was. So is the deal to fight anal childish antics with anal childish antics?
Given some of the players I’m guessing that would be part of it.
I wish they would realise they CAN actually co-exist and quit trying to swipe at each other.
Ideologies do not have to be mutually exclusive and neither does software.
Witness the Windows users who use Firefox and the Linux users who use Opera (for instance).
2007-07-07 1:19 pm
moleskine
It’s all just hot air and corporate wargames. Until licences have been tested in the courts, then anyone can say anything they like about them and it makes no difference at all. Perhaps that’s why we’re now over 170 comments and rising.
Even if the FSF and Microsoft locked legal horns, it would never go to court unless one side saw a decisive advantage in doing so. Most likely the matter would end in a negotiated settlement, aka a business deal. The side with the best lawyers and most cunning strategy would get the better of the deal. Just as in any other walk of life.
Microsoft’s aim is not to destroy Linux anyway, it is to capture customers. If Linux has no customers because they are all now using Microsoft software, Linux is not a problem. Rationally, Microsoft’s attitude to the GPL3 will be dictated by the extent to which it can use or abuse the GPL3 to get more business. This is highly unlikely ever to mean outright rejection. It will mean manipulation, though. Upsetting your customers with a brutal “no” is bad for business if you happen to know that your customers don’t agree with you.
It’s hard not to laugh when folks deny that the GPL3 is viral. Of course it is viral. That is one of its prime purposes. The FSF is an ideological organization whose entire raison d’etre is to promulgate a quite specific ideology. Those who say that the GPL3 isn’t viral are also saying, in effect, that the FSF is really just a mom and pop corner store. It doesn’t fly. There’s nothing wrong with supporting the FSF’s approach, either. We’re all absolutely free to do that, but it’s better to be open and clear about it.
In the meantime, Microsoft will not be bound by the GPL3 until a court rules that it is, which some day perhaps a court may. Luckily, that uncertainty in itself creates an “anti-FUD FUD factor” that is likely to put a severe dent in Microsoft’s attempts to subvert open source by divide-and-rule deals of the kind they have with Novell.
-
2007-07-07 1:30 pm
netpythonAt the same time it makes my laugh when people deny MS is the biggest pusherman of all time.
-
lemur2
Until licenses have been tested in the courts, then anyone can say anything they like about them and it makes no difference at all.
If Microsoft challenge the GPL license in court, and somehow the court finds the license is invalid … then Microsoft have been indirectly (via propagating coupons) giving out software which they did not write, they do not own, they do not hold copyright on and they have no valid license for.
That outcome would then make Microsoft guilty of copyright violation on a large scale.
-
sappyvcv
Uh no. Microsoft is NOT distributing the software. The “conveying” piece of the GPL3 is borderline contract and not license. If it fails in court, they are not going to hold Microsoft in breach of copyright.
-
lemur2
Uh no. Microsoft is NOT distributing the software. The “conveying” piece of the GPL3 is borderline contract and not license. If it fails in court, they are not going to hold Microsoft in breach of copyright.
Uh, no. If Microsoft do not have a valid license to give out coupons for software which they are not copyright holders for, then Microsoft are software pirates and guilty of copyright violation on a large scale.
Microsoft have a valid license to give out coupons for software that belongs to other parties only if Microsoft abide by the license terms set by the copyright holders.
If Microsoft disagree with the license terms or repudiate the license, then that merely means Microsoft no longer holds a valid license for the software. It does not mean Microsoft magically gain a right to the software.
This is the law.
Edited 2007-07-07 14:48
-
sappyvcv
They are not giving out the software, so if a court held that the particular provision about “conveying” is not valid, it wouldn’t matter.
-
lemur2
In the meantime, Microsoft will not be bound by the GPL3 until a court rules that it is
Of course Microsoft is bound by the GPL.
The copyright law states that the author and/or copyright holder (these are not necessarily the same entity) has rights to decide how his/her software is copied out to other parties.
Microsoft do not get to decide … the author and/or copyright holder does.
Since Microsoft have been giving out coupons for software which they do not own, did not write, and do not hold the copyright for … then the only way that Microsoft can legally do that is via the rights granted to them via the software’s license.
Ergo, the law says that Microsoft are bound by the GPL … either that or Microsoft are software pirates illegally giving out other peoples code.
-
-
lemur2
Keyword: COPIED. Microsoft did not copying or distributing.
So? Microsoft still need a license to legally give out coupons for software that is not theirs.
Street sellers of bootleg Microsoft software did not copy it either in all likelihood they got it from someone else who did.
-
-
lemur2
It’s hard not to laugh when folks deny that the GPL3 is viral. Of course it is viral.
It is hard not to laugh when people claim the GPL is viral. Of course it is not viral.
The GPL license affects ONLY software which is released by the author(s) under the GPL. Period.
If you don’t want to be “tainted” by GPL provisions then don’t convey GPL software to other people.
You can (and always have been able to) do whatever you want with your own code.
Microsoft’s recent attempts to do “deals” to get around the GPL, to try to put proprietary-style restrictions on code they did not write … now THAT is viral.
Edited 2007-07-07 15:12
-
jayson.knight
“It is hard not to laugh when people claim the GPL is viral. Of course it is not viral.
The GPL license affects ONLY software which is released by the author(s) under the GPL. Period.
If you don’t want to be “tainted” by GPL provisions then don’t convey GPL software to other people.
You can (and always have been able to) do whatever you want with your own code.”
The GPL is clear in requiring that all derivative works of GPLed code must themselves be GPLed. How is that not viral? It does not only affect software released by authors under the GPL, it affects anyone who might need to use a bit of GPL code because if (like myself) they want to steer clear of the GPL, that effectively puts a very large restriction on code they can use. Hell, according to some FSF fanatics you can’t even link to a GPL’d library without then having to declare your work under the GPL.
I will argue that the GPL in effect actually LIMITS what you can do with your own code, because it’s either their way, or no way at all.
-
2007-07-08 12:20 am
cyclops“I will argue that the GPL in effect actually LIMITS what you can do with your own code, because it’s either their way, or no way at all.”
I haven’t quoted you entire post, but do like this its not about *your* code. Its their code, thats the point. Whether you believe in Linus’ “tit for tat” or Dick’s “four freedoms”. The author of *their* code has chosen how they want *their* code used.
It doesn’t limit what you can do with your own code. It limits what you can do with *their* code.
BTW I would love to know how this is better than a compiled program.
This is off-topic
-
lemur2
The GPL is clear in requiring that all derivative works of GPLed code must themselves be GPLed. How is that not viral?[q]
No. the question is, how is it viral? The GPL applies license conditions set by the author to the code … you do not remove those conditions just by adding a bit of your own stuff.
If you want your stuff to be your own stuff, the do your own code … dont’ use someone elses to start with.
[q]it affects anyone who might need to use a bit of GPL code because if (like myself) they want to steer clear of the GPL, that effectively puts a very large restriction on code they can use.
Of course it does. You are not permitted to use their work for your exclusive profit. Tough to be you and be disallowed from stealing their work.
I will argue that the GPL in effect actually LIMITS what you can do with your own code
Not at all, not one bit. The GPL applies to the code that the original authors wrote, it does not apply at all to your work.
If you want to make your own code proprietary, that is fine … just don’t start with a raft of someone elses work.
After all, you would not dream of being able to start with a ream of Microsoft’s code, say Microsoft Office, and then add a bit of your own code and sell it as your own proprietary Office suite. Why should you ever imagine you should be able to do this with the copyrighted work of others that just happens to be licensed to you under the GPL?
-
jayson.knight
“If you want your stuff to be your own stuff, the do your own code … dont’ use someone elses to start with.”
So I’m now bound to the NIH (Not Invented Here) way of doing things?
If the GPL were truly free, I could use GPL’d code however I saw fit without having to change my own license to GPL. I don’t care about profiting, I personally always release source code where I see fit, I don’t fit into the proprietary mindset so don’t try to depict me as someone who does. I simply disagree with having to change my own licensing scheme because I decide to use a bit of GPL’d code. That is NOT freedom.
-
lemur2
So I’m now bound to the NIH (Not Invented Here) way of doing things?
No, you are not bound to any way of doing things.
You can either:
(1) take GPL code, improve it and then release your new version with your improvements under GPL, or
(2) take GPL code, improve it and use your improved version for yourself without releasing your changes to anyone, or
(3) write your own code and release it under whatever license you fancy, or
(4) use BSD-licensed code any way that you want to, as long as you retain the identification of the original authors, or
(5) don’t write any code … watch a movie instead.
No-one binds you to do any one of those options. You are entirely free to pick amongst them.
Note that the GPL provisions apply only when you start with GPL code in the first place.
Edited 2007-07-09 02:14
2007-07-07 5:40 pm
2007-07-07 7:16 pm
jayson.knight
I know I can’t. Here’s a simplified version of the GPL v3.0: http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/05/gplv3_clarity_a.html
2007-07-08 3:05 am
Jett
What if MS gives any of it’s employee’s a copy of Linux to study(To find alledge patent infringments or for what ever reasons).
Have they not effectly became a distrubitor (to there employee’s) and must pass on patent protection to the community.
Could not a patent troll company be trapped in the same crooked logic. They download Linux and pass it to who ever to find out if it violates there patent. Did they not just distrubite a copy of Linux.
What about the Microsoft Surprises with Linux Hands-On Lab
http://madpenguin.org/cms/index.php/?m=show&opt=printable&id=4670
Would not a Microsoft third party be trapped by the new GPLv3 if it put a copy of Linux on it’s employee’s computers.
GPL 3 could become a weed in the MS garden springing up everywhere.
2007-07-08 3:17 am
aliquis
.. even if they are bound by it or not it’s a very lame attempt by the free software foundation trying to pull this trick on them.
FSF is the evil one here, not Microsoft.
2007-07-08 5:23 am
StychoKiller
Microsoft’s attempt to profit from the work of others without paying them for their efforts is over. Look at what they do: “Dropping below the level of a savage, who believes that the magic words he utters have the power to alter reality, they believe that reality can be altered by the power of the words that they DO NOT UTTER [emphasis mine, JTS]–and their magic tool is the blank out, the pretense that nothing can come into existence past the voodoo of their refusal to identify it. As they feed on stolen wealth in body, so they feed on stolen concepts in mind, and proclaim that honesty consists of refusing to KNOW that one is stealing.”
The ideas of the writers of software are theirs to profit from, if they so choose, or to allow others to see and use them, so long as those others comply with their terms of use. This is all the GPL is codifying,
because there are those that would simply appropriate their ideas and never compensate the originator of the idea. Those times are drawing to a close wrt to software. To be sure, there will always be programmers that don’t mind selling their work for a steady paycheck in a proprietary system, just don’t make the mistake of thinking that this is the only way that ideas can be created or rewarded. Microsoft and other companies that wish to perpetuate their business model are still living in a dream world — that they can make money forever from the thoughts of others. Until copyright is declared null and void, they will lose this battle. If such a day should ever come to pass, the Men/Women of the mind will go on strike and those in power will find that you cannot force someone to think by pointing a gun at them.
“I SWEAR BY MY LIFE AND MY LOVE OF IT THAT I WILL NEVER LIVE FOR THE SAKE OF ANOTHER MAN, NOR ASK ANOTHER MAN TO LIVE FOR MINE.”
Both quotes are from Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand
Copyright (C) 1957 by Ayn Rand
How prophetic is that??
Jim Steichen
2007-07-09 11:10 pm
ChrisA
Microsoft is bound by the GPL 3. Whether it likes it or not. When they distributed Novell coupons, they agreed to the terms of the GPL. Their patents are invalidated, nor do they have a leg to stand on and Eben Moglen will destroy Microsoft in court should they decide to go that route. Microsoft has no chance on fighting.
2007-07-10 2:10 am
lemur2
Microsoft: “at this point in time, in order to avoid any doubt or legal debate on this issue, Microsoft has decided that the Novell support certificates that we distribute to customers will not entitle the recipient to receive from Novell, or any other party, any subscription for support and updates relating to any code licensed under GPLv3.”
http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/92416
Novell: “Novell, however, begs to differ: Regardless of how the matter of Microsoft’s Suse Linux certificates was finally resolved Novell would in all cases supply customers with a complete subscription for the Suse Linux Enterprise Server, including updates of GPLv3-licensed program versions. Novell welcomed and supported the new GPL version and was planning to include GPLv3 software in its distribution, it was said. There were no provisions in the final version of GPLv3 that would prevent Novell from doing so, the company declared. ”
Novell begs to differ. Very interesting.
we will see if you are ‘not affected’ by the GPLv3…
You _wished_ that statement was enough to protect yourself from the implications of GPLv3 – don’t count on it. It might rather hit you big… guess where *chuckle*
Guess what, this GPL nonsense will hit more than just a single company, it will destroy *real* free software at once.
Agreed. We had enough of this GPL crazyness and it’s slowing real innovation and improvements.
Plus, it’s endangering the will of people to release code or applications for others to benefit, expecially when dealing with economics reasons like people or companies which can’t afford high software expenses.
If I was in GPL fans’ shoes, I would wonder why key figures supporting GPL are not making their livings out of GPL projects but they’re more than satisfied of getting a normal standard wage.
Edited 2007-07-06 13:03
> I would wonder why key figures supporting GPL are
> not making their livings out of GPL projects
You have no idea what your talking about. Most “key” figures in the open source world make their whole living doing something related to open source. Most are employed by companies to represent them in their open source projects. 70% of the Linux kernel developers work for Redhat, IBM, Novell, and others.
Many many many others make their living totally off of open source such as Larry Wall (inventor of PERL), etc.
Sounds like your just a clueless newbie programmer to me who somehow feels that your visual basic job is threatened by open source.
Sounds like your just a clueless newbie programmer to me who somehow feels that your visual basic job is threatened by open source.
Would be funny if it wasn’t sad. I won’t bother you by telling what I do for living. U just have no clue and telling that wouldn’t change your view.
You have no idea what your talking about. Most “key” figures in the open source world make their whole living doing something related to open source. Most are employed by companies to represent them in their open source projects. 70% of the Linux kernel developers work for Redhat, IBM, Novell, and others.
Working to something “related” to open-source is not like make you living out of open-source projects. Do you actually know them? The ones where you open-source your code, ask for donations and, after a few months, shut your doors because you ran out of funds.
I agree: working for someone who pays you every single month is much easier than making your living out of your open-source project. And, if you’re very sly, you can make some money by telling people to do what you don’t want to do. Clever (from them).
You look like one of those Marx wanted to give a conscience to but he obiouvsly failed since you are happy to work for free (and let other blablas make money out of your work…).
Edited 2007-07-06 13:55
Actually, I know someone who is working full time (and full pay) on Open office. He is part of a team of people being paid to work full time on Open office.
*you’re
“””
*you’re
“””
Please help stop comment spam by modding away self-appointed spelling and grammar policemen like this guy.
Thanks.
(And sorry for cluttering the thread with this post. The hope is that it will, in the end, do more good than harm. )
Edited 2007-07-06 22:43
I think grammar of topic is.
We will see. I really don’t think anyone could destroy FOSS – but noone can tell yet, aight? So, let’s see. But it will hit big.
Well, maybe we will see nice little showdown in court. Academic FSF lawyers against real corporate lawyers from Microsoft and Novell. Guess who is going to win….it will be a bloodshed, too ugly to watch.
Don’t underestimate the FSF. The GPlv2 has stood the test of time. GPLv3 was vetted for over a year and seems pretty ironclad.
Since MS didn’t run roughshod over GPLv2 and GPLv3 is a tweaked version of v2, I wonder who would leave the courtroom all bashed up…
Microsoft had no reason to go to court because of GPL, yet. They still have no reason, but FSF could be crazy enough to sue them.
FSF has dealt with small companies so far, they never took on someone real big. I don’t think that they will receive any financial support from, so called, corporate patrons, because patrons are doing fine anyway. They have no interest in that dispute.
The FSF has had no reason to go to court yet except in one instance where they, the FSFE in that case, won. All other issues have resulted in the companies settling with the FSF by making a cash contribution and rectifying the licensing issue/violation.
And since you don’t indicate that you are aware of it, most lawsuits are usually settled before a decision is rendered by the court. And nowadays the courts are encouraged to divert conflicts like this to arbitration.
Disclaimer: I’m not a lawyer and I don’t play one on OSAlert either.
Microsoft isn’t bound by the GPLv3 but the distributors who wish to succeed in their Linux buisness will be. Forking is a major blow and will only prove to be supported by the small number of patent covenent companies.
If the distributors sign a patent deal for GPLv3 and LGPLv3 software, they will be unable to posses the right to distribute the software.
That has actually yet to be legally determined, but on the face of it your assertion (and Microsoft’s) is not correct.
Microsoft’s giving out of SuSe certificates falls well within the definition (in the GPL v3 text) of an act that means that the “conveyor” (in this case, Microsoft and Novell both) is indeed bound by the GPL v3 license.
Edited 2007-07-06 15:59
This is the heart of the matter. Can Microsoft draw a distinction between selling vouchers and distributing covered works?
From the GPLv3:
To “convey” a work means any kind of propagation that enables other parties to make or receive copies.
Does the propagation of these vouchers enable other parties to make and receive copies of the supported software? It seems to me that one could receive copies of any GPLv3 software that Novell may distribute without the propagation of the voucher. If “enable” is interpreted as “they couldn’t before, but now they can,” then I don’t see any argument for Microsoft’s voucher distribution constituting the conveyance of any covered work.
So, at first glance, it seems that Microsoft is correct in their interpretation of their legal position. Further analysis would involve investigating any agreements that Microsoft propagates that might cause parties to become able to receive copies of covered works. It’s likely that Microsoft has made agreements that set conditions under which OEMs may distribute non-Windows operating systems, some of which may soon contain GPLv3 code. But it’s less likely that these agreements speak to their right to receive or make copies of this software.
What’s interesting about a potential legal battle over this issue is that a broad cross-section of Microsoft’s private contract agreements may become admissible as evidence. These agreements would certainly include any that Microsoft may use to suppress its competition. Microsoft would be positioned on the wrong side of a settlement negotiation to avoid this information going public.
It seems unlikely that a court would find Microsoft to be a party of the GPLv3 due to their Novell voucher sales. But it seems equally unlikely that Microsoft would let such a case go to court. What would the prosecution request in return? That they extend their patent covenant to all Linux users?
Well stated
“It seems unlikely that a court would find Microsoft to be a party of the GPLv3 due to their Novell voucher sales.”
A court may find that in the light that MS are not conveying, then they are distributing valueless paper.
– xx
The code falls under the license it was released with, if Novell has to agree with GPL3 and the code is not compatible with another license, then Microsoft must, in turn, be held accountable to the original code’s license.
Failure of Novell to ensure that Microsoft would adhere to the license requirements of any software that they have licensed would be tantamount to Novell violating the GPL3 by using any code released under it.
Microsoft playing the ‘I didn’t sign anything’ card would be a bad move, nobody signs their EULA’s either. But trying to say that Product Y from Team/Company C, being used by Team/Company B means that Company A can get Product Y from Team/Company B without the need of adherence, or a prevailing predicate, to licensing agreements between Team/Co C and Team/Co B is the exact opposite of the law and reality.
If Sun licenses something from IBM, and Microsoft uses it, the IBM-Sun agreement must specifically permit said transaction. Failing to permit it, is denial of permission.
Or, in the only way MS understands: If we wanted to use some of that special GPL-licensed code you so recently licensed and “improved upon,” all we need is a single lawyer to file a motion for release of records from Microsoft.
The code, in this case, would be argued as the only true record, and a program would be written to detect GPL-licensed code ( by actual code base similarity ). This would take some time, and the computing time would be on the “accuser.” However, Microsoft would have to release ALL code, in its full build-able form(so an MD5 can be done with the original binaries from a distributed copy), which is believed to infringe, and upon finding that code, demonstrate the largest violations ( such as the new Vista audio system (not sure if GPL, probably Haiku )).
We just need a lawyer willing to spend some time in a couple letters, and some FSF people to spear-head it.
–The loon
Of course, then, we wouldn’t want developers to see the MS code, for freight of stroke at the mutilations occurring within, so we would keep it at a mathematical comparison, under observation, with MS intellectual property carefully guarded. I will need 10 SWAT teams.
Edited 2007-07-06 16:16
If Microsoft can declare itself above licensing, why can’t we? Suppose I loudly declare that Microsoft EULAs have no authority to bind me?
“If Microsoft can declare itself above licensing, why can’t we?”
Except that’s not the issue at all here. Does Microsoft make or sell any products directly based on GPL’d code? No.
I was under the impression that the GPL deals with code, not with support of products.
Like their own operating systems Vista Enterprise/Ultimate edition, that include Services For Unix, that include FSF’s GPL-licensed gcc toolchain and other works.
They also sell Novell’s SUSE distribution, that includes GPL-licensed code.
See also ftp://ftp.microsoft.com/developr/Interix/sfu35/sources/Interix/gnu
Well that’s not so easy: that code is from 2003 and contains the world-famous clause:
The lawyers will have to sort that out while the code continues being written.
So: Let the IP battles begin!
I think the issue is section 11, paragraph 6 in GPLv3.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html#section11
If … you … grant a patent license to some of the parties receiving the covered work authorizing them to use … the covered work, then the patent license you grant is automatically extended to all recipients of the covered work and works based on it.
Apparently Microsoft claims that doesn’t apply to them.
Hmm… that’s legally watertight. Novell doesn’t have the authority to relicense it, and Microsoft doesn’t have one line of GPL code (any version). They (MS) can in no way be obliged to do anything by a license that two other parties have agreed to.
I just hope that people listen to sites like the Free Software Foundation and Groklaw rather than their lawyers. If people think that the GPL in any way gives them permission to violate MS’s patents, that could help to put a lot of big copyleft-based projects out of business. Heck, if MS doesn’t sue in civil court, what with their new “Making money by ripping off copyleft code is good!” attitude that they’re borrowing more and more from companies like Novell and Red Hat, normal people could just write the DAs of the appropriate counties where the copyleft projects are held and inform them of the criminal violations.
If you came up with that post on purpose, it’s genius trolling. Otherwise, it’s an amazing piece of nonsense. Please don’t tell me you‘re a lawyer or ever hope of becoming one, because you’re missing oh so many points.
Guess again.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070518124020691
Let me make this simple for you. MS gave customers SUSE vouchers. A person who got such a voucher can come in and redeem it to receive the SUSE distro from MS. They can do that at any point in time, since the vouchers have no expiration date. If they do that after GPLv3 came to be, and if the SUSE version they get from MS contains GPLv3-licensed code, it binds MS with the GPLv3 terms, because they are distributing GPLv3 code. And a particularly interesting aspect of GPLv3 is the fact that MS will be forced to let people use the patents used by that code for free, and agree not to ever sue them over it. And those clients can just pass the GPLv3-covered code on to others and next thing you know everybody is free of those particular patents.
“Let me make this simple for you. MS gave customers SUSE vouchers. A person who got such a voucher can come in and redeem it to receive the SUSE distro from MS. They can do that at any point in time, since the vouchers have no expiration date. If they do that after GPLv3 came to be, and if the SUSE version they get from MS contains GPLv3-licensed code, it binds MS with the GPLv3 terms, because they are distributing GPLv3 code.”
Actually the vouchers allow the bearer to receive the SUSE distro from Novell. Those vouchers are NOT redeemed by MS, and they do not distribute SUSE.
Guess again.