Microsoft Settlement Compliance Criticized

Jeremy Allison - Samba Team writes "A report on the Microsoft "release" of communication protocols, as required by the proposed settlement. Article from the Washington Post. Speaking for the Samba Team, we can't look at these documents as they require signing an NDA before even getting the terms of release. Jeremy Allison, Samba Team."

Comments

No, it is not

[kfg]

In fact, the GPL explicitly allows payment, as you can confirm for yourself by walking into an Borders and buying a copy of Redhat or Mandrake.

The GPL does not prohibit payment, it prohibits *prohibiting* giving it away for free. A subtle difference that appears to be beyond the Post's writer. Said writer should expect to find a *very* full inbox tommorow.

KFG

Re:Is this true?

[diaphanous]

You can charge a distribution fee, but not a royalty.

To gain an understanding of these issues, you can read the GPL itself (compared to a EULA its quite easy to grok). If you need clarification, you can read the GPL FAQ.

~Phillip

GPL misunderstood again

[deblau]

Those companies, which include Linux firms, use a special "free software" license called the General Public License that bars any payment.

This statement is flat wrong. There is nothing in the GPL which prohibits charging for GPL'ed software. The point of the GPL is that source must be made available for at-cost prices (postage, etc), and that source for any derivative product must be made similarly available. It only says that source must be made available at cost if the buyer asks for it. A lot of times, they don't ask. And a lot of times, they're willing to pay big $$ for a nice, installable binary distribution on CD. The GPL also says explicitly that "you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee". This is exactly what Red Hat does.

In summary, GPL is hardly the same as 'gratis'. It is, OTOH, a good try for 'libre'. Someone please beat these media guys with a cluestick.