Slashdot Mirror
Is the Microsoft/Novell Deal a Litigation Bomb?
mpapet writes "According to WINE developer Tom Wickline, the Microsoft/Novell deal for Suse support may one day control commercial customers' use of Free Software. Is this the end of commercial OSS developers who are not a part of the Microsoft/Suse pact?" From the article: "Wickline said that the pact means that there will now be a Microsoft-blessed path for such people to make use of Open Source ... 'A logical next move for Microsoft could be to crack down on 'unlicensed Linux' and 'unlicensed Free Software,' now that it can tell the courts that there is a Microsoft-licensed path. Or they can just passively let that threat stay there as a deterrent to anyone who would use Open Source without going through the Microsoft-approved Novell path,' Wickline said." Bruce Perens dropped a line to point out that most of the content actually comes from his post.
I distrust Microsoft about as much as any other /. reader but this article is just stupid. The author seems to be implying that because Microsoft has made an alliance with a Linux vendor they all of the sudden own all open source software ever created and can just sue people for patent infringement at will. What a crock.
People....CALM DOWN.
The world is not coming to an end. Microsoft is not coming to steal your children.
"It's possible that Thursday's deal between Microsoft and Novell could conflict with a provision in the General Public License (GPL), according to Eben Moglen, the attorney for the Free Software Foundation that created and oversees the Linux license. "If you make an agreement which requires you to pay a royalty to anybody for the right to distribute GPL software, you may not distribute it under the GPL," Moglen told CNET News.com Thursday. Section 7 of the GPL "requires that you have, and pass along to everybody, the right to distribute software freely and without additional permission." Article from CNET: http://news.com.com/2061-10795_3-6132156.html
The nature of the Novell/Microsoft deal is somewhat irrelevant. The problem is the threat of Microsoft launching patent attacks against ANYONE over anything in SuSE. The public statements say that Microsoft won't launch a patent suit against noncommercial distributors or against Novell - that still leaves commercial distributors open to a patent lawsuit.
If THAT happens, Section 7 of the GPL kicks in and Novell loses the right to distribute GPLed code in SuSE. Section 7 is the 'liberty or death' clause which says that if you can't distribute GPLed code without some patent(or other) restriction being imposed on your customers, you cannot distribute GPLed code at all. The idea is to prevent code being proprietarised using legal machinery other than copyright - having someone offering GPLed code under a partial patent umbrella that effectively bars, say, commercial distribution, is exactly the sort of thing that section 7 was designed to prevent.
(My theory is that the main reason Microsoft had to offer patent protection to at least one Linux distributor was to skirt antitrust problems if it starts using patent law to crush competition. )
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
This means that , should MS enforce its patents on other open source companies, not even Novell can distribute GPL programs covered by the same patents.
Several lines above are quotes of me and I'm not attributed. And my writing is coherent, unlike the article cited here. The real article is here.
Bruce Perens.