Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's SUSE Coupons Have No Expiry Date
mw13068 writes "In a recent article in the Seattle Post Intelligencer FSF General Council Eben Moglen points out that the Microsoft SUSE coupons have no expiration date. The result? 'Microsoft can be sure that some coupons will be turned into Novell in return for software after the effective date of GPL 3. Once that has happened, patent defenses will, under the license, have moved out into the broad community and be available to anybody who Microsoft should ever sue for infringement.' Groklaw is also covering the story in it's inimitable way."
Google says 11,000 people also misspelt Expirey.
Why doesn't anyone at least proofread the title? What's "expirey" anyway?
Slashdot editors, do your jobs, please...
But could they only apply to GPL v2 software? Does anyone know the wording of one of these cupons?
Inventions have long since reached their limit, and I see no hope for further development.-- Frontinus, 1st cent. AD
In related news, Slashdot's editors have no spellcheckers.
Dammit! I had a good one.
When I was a wee lad of 5 or 6, my grandpa would sit me on his lap and tell me about life and learning. He'd say things like "Boy, always treat people as you'd like them to treat you" or "A penny saved is a penny earned".
My favourite one was "Boy, never, ever misspell the word "expiry" or you'll look like a fucking retard."
I sure miss Grandpa.
Trolling is a art,
you do not talk about SUSE coupon club!
IANAL - But, usually when you agree upon a contract, its for the terms as presented at the time, and any change, like this - would void the contract? No? So the coupons are invalid with the introduction of GPLv3?
Of course these coupons don't have an expirey date because there is no such a thing! On the flipside, I think you just developed a new adjective. Imagine:
"You're so expirey today!"
Okay, maybe not.
Submission titles have a max character limit, and swaping expirey for expiration was probably neccessary.
Linus says "You know what, GPL3 is where I like it, so 2.8 is going to be it"
Heck, what about GNU? Can't have linux without GCC or the lib. Unless Novel wants to fully fork their distro, they don't have much of a choice. Someone is going to use GPL3.
If I sell an unused Windows license, an I responsible for whatever Microsoft might add to the license agreement in the next service pack? No.
If Microsoft sells some coupons from Novell, are they responsible for any GPL3 stuff Novell might add in their next Linux distro?
This doesn't make any sense. I don't see how you can hold Microsoft accountable for whatever Novell might do in the future just because they sold some Novell coupons. MS may be selling coupons from Novell, but it's Novell's responsibility to comply with the GPL.
Can someone please rephrase this terrible piece of writing into something more understandable ?
Linus said Linux will not have 2.8 while he is in charge :)
http://arhuaco.org/
"Expiry" and "it's" were two of the grammar errors, but there is a third. The phrase should not be "some coupons will be turned into Novell in return for software". Instead, it should be "turned in to Novell".
It's hard to give a formal justification for this (it's not a grammar rule taught in school, but it is nevertheless followed in real-world writing), but the best I can explain it is that "turned in" is one underlying structure in the sentence and "to Novell" is another. So uniting the "in" from one structure and the "to" from the other implies a tie between the two structures that does not exist. And that makes it unclear and confusing.
Or to put it more simply, "turned into Novell" makes it sound like the coupons are becoming the company.
and that one may be Solaris.
:)
hehe... covered two movies in one post.
3 things about computers: they're alive, they're self-aware, and they hate your guts.
He might have meant Ubuntu Breezy Badger (5.10).
"May evil beware, and may good dress warmly and eat plenty of fresh vegetables." -The Tick
I can not find the provision of copyright law, that says you need a license to distribute coupons. Copyright law talks about copying, distributing, and creating derived works! MS does none of these things! (with respect to Linux). The distribution of coupons is not regulated by copyright law. (Unless the coupons were themselves copyrighted, but that is a digression.) Therefore MS does not require a copyright license like the GPL.
A license that MS does not require, and has not agreed to can not restrict MS in any way.
If people had not been engaged in wishfull thinking, they would have realized this already.
From TFA:
Great news! Let's start all posting the AACS key to Digg, again. After all, you won't be distributing AACS yourself, and you are not going to provide access to download anything.
If MS are giving away coupons for a version of SUSE, what the hell is stopping them from giving away the disk version from the day they made their coupons?
You mean try to push it as bits in a box like Vista or XP with a five year "cycle" time?
They could do that, but no one will buy them and that will hurt M$. Who wants to pay for a year old version of free software? Sure, it works but you can just download one that works better. The terms of the deal were that Novel would pay a percentage or a minimum of $40 million. Looks like the minimum is going to be what they get, so they will be down about $120 million. That's the cost of FUD, I suppose.
Another BIG problem with your scenerio is that they may have to cut out all software licensed under GPL 2 or later. It's the user or author that gets to decide the GPL version, not the vendor. In that case they will have to just throw the coupons away.
This is a fine ending for M$'s attempt to charge licensing frees for free software like they own it. They can own it, so long as they abide by the terms of the GPL, like IBM and everyone else. It's M$'s steadfast refusal to co-operate that keeps them out of the free software party. They can't just get along and compete like everyone else, they have to own everything and squeeze every nickel out of every user. It's not going to work any more than their in house software can compete in a free market. At the very best, they will get a old, modified and incomplete version while everyone else enjoys the latest and greatest.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Someone made a Zonk in the post title.
Okay, this sounds like bullshit. I have two main points to make and I'd like to get an answer to these reservations.
I don't think that these coupons would be effected by the change over to GPL3. I'm betting they're a not too hard legal fight away, tops, from legally declaring that these coupons were released for a particular legal/business situation and making them not count for GPL3 versions of the product.
And even if this all goes down the way groklaw says it will, I don't believe you could mount an effective legal challenge against Microsoft when they invalidate all the vouchers and offer either a refund or a product of equal monetary value.
I also kind of get the feeling that if these guys waited they coulda sprung this on Microsoft at the first legal challenge they offered and totally took the advantage or at lest made a nice high profile case with more amusing geeky stories following it up. Now, I think the Microsoft legal beagles will shut this down before it comes to anything.
It happens.
And this long long speach comes to one point... That-- OOOO! QUARTER!
is it REALLY THAT HARD? it's = it is. its = possessive. anyone who can't figure this out is a fucking maroon.
So, if understand correctly this part of Groklaw discussion
As you can see in the section I highlighted, the minute someone turns in a voucher after GPLv3 is in effect, Microsoft will be granting a patent license to everyone, not just Novell's paying customers:
protection against MS-expected-patent-infringement will be available only if kernel is released under GPLv3. Linus does not seem to be very much inclined towards GPLv3 the last I read about it. Am I missing anything here?
Will it lead to some people seeing GPLv3 in different light?
DUH?
Does this apply to all software under GPLv2? I don't really understand everything in the GPL.. but how does this keep everything going on NOW, from being possibly illegal under patent law. Yes, in november, microsoft will be unable to file charges for patent violations for anything under GPLv3. But what does that really have to do with everything that is supposidly released right now, this instant, released under GPLv2? According to Microsoft, everyone running linux at the moment, is breaking patent law. If Microsoft actually releases a list of everything we break patent law with, all 235 patents.. and if just 1 single patent is unable to be bypassed in some manner.. we all still broke the law under GPLv2.. right? So we are fair game to be sued? Or is GPLv3 retroactive and blanket any violations made under GPLv2? If anyone understands the way this works please let me know, because I couldn't find it covered in TFA, and I'd really like to know.
"So, in summary, Novell will be protected for the long haul, and Microsoft will be endangered for the long haul by GPL 3, and that's as it should be."
You can pan-fry Novell's ass too for all I care. They knew what they were getting into and went ahead with it anyway. Thing I don't get is how Microsoft's army of lawyers missed this.
boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org
Obviously, Moglen is a smart guy, and I have to assume his theory here is at least plausible. But it seems to me that someone could make a counter argument that would also be plausible.
So it's something to be worked out in endless litigation. Look at how long the SCO trial has gone on, how expensive it's been, and how little substance there seems to have been in the claim.
In this video clip Moglen describes his take on MS's strategy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YExl9ojclo
The point, he argues, is to split the community so our interests are not all aligned with one another. Specifically, to create a situation in which large enterprise customers are safe, and small individual developers can be harassed.
Those developers need more than a theory that can be defended, very expensively, in an endless trial. They need a slam dunk, something that will prevent them from being sued in the first place. They need to be safe.
Looks like we've been zonked again.
IAJALS*, but contracts are always subject to interpretation as to meaning and intent. There are rules (which are silly, generally) limiting what can and cannot be brought in as evidence of intent - but terms like "advantadge of the bargain" and "intent of the parties" weigh heavily on judges minds when they look on contracts like this. One of the big principles of law is that there is no such thing as "magic words" in law that force parties to subject themselves to unfair (technically "inequitable") results. -actually, property law is an exception to that.. deeds are very formulaic under most state systems, but that's just real estate, which is not touched here-
Here MS has granted a limited liscense.. there is ample evidence as to intent at the time of the contract formation (many press releases from all concerned parties) and then this defense is practially a template for how to show bad faith on the part of a contracting partner. As discussed above, Novell has little / no option except to distribute under the 3.0 GPL, but doing so subjects their partner to very harsh terms which are explicity intended to fuck them over. That is a text-book worthy demonstration of abusive languge in a contract.
I'm not saying the FSF folks don't know what they're doing - they're very clever and this is sharp stuff - but this is no one sided tidal wave bearing down on MS, and they do have their own lawyers (as you may have heard), who are also very smart (and they drink the blood of virgins.. so bonus evil points).
-GiH
* = I am just a law student
Really? Not two days ago you said "Linux is GPL, so it does not have owners". So which is it?
I have to say it looks really bad when you can't get your facts straight, especially on a topic like this one.
- Microsoft engaged in a contract with Novell, MS distributes coupons for Novell software, Novell gets a liscense granting freedom from MS patent concerns. Money traded hand.
- FSF and others went WTF Novell - you can't do that, you're distributing under the GPL, that code is GPLed, WTF are you doing.
- Novell found a nice big loophole in the GPL and ran through it with a truckload of MS cash.
- FSF is releasing GPL 3.0 which closes the loophole
- It is assumed that when GPL 3 comes out, Novell will choose to distribute under 3, rather than forking off their own version of the kernel to retain GPL 2.0 licensing.
- The argument here is that once Novell starts distributing under 3.0 with the MS coupons (i.e. with a lisence to use the patented material from MS) the GPL 3.0 viral patent lisence clause goes into effect.
There are problems with this.. not the least of which is that it attempts to blend the GPL (copyright law) and the MS-Novell deal (Contract Law) as if they held to the same principles (which they don't contracts are shredable in a few thousand ways). MS will probably argue that this use of their limited licesne with Novell constitutes an act of bad faith.. intended to deprive them of their patent rights.. which would then go to a whole series of legal arguments that don't matter for now. Basically.. FSF thinks they're SO clever, they're letting MS know what's coming. Great idea.. no really.. suprise is useless. ]sigh[
-GiH
That he played a banjo and sang "...and keep good company".
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
What if the GPL were changed requiring any distributor to give ONE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS to the user?
Could a user legally force a developer who released software under a prior GPL version, with the future version clause included, to pay such a sum?
From Wikipedia... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract
If the terms of the contract are uncertain or incomplete, the parties cannot have reached an agreement in the eyes of the law.[19] An agreement to agree does not constitute a contract, and an inability to agree on key issues, which may include such things as price or safety, may cause the entire contract to fail. However, a court will attempt to give effect to commercial contracts where possible, by construing a reasonable construction of the contract.[20]
Courts may also look to external standards, which are either mentioned explicitly in the contract[21] or implied by common practice in a certain field.[22] In addition, the court may also imply a term; if price is excluded, the court may imply a reasonable price, with the exception of land, and second-hand goods, which are unique.
If there are uncertain or incomplete clauses in the contract, and all options in resolving its true meaning have failed, it may be possible to sever and void just those affected clauses if the contract includes a severability clause. The test of whether a clause is severable is an objective test - whether a reasonable person would see the contract standing even without the clauses.
By allowing major modification against the will of one of the parties, is the GPL "Incomplete"? Would this standard would allow a distributor to not be bound by clauses in a contract that were not even existant at the time of the contracts inception?
With the GPL's 'viral' nature, wouldn't it be a huge liability for anyone to agree to such an open ended contract?
Could arguing this case damage Open Source, by showing a possible danger of contributing anything under the GPL?
Not saying the GPL should change however it wants, however, allowing one party to an agreement to unilaterally change the terms after the fact is a bad idea. Unless you want your rent to triple, and still be bound to your lease, and you lease extended to 99 years, payable in advance.
You get one of the coupons. You wait a couple years, and by then the current SuSE is 11.2.
You turn in your coupon.
And guess what? Microsoft or Novell or whoever handles fulfilling the coupons sends you a bright new shiny copy of SuSE 10.7.
The Granny Weatherwax way : she doesn't have the vampire in her blood, the vampire has her in his blood.
Perhaps Sun will release Solaris under the GPLv3, but it will still be a Sun-run project. Just look at Java and Java evolution for how "well" that works.
I was VERY impressed with Groklaw's analysis:
"Of course, it's obvious this is legal sophistry. They are saying to the world, even though it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck and acts like a duck, it's not a duck, because we are calling it NotaDuck and we've taken the long way around, skulking along the unpaved back roads and alleyways instead of taking the straight highway to get to the duck pond. Er. The NotaDuck pond, where notaducks don't swim and that's not quacking you are plainly hearing.
"Forsooth, my lord, it smelleth like a duck to me.
"Now do you get it, that "Tivoization" is a metaphor for creative ways to make the GPL toothless? It's a trend, not an isolated event. There's money to be made, and the GPL is getting in their corporate way. What they forget is that the code came with a price. The terms of the GPL are that price."
LOL.
If Linus was still staunchly for it (which all signs point to that he doesn't like it), he'd have to strip out GPLv2 code and rewrite it with GPLv3 code.
AFAIK, GPLv3 and GPLv2 code can be linked, so nothing needs to be stripped. If they can't track down the author for some old piece of code, they can just leave it under GPLv2.
So, they could probably put a large chunk of the existing code under GPLv3 plus all new code, making the kernel effectively GPLv3 in its entirety (of course, you're free to use the GPLv2 bits under the GPLv2).
One more thing: it's not like Microsoft and Novell are trapped by this deal. If Microsoft doesn't like the terms of the GPLv3, Microsoft can simply stop distributing coupons. Whether that constitutes a breach of contract with Novell and whether Microsoft still has to pay Novell is for those two companies to work out between them.
Isn't that EXACTLY what an EULA is? It *purports* to be a copyright license but takes away rights like a contract. Despite that, most courts seem to be accepting it as legal.
The only way MS can get out of this is to recall the coupons before SuSE goes GPL3.
Ahaa! The Reverse Godwin!!!
.......Mornington Crescent!!!
And I play
Sorry, but I'm not convinced that MS is selling GPL software, IMHO it's more like MS is selling use the right to have Novell support the software you download from Novell website.
He told me that chimps who type like they talk tend to use "then" when they do, in fact, mean "than" because they have trouble enunciating due to their slack jaws.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
I would like to say so, however I am forever getting letters from my bank saying how they have changed the terms on my bank account & credit card, all because the initial contract that I signed with them 30 years ago allows them to unilaterally change the terms of the contract. You can't get an account with a bank that does not do this.
I wonder if the top brass at Novell had this as their intention, or if it was an accident ?
You don't know what's going on
You've been away for far too long
You can't come back and think you are still mine
You're out of touch, my baby
My poor discarded baby
I said, baby, baby, baby, you're out of time
Well, baby, baby, baby, you're out of time
I said, baby, baby, baby, you're out of time
You are all left out
Out of there without a doubt
'Cause baby, baby, baby, you're out of time
You thought you were a clever girl
Giving up your social whirl
But you can't come back and be the first in line, oh no
You're obsolete my baby
My poor old-fashioned baby
I said baby, baby, baby you're out of time
Well, baby, baby, baby, you're out of time
I said, baby, baby, baby, you're out of time
Yes, you are left out
Out of there without a doubt
'Cause baby, baby, baby, you're out of time
I said, baby, baby, you're out of time
If Microsoft weren't offering vouchers for support, their customers would be using redhat and not Suse. There's no question that Microsoft are indirectly distributing linux.
at least it makes the whole thing almost as exciting as the pirates v ninjas posts on the treasure ship story and it reminds me of this helpful explanation of the offside rule: (citizens of countries where football is called soccer should stop reading at this point.) http://www.boreme.com/boreme/funny-2006/offside-4- girls-p1.php
Posts, MyBio or Sig, may contain satire, sarcasm, bolded nouns be sardonic or even witty & be Church of SD
You would have to have your head so far up your ass to directly sue or counter sue Microsoft it is not even funny. Unless you're worth at least 35 million (and possibly more), any lawsuit involving Microsoft as plaintiff or defendant is going to destroy you and up in the 35-45M range, it is going to fuck with you bad until and unless you quickly get the upper hand. While your heartbeats countdown to 85 and you and everyone you love drops dead around you, your credit, your assets --your very life-- will be encumbered under the shadow of endless litigation with a 52bn multinational corporation. Want a class action status? Fine --you can have your Ten Bucks when it's over, but this talk about cashing in a SuSe coupon and then counter-suing Microsoft for patent infringement is a bunch of self-dillusioning BULLSHIT! My god --don't you think if we could have done that to stop them in the DOS days or in the IE7 days it would have been done a hundred thousand times over? It took Richard Bloomenthal --who you owe your blood to-- to bring even the slightest measure of justice, and he's not even at the Federal level (though I hope he becomes next AG). Not to put too fine a point on it:
Box on your 1003 (standard mortgage application): Are you involved in any litigation? YES/NO, If yes, with whom: MICROSOFT ---DENIED---
Background check on job app: "Candidate involved in case XX-XXXXXX in court XXXXX; v. MICROSOFT" ---DENIED---
I'd like to get some money to start a business --oh and I'm counter-suing Microsoft --DENIED---
I'd like to get married --honey, there's something I have to tell you --I'm suing Microsoft and if I lose after we're married, you lose too --BYASSHOLE--
I'd like to sue somoene who just screwed me in writing --their defense --You are a lunitic that sues everyone, even one of largest companies in world!
I'd like to be a director or officer in public company --forget it, they have to disclose YOUR LAWSUIT WITH MICROSOFT to the public shareholders!
The list goes on and on...
Don't listen to obviously emotionally disturbed radicals in New England who fly back and forth to Cuba writing songs about free software and lamenting to their peers about how many 20somethings they have corrupted against capitalism. Plain old fashion New England communism that dates back to the 1940s people --even Linus recognizes it people --he grew just wanted some PUBLIC DOMAIN tools and took the funny GPL thing along for the ride --but as he grew up you don't think he realized the same kind of bullshit that was coming from his neighbor in Finland --the USSR? Do you expect him to say something like that publicly? NFW --This is a test and the idiots are going to get filtered by the CHILD MOLESTER. The rest will live on and be stronger, like Linus!
WinDOS, that's hilarious! And the "M$" thing? A classic!!
This topic sports the least understandable headline ever.
Could someone who has one of these coupons please show us what they look like?
Geology - it's not rocket science; it's rock science
No expiry date? I should hope not!
It's bad enough when gift vouchers have an expiry date. The way I see it, when I buy someone a gift voucher from a store, I am lending the store money; and by slipping the gift voucher inside a birthday card, I am transferring the debt to a third party. It's not fair for the store to dictate that they will refuse to honour the debt after a certain date.
What's worse, I bet if I took out one of the same store's payment cards (not sure why I'd want to: only valid in their own and other participating retailers' outlets, and up to twice the interest rate of a normal credit card, looks a poor value proposition to me), I bet they wouldn't like it if I said something like "If I haven't paid you back in full within 12 months, I'm not going to pay you anything at all".
Why should the store, as my debtor, be allowed to get away with imposing an expiry date on a gfit voucher? THEY OWE ME (or the recipient of the gift voucher) MONEY, FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!
Disclaimer: I Am Not An Economist (But I Am Tight With Money).
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
I know a big storm arose when Linus declared that the kernel would remain v2, but I don't see how this does anything but assuage his own personal sense of the rightness of things. Every distro out there is going to have acres of v3 software in it, or become utterly worthless.
A book suggested to me that the kernel was specifically optimized for compilation by GCC, IIRC. FSF holds the copyright on GCC and it will move to v3, as will bash, libc, make, sed, and countless others.
A sidenote: does this kinda indicate that maybe rms was right to ask that the complete systems be called GNU/Linux? Are companies going to be saying to their suppliers "No, GPLv3 makes me nervous 'cause of all the things MS and SCO said about it. I just want the same Linux I've always been getting, under v2 terms"
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
Couldn't Microsoft just create a subsidiary, dump the coupons there and in this way insulate themselves from the GPLv3?
The GPL already covers indirect distribution and the MS vouchers are redeemable exclusively with a linux distributor.
Remember how napster was found to be not liable for indirect copyright infringement because the system had other non-infringing uses? Microsoft's vouchers do not! To suggest the vouchers do not constitute indirect distribution is wishful thinking, the vouchers exist for no other purpose.
A contract is an agreement between two parties, the GPL requires no agreement, merely specifying terms for redistribution under copyright law. If a downstream distributor does not accept the GPL, they are committing copyright infringement; contract law is not relevant.
IANAL however I've explained this basic concept to plenty of people that are. What does that tell us?
The current Microsoft management will never risk a court ruling. Even if they did decide sue an end user (they said they won't), the defense is right here.
We know the patent threats are toothless now, when MS really starts hurting and the city move in and start asset-stripping (10-15 years the way they're going) we may need to provide evidence to the court about how Microsoft's past bad faith deal exonerates us from patent infringement.
...weaker (considering the law) than "give me your first born" EULA clauses. Expecting any court in the planet to drop patent rights of a company (in relation to suing the project) because of GPLv3 is more than utopic, it's just plain stupid.
This kind of one-sided agreement never had the judicial strenght to intefere with other questions beside permission to use of the said product. This means that all OSS folks can do about Microsoft is forbid them from using GPLv3-licensed products, in case they sue someone because of said patents. The only thing the FSF can ask in court is keep Microsoft away from using the product while violating the license.
Anyone thinking that GPLv3 cute wording of what constitutional rights you're going to lose is valid, is out of his mind. Without an official signed agreement, you can't take make people abandon a specific set of their rights. It's like having a sign "by entering this house, you're allowing me to kill you" and expecting a judge to free your sorry ass when you kill a friend that was just visiting you.
See my small cartoon: http://geekandpoke.typepad.com/geekandpoke/2007/05 /suse_and_its_fr.html
Bye,
Oliver
What could be fairer or more equitable than that?
me - "They can own it, so long as they abide by the terms of the GPL, like IBM and everyone else. "
you - Really? Not two days ago you said "Linux is GPL, so it does not have owners".
OK, free software has owners but the only thing they will do is keep you from screwing the user. GPL 3 will prevent M$ and other big dumb companies from using patents to screw the user too, which is why M$ is in a pickle over this Novel deal. If M$ wants to use free software, they are going to have to give up their patent FUD. The deal is, "cooperate or do it yourself." M$'s ability to do things on their own never was great and they are out of non free companies to bully.
You really should get a grip on software freedom before you rag on it. When and if you ever do, you will expect much more from M$. The only way they can provide that is to finally join the big happy free software family.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Emerging case law would unquestionably extend to indirect forms of distribution such as vouchers. Microsoft may claim otherwise but a favorable ruling for them in this case would have disastrous effects on their core business.
Don't forget that the supreme court has strongly hinted it would rule to invalidate software patents if asked to rule on the issue.
Microsoft are not in a strong position here.
What if the GPL were changed requiring any distributor to give ONE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS to the user?
Software available under the old license could still be distributed under the old license.
If someone wanted to distribute software ONLY available under this new license, then they would have to:
- Pay one hundred billion dollars to each user
- Not distribute it
- Not pay one hundred billion dollars, distribute it anyway, and be liable for copyright infringement for copying and distributing someone else's software without their permission.
Remember, if the GPL doesn't work, then the result is not that anybody can distribute the software, the result is that NO ONE can distribute the software.
paintball
What the major distros and application do. I predict that there will be a major split between GPLv2 and GPLv3 Linux distros. Unfortunally, it DOES come down to Linus Torvalus's position on it, because the GNU Hurd, which was supposed to be Stallman's kernal for GNU Project is practically vaporware, and FreeBSD & NetBSD are based on the BSD license and Microsoft loves that! Heck, The Linux KERNAL itself could fork into GPLv2 and GPLv3 versions. I bet that all the famous distros of Linux will have GPLv2 and GPLv3 versions depending on convenience.
Emacs 22 is vaporware
Not so much: http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2006/06/shiny-and- new-emacs-22.html
yp.
1. The spirit of GPL is to maximize the distribution of software (thus allowing distribution fees) and the quality (support fees), by encouraging people to provide support and documentation (which is boring). The MS/Novell deal *restricts* the distribution of the software since other distributors who don't have this agreement, are considered illegal/risky/etc. Thus this is against the spirit of GPL.
2. Novell/MS changes the licensing of distributed programs from GPL to GPL+"we won't sue you" license. This is exactly one of the things GPL tries to forbid: take the program and provide a better program without giving the original author the ability to merge back the improvements and compete. The "improvement" in this case is patent protection.
3. MS is lying. It can't sue the user if the developer who lives in the EU has violated the pull-down menu patent. And it is using lies to make money from other people's work/code. This is yet one more thing GPL tries to forbid.
Now, instead of FSF/LinuxFoundation suing MS's ass, they find this oportunity to advertise the GPLv3 license. And praise the OIN which is just a trojan horse whos goal is to make Linux Developers support software patents, because thanks to them they are protected by the OIN from software patents. Where is RMS now that you need him?
Suppose I own some product and am selling it for $50 a copy. You, for reasons of your own, decided to sell vouchers for it. Why not? Go ahead. But what prevents me (having realized how great a demand is) to raise the price to, say, $1000 a copy?
You can argue that you've never intended to reimburse $1000, just $50. But so what? It's your problem. We never had a contract. Your intentions regarding something not you, but I do own were never discussed with me, the owner, let alone formalized in a contract. So your choice is either 1) respect the coupons and lose money, or 2) cancel coupons and lose business reputation.
Lesson: making deals do not forget about creators and owners of things you are trying to profit on. (Sorry for English errors if any).
It's like saying George W. Bush's garage is a historic landmark. Get real.
Actually, what should strike anyone as strange is the fact that MS-Novell deal was about the product created and owned by FSF, and FSF was not included in the deal.
I've an account at SourceForge, and a project that I've started. As the author of the software it's MY CHOICE what license I use. If I choose to license my project under GPL V3.0 and later (I can do this as the first source release has not been made yet) that is my choice. If you want to use my software, the ONLY thing that gives you the right to do anything with it is the GPL V3.0 and you shall either LIVE with that license, or not use the software. Simple, isn't it? Yes you are - saying that the FSF folks don't know what they are doing. It happens that you don't know what you are talking about - but that's your problem.
Yes it is a one sided tidal wave bearing down on Microsoft - Copyright Law was written that way at the instigation of the content producers - including Microsoft.
As to Microsoft's lawyers being smart - I'll agree with you (Hi Katherine - Gary told me that you'd gone over to the Dark Side) since I know some of them. Being smart doesn't help you when you break the law as as egregiously as Microsoft will have done it they breach the Copyright act.
A final point - Please learn how to spell - it is REALLY annoying to have to correct such simple errors - especially since a copy of AbiWord or of OpenOffice both of which have spell checker are available as free downloads.
That's all I wanted to hear. The rest is just your pointless "M$" blabber.