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."
Why doesn't anyone at least proofread the title? What's "expirey" anyway?
Sorry, forgot the blog link - http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/blog
you're missing the point.
MS (effectively) bought a bunch of coupons for SuSE. MS is who will be handing out those coupons.
So either MS just shrugs its shoulders, and counts the money they paid to Novell as a loss (meaning - they don't give away the coupons), or they somehow give away all the coupons before anything in SuSE uses GPL3 (which is the only way what you're saying would matter), or..., and the point of the GP, MS uses the coupons realistically, and by so doing sanctions the GPL3 as it is Microsoft giving out the coupons, not Novell.
Like the person above you quoted, Microsoft wouldn't exactly be a "distributor", they would be a "conveyor" by giving access and patent litigation protection to a distribution of a GPLv3 piece of software. Thus every other copy of that software would then be protected from patent litigation, no matter who is using it. Thus the paper itself doesn't have to be under GPLv3 to make MS subject to the license. Mind you this would still have to be upheld in court, if Microsoft thought it could fight it. IANAL, but from everything I've read MS is either going to have to cancel this Novell deal completely, and revoke those coupons (don't know if that is possible in the Novell deal or not), or bend over and say thank you, either now or 3+ years of litigation from now.
Clones are people two.
The GNU part of the userland will definitely go to GPLv3, and that is as much a part of linux as the kernel.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Five points.
/maybe/ if MS continues to distribute coupons after something critical goes GPLv3, in part because I think it likely a court will hold that the agreement was made before the license change and MS can't be held to an ex pos facto license change, and in part because it's really still up in the air whether what they are doing would legally be distribution or not -- it may not be, and no opinions posted here are likely to matter when it comes time for a court to rule on that.
/could/ change to GPLv3, regardless of what many say, /if/ most/all of the current major contributors were to agree to it. It'd be quite a long journey, several years, but if all the major contributors agreed that's a lot of code that could be switched first to GPLv2 or 3, and later to v3 only, without any rewriting at all. Given the existing rate of code turnover, within three years or so I'd say a good 2/3 to 3/4 of the code could be GPLv2/GPLv3 dual licensed with little effort at all. After another couple years of more concentrated effort, culminating in a seriously focused coding marathon much like the Bitkeeper>GIT transition (which many thought couldn't be done either, at least and keep the same productivity), the remaining code should have been rewritten, and the GPLv2 side of the dual license could be dropped.
/the/ /kernel/ the kernel will have to be GPLv3 licensed. The protection in the license can only apply to something licensed under it, so of course, it could only apply to the kernel if it's so licensed. However, as you point out, that could be a VERY good reason to switch to GPLv3, quite apart from any other reason. The way patents are going, it may be that the kernel will ultimately /have/ to switch, or lose the momentum it currently has to something else (say Sun's Solaris kernel, if they license it GPLv3 as they are making noises saying they might do). It could well be that within a few years, few businesses will risk deployment of a GPLv2 kernel due to perceived (note that word, perceived, they may or may not have been legally validated) patent issues, and the money now funding all those full time Linux kernel devs will be funding something else (Solaris development?) if the Linux kernel isn't in the process of going GPLv3 by then.
1) I'm skeptical this will force MS into anything in regard to the GPLv3, except
2) With draft-3, Linus has said he's actually quite pleased with how it turned out, now. It remains to be seen whether he'll like the legally binding final version or not, but it's looking rather better than it did. Of course, he's not going to change the license all on his own, either, but his opinion will make a big difference, and even if it didn't, if his opinion on it has changed that much, others may have as well.
3) It'd be a long process, but the kernel
The license couldn't be turned on a dime, and it WOULD take the agreement of nearly all current and former major contributors, but it COULD be changed, given a time frame of several years and sufficient motivation to do so.
4) I've not yet read the Groklaw article (I will), but the point you quote about the patent protection only applying if the kernel is GPLv3 is valid -- for the kernel, not for Novel/SuSE. IOW, for the patent protection to apply to
5) During the dual GPLv2/GPLv3 license period, and this applies to anything licensed GPLv2 or later as well, the license says at YOUR option, meaning each user/distributor can choose the version they wish. Some have claimed that such would allow users to force distributors to the v3 terms if they wished. That isn't so, and the FSF doesn't hold it to be so either. It simply means that anyone downstream can redistribute with only one of the licenses if so desired, rather than both. It does NOT mean anyone can hold a specific distributor to the terms of one or the other licenses if they choose to be held to the other one. Thus, MS (if it is held to
Duncan
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master,
and if you use the program, he is your master."
R Stallman