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."
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
The vouchers can be exchanged for Suse Linux which currently uses GPLv2. When the linux kernel switches to GPLv3 they will have to release newer versions of Suse with GPLv3 (or fork off the current GPLv2 licensed tree and be stuck with an old kernel). If a single person exchanges a voucher after Suse switches to GPLv3, everyone gets protection. The MS voucher cant change the license that Suse comes with. Its possible the vouchers specify which version of Suse they can be exchanged for but this appears to not be the case.
I am a free slashdotter. I will not be modded, blogged, DRM'd, patented, podcasted or RFID'd. My life is my own.
In the future Microsoft will either have to trade in those coupons for software (which will be licensed to them under the GPLv3) or they will have to dump them in a sewer drain and forget about them. The article says what it will mean if Microsoft trades them in.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Coupons for a product are like gift cards. You turn the coupon in to Novell, and Novell gives you the copy of Suse, Microsoft is not involved in the distribution of anything other than the coupon.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
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.
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?
- 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
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.
The Granny Weatherwax way : she doesn't have the vampire in her blood, the vampire has her in his blood.
Except there is ample evidence that MS higher-ups were warned ahead of Novell deal of this exact predicament. By Moglen himself. In person.
So if MS wants to argue the intent thing, they may have a problem. I am sure MS will find a way to get out of this but arguing over intent
is not likely to be it. Nobody turned around and, as you so eloquently put it, "fucked them over". They knew damn well what they were getting
into ahead of time.