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?
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
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,
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.
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 thats the case, they could have saved an extra character by spelling it correctly ;)
liqbase
I think expirey is spelled correctly, although an uncommon word, but after counting the characters it wouldn't matter with a 50 character limit.
(45) Microsoft's SUSE Coupons Have No Expirey Date
(48) Microsoft's SUSE Coupons Have No Expiration Date
If you tried entering that word into any online dictionary, you would notice that it is in fact spelled "expiry".
or stop using the term "editors".
How we know is more important than what we know.
Maybe they have a 49 char max, but I could be wro
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.
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.
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.
Actually I did look it up, but there was no entry (Random-House). As my initial guess for the choosen usage was based upon a limitation of maximun length, I expounded by counting and comparing the number of characters. If the word was misspelled, or made-up, or archaic, or foreign, it really didn't matter to me as I understood the meaning.
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.
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.
MS is giving away a coupon for a specific item. By so doing, they are involved in the distribution of that item. If MS gives out the coupons after the point that Novell is distributing GPL3 software, there is more than a reasonable expectation said coupon will be used for GPL3 software, which involves MS in the purveyance of said GPL3 software, which means MS is sanctioning it.
If instead MS gives the coupons to people prior to GPL3 software within SuSE, and then people use the coupons after the GPL3 software is there, it becomes less clear-cut...but could still be argued as a sanctioning.
The issue at hand is that MS has indemnified coupon-bearers, and the coupons have no expiration. They cannot, per the GPL3, indemnify only one person....and here we are.
I'll give it a go.
It's 4th down at the 1-yard line. The FOSS defense has be taking a beating from Microsoft offensive patent drive. Ballmer's throwing arm has been dead-on leading the proprietary software vendor on a 80-yard drive. Now, with seemingly only seconds remaining in the game, Microsoft still has the longest yard to go yet.
The huddle breaks and you can see Ballmer has put lawyer's split wide and the Novell front line in tight formation. Microsoft is going for the Hail Mary play! The ball is snapped, Ballmer goes back deep. He scrambling back and forth like a wild man on a stage dodging one GNU line backer after the next trying to kill the time on the clock.
The free crowed is on their feet in screaming. The PHB crowed is nervously biting their nails. Ballmer looks exhausted. You can see his sweaty arm pits from the stands. Ballmer, blinded by falling SuSE ticker tape from crowd can't see the time on the clock, throws the ball wildly like a chair against a wall. But the FOSS defenses intercept the pass and return the ball to the 50-yard line after spectacular blocking by the GPL3.
And the game goes into over-time.
No, it's too late already. The GPLv2 explicitly grants the right to redistribute the software under GPLv2 or ANY LATER VERSION. If any coupons have already been handed out, then Microsoft has effectively distributed GPLv3 software and the game is over.
Software patents delenda est.
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!
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?
Isn't there an option D where Microsoft just distributes an out-of-date version to anyone who turns in a coupon after the GPLv3 handover? Wouldn't that stuff still be licensed under GPLv2?
Or does the GPL changeover apply retroactively to old versions as well? That seems kind of... odd.
modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License
as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2
of the License, or (at your option) any later version. Guess who's option it is.
How we know is more important than what we know.
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
Being involved with the distribution of a product isn't the same thing as distributing it.
By that logic, every retailer selling Linux is now subject to the GPL and is required to forfeit any intellectual property that may apply to Linux. You can also walk into any Fry's or Best Buy and demand they give you the source code, or sue them for not doing so.
Does anyone see that happening?
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
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.
The GPL does not contain this clause. What you're referring to is this (from the GPL HOWTO):
This is not a part of the license: it is just the text that most people use to apply the GPL to their code. Many people, however, including the distributors of the Linux kernel, do not include the "any later version" clause. The reasons for this are many and varied, but in the end it generally comes down to not wanting any organization, including the FSF, to be able to re-write the license for your code on the fly. If you include the "any later version" clause, and the GPL is changed to read like the BSD license, or the Apache license, you're out of luck. If, however, you leave out that clause, it is at the author's discretion as to whether or not a new version of the GPL should be applied.
Thomas Galvin
Or SUSE holds off on taking GPLv3 userland code until MS have offloaded their coupons.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
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
Yes, you're right, but what the other guy said is true too. It is the stated intention of the FSF to make the GPL eventually be just like the BSD or Apache licenses. That is, without copyleft. Cause, eventually, copyleft won't be necessary.. so it will wither away. Hopefully, by then, the justification for the BSD license (idiots can sue you for defects in software they got for free) will go away.. maybe we'll get a law or international treaty passed. Any then, finally, the concept of copyright and patents on software will be dead.
How we know is more important than what we know.
- 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
Actually I did look it up, but there was no entry (Random-House). As my initial guess for the choosen usage
I hate to be the one to have to say this, but maybe you'd better get a better dictionary.
The default one in Firefox (dictionary.reference.com) isn't too bad; you can get it by typing "dict {word}" into the URL field. Although honestly, Google seems to just get better and better as a spell-checker; actually it'd be pretty slick someday if spelling packages could failover to Google for suggestions, on detecting a word not in their dictionary -- that would let them stay more or less permanently up-to-date, even on neologisms. (I bet Google would consider such automated queries abusive, though.)
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Guess Ballmer missing some of his developers due to early game injuries...
If i had one dollar for every brain you dont have, i would have $1.
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.
Except the notion of "effectively distributed" is one that does not appear in the law.
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.
absolutely every software patent that Fry's has that they have offered indemnifications for if someone buys a particular product that is GPL3 and is integrated with their product will, if they choose to sell it, be subject to the same patent weakening. Yes.
You're not really looking at the whole picture, if you're going to make a comparison like that. Take a couple steps back.
they do not have the developers necessary to fork everything that will be GPL3.
Think about what you're saying. SuSE is going to have a team dedicated to their fork of GCC? Glibc? emacs? binutils? Ah hell, why am I individually listing the hundreds of gnu packages in use that will very quickly be shifted to GPL3?
Not going to happen, and SuSE would die very, very quickly if they had a product freeze for more than just a couple weeks.
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.
what kind of a dumbass are you anyway?
Look you are well known MS fanboi here but this time your company fucked up. Ballmer is no Gates. He is a stupid fuck and he let this one get away from him. Probably because he lacks the ability to see that far ahead or that the only people left at MS are those that have no conscience and who can tolerate his profanity and abuse. The really smart people have all left MS and it seems like that includes the legal dept.
There is one other possibility here. Some underling could have purposefully sabotaged the master plan by omitting the expiration date. Not likely but possible.
Let's face it your favorite corporation is no longer the giant that it once was. It keeps bumbling from one disaster to another. Maybe you should pick a new favorite corporation. I suggest toshiba, they make fine VCRs.
evil is as evil does
Mr. Bungi, you need to realize that in the English language, there is such a thing as context. The word "own" can refer to several things, including constitutionally protected private property, intellectual authorship, and even homosexual rape.
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.
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
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
And do what? Defend corporations from the mean old people at slashdot?
evil is as evil does
Read the Groklaw article or refer to the numerous posts above that have pointed out that it is about this language in the GPLv3: See? MS is not a distributor, but they are a conveyor.
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
Then it would take just one coupon to force SUSE to stay in GPLv2 land while the rest of the world moves on. Novell would probably not only have to wait until Microsoft was out of coupons, but wait until every coupon had been redeemed.
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?
...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.
Anyone with half a brain already knows that Fry's will never have anything to do with whatever wording is written in the box or inside the box. From a retail store (legal) perspective, it's just a box with someone else's product inside.
What's next? Nerds writing "if you distribute this product you're allowing me to buy anything for free" inside their submissions, so they can get free stuff at Fry's?
Even the patent clause, it's weaker than most EULAs. In fact, stuff needs to have little strenght at all to be weak, so that makes the patent clause null instead of just weak. Expecting a judge to drop patent litigation rights because of product distribution is beyond stupid.
See my small cartoon: http://geekandpoke.typepad.com/geekandpoke/2007/05 /suse_and_its_fr.html
Bye,
Oliver
Would you be able to maintain forks of an entire distribution worth of GPL software? No? Well, Novell probably can't either!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
The new GPL can not redefine copyright law to make it apply in situations the legislature never intended. New versions of the GPL can only redefine what happens when someone does require a license under the existing law that the legislature passed.
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.
Well, first Novell, than whoever bought it from Novell. So I get it from Novell under GPL v2, distribute it to someone else under GPL v3. The third party has a voucher. Game over.
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
Emacs 22 is vaporware
Not so much: http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2006/06/shiny-and- new-emacs-22.html
yp.
Indirect infringement when the direct infringement does not exist? (Because of the grandfather clause.) Good luck with that one!
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.
Consistent as always.
The really smart people have all left MS
Yah, I bet they're working for you.
There is one other possibility
I see two things here. One, you are stupidly venting your infantile hatred of a corporation on me for some reason, since I wasn't even commenting on the topic, just that twitter as usual can't get his shit straight. The other is that you think I care about the topic at hand, and there you're wrong. I happen to think this is a stupid move on Microsoft's part, but I could give a flying rat's ass otherwise. It looks like it's giving you an ulcer though.
Maybe you should pick a new favorite corporation
Maybe you should stop masturbating to pictures of St. IGNUCious. Just a thought.