Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft States GPL3 Doesn't Apply to Them
pilsner.urquell writes "Microsoft yesterday issued a statement proclaiming that it isn't bound by GPLv3. Groklaw has a very humorous rejoinder to the company's claim. From that article: 'They think they can so declare, like an emperor, and it becomes fiat. It's not so easy. I gather Microsoft's lawyers have begun to discern the GPL pickle they are in. In any case it won't be providing any support or updates or anything at all in connection with those toxic (to them) vouchers it distributed as part of the Novell deal ... These two -- I can't decide if it's an elaborate dance like a tango or more like those games where you place a cloth with numbers on the floor and you have to get into a pretzel with your hands and feet to touch all the right numbers. Whichever it is, Novell and Microsoft keep having to strike the oddest poses to try to get around the GPL. If they think this new announcement has succeeded, I believe they will find they are mistaken. In other words, not to put too fine a point on it, GPLv3 worked.'" EWeek has further analysis of this proclamation.
How can MS be bound by GPL3 if they avoided using GPL3ed code after June 29? Can you write code that is licensed by future versions of GPL? Wouldn't that make it dangerous for someone to use the code in case they do not like the future version? Sorry for the ignorance Cheers!
Atheist: Buddhist in a Prius
...that tax laws don't apply to me. Oh, and those pesky laws about parking and speeding, too.
So I guess Microsoft's EULA does not apply either?
09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
+2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
Serious question here:
Has there been any successful court action enforcing any version of the GPL?
Not settlements. I'm talking about an instance where a court in the U.S. has upheld GPL against a violator.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
"In any case it won't be providing any support or updates or anything at all in connection with those toxic (to them) vouchers it distributed as part of the Novell deal."
Does that place them in the position of being in breach of contract, though? I can't imagine the deal between Microsoft and Novell allow either of the parties to decide they don't like it any more and to just stop. Does it open Microsoft to problems from people who have received vouchers already?
Although I don't think the deal between Microsoft and Novell was a good one, I also think it was underhand of the FSF to "grandfather" in a deal like this, and I don't blame Microsoft for claiming it doesn't apply to the deal.
I declare Microsoft's EULA does not apply to me.
Sounds about as useful as the emancipation proclamation and the time of it's creation. to sum up: Lincoln: "All the slaves in Confederated-held (aka not our)territories are free!" and MS: "We declare that we are free from the laws of the government under which we are placed"
These folks seem to agree with you.
I can't decide if it's an elaborate dance like a tango or more like those games where you place a cloth with numbers on the floor and you have to get into a pretzel with your hands and feet to touch all the right numbers.
That's the most bass-ackwards mangling of Twister I've ever heard. Didn't these people have childhoods!?
--Obyron
Hey, they work for Bush.
Don't like how the law works? Just say they don't apply to you, and carry on with considering them.
I am now king of this playground and there is nothing you can say to stop it in any way forever and ever.
+1 Agree -1 Disagree
Is it possible to revoke Novell's right to distribute a GNU/Linux distribution?
Assume, for a minute, that the owners of all the GNU/Linux public code decide that Novell should not be able to redistribute their code... What consequences would that have?
Just wondering...
Y
As long as they don't redistribute any GPLv3 software, they're correct.
The core of Linux, for example, is pretty much guaranteed to stay at GPLv2 (not just for "Linus didn't like it" reasons, but also pretty big logistical issues like "getting every copyright holder to agree on the change").
I'm guessing the bits and pieces that make up any distro will gradually contain more and more GPLv3 software -- then they basically have to deal with it (accept the v3 license to redistribute those parts, or not accept it and NOT distribute the new versions of that software).
If they (or anyone) wants to fork software based on the last GPLv2 version and maintain the fork themselves, they're welcome to, of course.
But are they even distributing at all? Can someone clarify the certificate thing for me?
It's a signing statement. Since Bush has been breaking the law without legal authority using them, and Bush's admin was hustled into power by Jack Abramoff's network, who was initiated into lobbying at Preston Gates (yes, that Gates, though it's the huge corporate lawyer father of Microsoft's "Bill"), why shouldn't the richest, most powerful man in the world start signing his own imperial decrees? It's all the rage among his aristocratic class. There's safety in numbers - of emperors and of dollars.
--
make install -not war
I have not seen the MS-Novel contract but I would imagine that after their team of lawyers went through ti they concluded that is Novel distributes and GPL2 code they need not honor it any support agreement.
Keep in mind MS employers more legal council then most.
or just be a typical slashbot and think MS is being arrogant.
How very interesting. The Novell support certificates that Microsoft distributes don't entitle the recipient to get support for GPLv3 code. So why would anyone buy one of these things from them?
Microsoft made a deal with Novell so that Novell will give a copy of
GNU/Linux to anyone with a Microsoft voucher. After this deal, Microsoft
recommended Novell's GNU/Linux distribution and distributed those vouchers
to anyone who wanted one.
So they are basically contracting Novell to distribute GNU/Linux on their
behalf. In legal terms, they're "procuring the distribution of" GPL'd
software, and that's covered by copyright.
I think it's clear that Microsoft and Novell are together distributing GPL'd
software, and the GPLv3 project's team of lawyers are convinced that
Microsoft is indeed distributing GPL'd software.
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
How could you?! Haven't you learned anything from that guy who gives those sermons at church? Captain Whatshisname? We live in a society of laws! Why do you think I took you to all those Police Academy movies? For fun? Well, I didn't hear anybody laughing, did you? Except at that guy who made sound effects..
Microsoft used to warn anyone who would listen about the GPL being viral. Touching it might give you free software cooties, and worse, infect your own intellectual property. But apparently Microsoft has found the solution to that, and is embracing the new, non-viral GPLv3!
As always, Microsoft remains committed to working with the open source software community to help improve interoperability for customers working in mixed source environments and deliver IP assurance.
HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
It will have worked, when a piece of Microsoft's code is opened for all to see. Wake me up then...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
If they ever use any GPLv3 code, they are indeed bound by the license. There's only one way to test this though, and that's to have it tried in court. I know there's little chance of the Linux kernel itself ever becoming GPLv3, but I hope people write lots of GPLv3 software for no reason than that MS said this (yes, I am a fangirl. Sue me.). Someone has got to take these kleptocrats to court.
~Eien no Inori wo Sasagete~ Searching for my Hatsumi...
Re: How can MS be bound by GPL3 if they avoided using GPL3ed code after June 29?
Yes, you can. "GPLv2, or later"
You are (intentionally?) misrepresenting what the GPL says. If Microsoft distributes GPLv2 then ***Microsoft*** gets to choose if they are bound by GPLv2 or GPLv3. Example, I downloaded Apache back when it was covered by GPL2. I can make changes to it and distribute those changes under v2 or v3 if I want to. The people who made Apache cannot force me to upgrade to v3. However, now that v3 is out, Apache will be distributed under v3. If I now download Apache, I'm stuck in version 3.
So the answer to grandparent's question, "can MS be bound by GPL3 if they avoided using GPL3ed code" is that yes, MS avoids being bound by it. Basically they would have to never update linux - or fork it - but what they have right now is GPL2 and GPL2 it shall stay.
read GPL2 for yourself
If the Program
specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any
later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions
either of that version or of any later version published by the Free
Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of
this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software
Foundation.
Why would anyone ever release code under a "GPLv2 or later" clause? If the code writer wants to protect his/her rights, I'd think they'd want to stick to something that's known rather than gamble on something unknown coming some time in the future.
the EULA says you cannot copy (even to another computer you own) you cannot look at, benchmark or otherwise disinter the internal workings. You agree that MS can come in and change stuff adding programs and removing others as they feel fit. You also allow them to audit your machine.
Oh, and they can change the terms as they wish just by posting to their webpage.
So let's say that the GPLv3's lawyers are correct and that they find some means by which to bring Microsoft to court over non-distributed code. They'll sue Microsoft over Copywrite violation? Use the GPL as a defense against some future patent violation case (which will likely never come as it is much more useful as a threat)? So a bunch of geeks show up to court to thinking that they've got the big guy by the tail, and Microsoft's big nasty lawyers show up planning set a precident as to what counts as distribution and maybe give the GPL a hugely public defeat.
This entire saga sounds like the GPL crowd saying, "Aha! We got Microsoft," but I'm unconvinced that the world is turning because of it. IANAL, but I think that Microsoft would LOVE to test this in court.
Just a random thought on my part, but would the terms of the GPL License be fulfilled if someone modified the original source, and provided those who asked for a copy of the source with the entirety of the source code printed out on paper?
END COMMUNICATION
The GPL is a License, not a contract. MS's EULAs are the same, so if they want to invalidate their own EULAs they may go right ahead. Also, the coupons had no expiry date and were for SLES updates, so it very well should apply to them since FSF, MS, and Novell are ALL parties to this agreement. What, did you sign anything to get MS's special non-commercial "hobbyist" patent covenant, or MS's special "customer of Novell" patent license? No!
PS: Since MS is asking for money on GNU/Linux, I think a few things should be expected back of them.
Okay so that is an oversimplification, but you cannot force someone to enter a contract to use something AFTER they have already paid for that privilege. The only legally valid EULA would be one you sign before purchasing the software.
Note that IANAL and that this is not valid legal advice not an endorsement of any practices explictiely forbidden by EULAs.
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
Microsoft is backing away from their odious preferential cross-licensing deal with Novell, at least with respect to GPLv3 code. You can argue that's not a win, because no source code was/will be released, but I bet Richard Stallman would disagree.
Fizz
If they think this new announcement has succeeded, I believe they will find they are mistaken. In other words, not to put too fine a point on it, GPLv3 worked.
I translate this as the following:
GPL Team: We just released GPL3.
MS: It doesn't apply to us.
GPL Team: We win!
I'd wait until a little more time has passed and lawyers on both sides hash it over a bit more before declaring victory. Especially against MS.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Microsoft used stock options to avoid taxes for years. The tradition continues under his sham charity.
Defrauding the government and pension plans is probably easier than conering a market, so I don't think they are going to get away with their assaults on the GPL. Sooner or later they will have to use GPL3 code if they want to stay relevant. They won't be able to do that through proxies forever if they can at all.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
The reason being that the MS Eula is subject to your state's Sale of Goods Act (or something similar). In most cases that act declares that if it looks like a sale, flies like a sale and quacks like a sale, then it is a sale. That is why MS CDs are for sale in the second hand market on E-bay, a US company.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
You think MS will go to court to set a precedent to *shrink* the scope of copyright?
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
Microsoft has always viewed the GPL as a virus, and has made all attempts to avoid contact. Their paranoia on this front is legendary, and for good reason when you hear the GPL crowd react to actual or perceived violations of the GPL.
With the Support certificates, microsoft was deliberately having a competitor actually handle the support and touch the GPL code. Which is all fine and good under GPL2.
The GPL3 patent covenant is even more toxic, especially to a company like Microsoft which has a lot of patents. So they are simply saying "our certificates will not support anything on GPLv3".
In many ways, this is Microsoft's paranoid overreaction, as they are not by any means a contributor to the code, even if the certificats were valid for GPLv3, but it is an understandable conservative reaction.
Since Microsoft has never and WILL NEVER contribute or distribute GPLv3 code, yes, the statement is perfectly correct.
Test your net with Netalyzr
Yeah, that's a great way to look at it. Microsoft released a PR that said "we're not at threat." Surely that means a license which hasn't even been tested in court has "won." By the by, Microsoft is an enormous corporation with many, many lawyers. If you get lazy and start assuming you've won, then you've lost, no matter how strong your current position is.
Besides, in the long run, the camp which really won was BSD, because most large corporations are sick to death of the hoops they have to jump through for the GPL. I know, I'm going to get modded flamebait (even though I'm not flaming anyone) and troll (even though I'm not trolling) for saying this, since this is GPL love central, but in the long run, the love you get is equal to the love you give.
And MIT/BSD license gives out a hell of a lot more love than GPL. I know because my company started on the back of BSD code, and that code has more than doubled in size due to my contributions.
I'm not alone. GPL throws too much away. I believe GPLv3 is GPL's swan song, and I can't be happier that it's going away. It's time for people who write open source to stop closing it. Corporations donate an enormous amount of work to code, and GPL makes many market presences completely impossible. (Yeah yeah, linking, source release, aroo, don't care. I write Nintendo games, and it is literally impossible to use GPL code under the Nintendo license. This is a lot more common than zealots want to believe.)
Most government agencies can't use GPL. Anyone working on protected API hardware can't use GPL. Anyone working on protected hardware without a dynamic linker can't even use LGPL, which pretends it's supposed to fix these problems (hence the sweeping changes to FLTK's license.) On and on it goes.
Real men don't give code to just some people.
StoneCypher is Full of BS
This whole Trojan Voucher business should really put to rest all that annoying "GPL is viral" FUD - well done!
sic transit gloria mundi
What do all these have in common. It uses current cash to cover up misdeeds and protect future profits. Who in this world has a billion dollars to sue MS for violating the GPL. Do I see any hands? Then it does not apply to them right now. Perhaps in 5 or 10 years, if someone actually finds the money to sue, it will. But then it probably won't make difference.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Absolutely. From the GPL:
"The "source code" for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it."
So, if your preferred way to compile involves translating to machine code with a pencil and paper then loading into memory with front panel switches, you are free create your own GPL project with paper source. If you want to distribute anyone else's modified GPL source in "dead tree" format, the answer is: No.
"As always, Microsoft remains committed to working with the open source software community to help improve interoperability for customers working in mixed source environments and deliver IP assurance."
HA HA AH HA HEE HEE
No, the microsoft... he he damn... one is funnier. Whoo hoo, stop it yer killin' me!
-mcgrew
MS isn't distributing code. What they are distributing is a piece of paper, authorizing a user to receive code from Novell. If I go out and buy a gift certificate, give that to you, and you buy a RedHat or SuSE license with it, am I bound by the GPLv3? I don't think so. I believe this is where MS is going with their line of thinking... Now, if these certificates come bundled with media, containing GPLv3 code, then that's an entirely different story, unless the bundle was put together by a supplier, like Dell.
Who is general failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derogatory_use_of_%22 Byzantine%22
Microsoft's line is that they aren't distributing, Novell is. I also noticed the word 'support'. In other words, Microsoft and Novell aren't distributing, they are just supporting. That could mean that the corporate Suse becomes toast. The trouble is that, once your logic becomes too convoluted, some judge is likely to smack you upside the head.
The wording of the certificates has a plain meaning and they can't get away with straying too far from that.
Not only is the Groklaw argument lame (do they really think the millions MS spent on lawyers would overlook this?) but the very discussion works in Microsofts favor.
This situation is putting the cap on the fear that when you try and do anything in a business developemnt context with GPl'd code it will bite you on the ass when some geeks get pissed off at you. I know at least three firms who were planning to develop services based on GPL'd code and get involved with the "FSF" communtiy who have backed away.
These days, far from saving you legal hassles dealign with the GPL and the FSF is proving to be among the fastest ways to be bogged down in full on legal hassles.
--> Fight tyranny and repression.... read
So, if it printed clearly enough for a text recognition program to understand, why not?
Well, maybe Microsoft's EULA just won't apply to source code hackers... but like anyone really would need crappy M$ code anyway...
I skimmed both linked articles. Is there a summary of what they are trying to avoid?
but take a contract out on someone.
License is an old word and lawyers like to use old words in the way old words were used. License means "allowed to" as in license to hold a rally. Normally you cannot. A license gives you LICENSE to do so. License for a dog, you can't keep domesticated animals. a license says you can. If you refuse the conditions of that license you are not bound to anything. You do not get license to do what would have been granted to you.
Now, you buy software. To run. But to run you need to copy and to copy you need a license. That's how the EULA started. But there's a problem. Quite a big one. If you buy something but that doesn't entitle you to do with it what you paid it to do, there has been no sale. So by requiring copying to run the program, you have agreement to copy in order to run the program. EULA's say you can't, but law says you can (consumer law). So the EULA isn't a license: you have license to copy to run the program by the very act of buying the program. And an EULA that says "you cannot install this program without agreeing to these restrictions" cannot be a license, since you need no license. It can only be a contract.
Now, if you wanted to debug the program, use it commercially, or some other use that is not implied by the sale, THEN you may have to agree to the terms of the license that allows you to do this.
The limiting terms are contractual. And that is where the GPL and EULA get mixed up in peoples' heads. The GPL allows something that no ammount of retail purchase is supposed to give you: the ability to sell derived works or become a retailler yourself. Try to argue that this should be allowed unless forbidden and you'll have the entire entertainment industry lining up to shoot you. So you need a license. Nothing else gives you permission.
That is the GPL.
Try to tell people that they can't use what they just bought unless they agree to some extra terms and you'll have the public lining up to shoot you. Can't read a book without agreeing a license? Can't watch a movie? Can't eat my dinner? I've paid, I can use it. You need no license because the sale has given you permission to use it.
That is the EULA.
If I, an end user of GPL'd software, decide I want to follow the terms of the GPLv3 instead of v2, GPLv2 gives me that option. The problem with this is any software distributed by novell now that is licensed under the gplv2 is automatically licensed under the gplv3 if the end user so wishes. Microsoft has no rights when it comes to removing that option from the end user.
"but what they have right now is GPL2 and GPL2 it shall stay."
This is a flawed assumption. Microsoft has inadvertently relinquished all say in WHICH version is distributed in their name, that lies in the domain of Novell who have jumped on this and said (likely to ingratiate themselves back into the open source community) that they will only distribute the most up to date version of SUSE regardless of whether it has GPL3 OR GPL2 code. This is what Microsoft is dreading and can do nothing about since they never stipulated in the patent covenant agreement which code they were giving covenant protection for, only that it was Suse enterprise linux. This is why Microsoft has turned pale and are trying to turn themselves inside out to vainly free themselves of this hideous situation they have gotten themselves into, and hideous indeed it is. Novell is not playing the puppet on this one and aren't doing what they are told (nor do they need to either since it isn't in their agreement).
Novell will provide versions of SUSE with GPL3 code to any person that shows a voucher branded with microsoft's consent to "distribute" a copy, the covenant protections of the microsoft/novell agreement AND the gpl3 terms of distribution will flow to the reciever, and then to any other person that the copy of SUSE is distributed to. Microsoft can do NOTHING about this, they've already done the hard work and passed out the vouchers, thousands and thousands of them, they have "distributed" SUSE linux to the masses essentially (with no expiry date I might add) which is stipulated in their agreement (in other words they MUST pass out all the vouchers according to their agreement with Novell), now all one has to do is wait for the Novell to integrate new GPL3 licensed code, which they have said they will do, show your shiny voucher, smile, pick up you shiny new novell cds/dvd and load the distro onto bittorrent, then laugh evilly as all of microsoft's carefully calculated effort goes up in smoke. This has essentially undone a decade of patent hoarding and scheming to put linux and all gpl code into microsoft's pocket. If it were not true then you wouldn't hear microsoft screaming so loudly that it isn't.
"News at 11." God, this story is SO old, isn't it?
The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
It will be really interesting to see how the new gpl effects their linux strategy.
Answers to even the toughest problems
How should I refer to the GPL licence if I want to release my project under the *latest* GPL version only (without editing all the source files)? I do not want to say that GPLv3 or later *at your option*. When a new verion is released I want the latest GPL version apply to that new version. Even better would be if I could force the use of the latest GPL version in effect at the time of redistribution. Would this work:
"This program is licenced under the latest version of the GPL licences."
Is the phrase latest version well defined in the legal sense?
Maybe the FSF should set up a web page always pointing to the full text of the latest GPL version and I could include a link to that.
Are you people neocons or something? I don't see how the parent's statement about Presidential "signing statements" is a troll. Mod the damned thing funny, because it IS funny.
PS- "funny" grants no karma. Now go ahead and mod me "offtopic".
-mcgrew (sm62704)
Sounds much like my threat to make a GPL program in machine code with a hex editor.
I heard that there are twelve types of people.
The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
No, no-one has ever suggested that GPLv3 somehow permits the unauthorized distribution of proprietary software. This is your own kooky reading of the debate.
What has been claimed is that by participating in the distribution of GPLv3 programs via the SUSE certificates, MS will be forced to comply with GPLv3 with respect to the software *in the SUSE distribution*. If true, this means that they forfeit their right to sue anyone, whether or not they are using SUSE, over any patents they claim are violated by the GPLv3 software that MS distributes.
I can't comment on whether or not this interpretation will hold up in court, and of course SUSE doesn't include any GPLv3 code *yet*. But your suggestion that RMS is somehow hoping to use GPLv3 to gain access to MS software is just plain wrong.
yp.
"What Microsoft is attempting to ensure here is to deny any party the ability to claim that there was some form of constructive agreement to the GPLv3 terms."
But if they distribute GPLv3 terms, then doesn't the distribution signal signal agreement with the terms? I'm just asking.
Seems to me, they're doing the equivalent of a consumer saying the EULA of MS's products don't apply because they never really agreed to it before they bought it.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
This is the company that said "Antitrust laws shouldn't apply to us".
While it's useful to know the exact legal status of the vouchers and GPLv3 implications, let's not lose sight of the more important issue here. This whole MS-Novell agreement was, on MS' part (and, IMHO, that's all that matters here; Novell's motives are very secondary), intended to frighten users away from "wild" versions of Linux through the phantasm of patent litigation, and corral them into using only versions distributed by MS "partners," either in order to extract a Microsoft tax or generally suppress Linux adoption.
The critical aspect of the vouchers controversy is not whether MS is definitely bound by the GPL to refrain from patent litigation against corporate Linux users;the critical aspect is, How does this affect the perceptions of the potential victims, er, customers? If you consider the potential for the voucher-and-GPLv3 combination to defuse MS' patent threats in any possible litigation, together with the refusal of most Linux distributors to play along with MS, the net FUD effect of MS' patent-threat campaign would seem to be significantly diminished. THAT, I submit, is the critical factor in this whole circus.
"My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on espresso."
.. a bull and a matador.. let's see who slays who! will the bull kill the matador or will the matador kill the bull?
Only 'flamers' flame!
Does slashdot hate my posts?
"but if the any part of the client's business model involves selling licenses to software products, it's not clear how wide the GPL can spread."
You do realize that if you write software and release it under GPL, you are also free to release it under other licenses as well, correct?
The trick is, if you use *somebody else's* GPL'd software to reduce development costs, then you incur an obligation to release the source code as well. It's not that hard. In fact, it's so easy that you don't need a lawyer.
Maybe that's why they suggest staying from it? Just a guess.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
I am guessing they didn't mention trade-mark name of the "human pretzel game" because:
(a) The Hasbro game has a EULA forbidding the use of the name.
(b) The writer is paid by the word and needed another Starbucks(tm) hit.
(c) They knew it would stir up interest in their article?
It appears that Zonk has misunderstood Microsoft's statement. I will not say whether he did it willfully or not.
The summary is very misleading. I read the statement as saying that Microsoft believes they do not use or distribute software covered under the version 3 license. You could just as easily read this statement to be a reassurance to their customers that the support vouchers have not suddenly become invalid, but they are limited. Since Microsoft is not the one doing the limiting, they can't be the one responsible for it.
Furthermore, I find it incredibly offensive that FSF would stoop to tactics like this. It goes far beyond their mandate and it causes me to question the fitness of the current FSF leadership. Say what you like about Microsoft (and I'd probably join you), the FSF does not provide software even approaching the same quality as the commercial products.
You want some cheese with that whine?
Seriously, though... bringing in alleged bribery of government officials? How does this add value to the discussion?
Feh.
Really. Why?
The only way it could be tested (and thereby broken, the only meaning of "test" that makes any sort of sense, not that you're making much in any case) is if someone said "the GPL is actually Public Domain" (done, there was that peyote nutter who lost). Or if they said "this section is not enforceable" but then again, that has happened with EULA's and sections of them HAVE been ruled invalid. Does that mean EULA's have no traction whatsoever? In Germany, EULA's have NO TRACTION WHATSOEVER. Is MS's EULA toast? People don't seem to act that way...
Why are you insisten it must be
a) tested in court
b) no, not that sort of test, THIS sort of test (is there a b1, b2, b3... coming up later?)
c) in the US (not, say, in a common law system like, oooh, Germany)
Oh, because you want to cast doubt that the GPL will do anything that you don't like....
"Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.
It's been 33 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment"
I've seen 217 minutes before...
with non FSF developers, they literally had to fire RMS before GCC could begin to make progress again. RMS and the FSF basically hold software back, and its best that these projects get forked now while gpl 2 is still available. The new forks could be licensed gpl 2 only and avoid all the problems and loss of freedoms with gpl 3, and then RMS and the FSF could be made irrelevent.
You couldn't be any dumber ... could you.
I wonder... And yes, I'm just wondering at this point... If Microsoft didn't think it managed to snag a single contact person through their contract with Novell(aka someone legally entitled to sell, or cross-license) code to them, more than any other right...
Someone particularly paranoid might also think that Novell, as the owner of the Unix trademark, might make an ideal scapegoat in a lawsuit...
"You were distributing..."
"We did so in good faith, and even Novell didn't know we were in the wrong..."
Especially given that for a GPL violation(say if Microsoft did copy GPL code) whoever they stole code from could sue, it would be either the fsf, or the coder, NOT Redhat or another company whose stock value might be affected by suing Microsoft...
At least, I hope US law is not that insane yet.
Just imagine handing out amazon.com gift certificates, or worse, vouchers for internet access.
There's a very big false assumption that everybody seems to be making here. I am, of course, not a lawyer (so this is not legal advice).
MS have not distributed GPL3 code, no matter how much we would like them to have. They have offered a covenant not to sue Novell's customers, and vouchers offering support for Novell's product. This is very different. None of this makes MS a party to the GPL because MS do not need any kind of license or copyright provision just to say "I won't sue Joe Bloggs, and I'll help him with his technical issues". No matter what the FooBarSpecialLicense attached to the product Joe Bloggs happens to own says!
(And if you think otherwise ask yourself this: what part of copyright law would MS have broken by saying "I'm happy to assist with Joe's problem but I don't agree to your license agreement"? On what grounds could you sue them? Or if they say "Mr Novell, if you sell Joe a copy of product X, I'm happy to talk to him about any problems he has with it; but I don't agree to your license agreement" What would you sue them for? If there is no potential copyright breach, there is no license.)
What the Novell-MS deal could have impinged on was Novell's right to distribute SUSE at all. If they were unable to offer the equal patent cover required by the GPL (and clearly they are unable to extend Microsoft's offer of patent protection to non-customers without Microsoft's consent), then they would have been unable to meet the terms of the GPL3 and thus unable to legally distribute the software. Except that Eben Moglen kindly gave them a get-out clause at the end of paragraph 11 of the GPL.
In most countries, as I understand it, even if Novell hadn't been given a get-out clause, the only result would have been the Novell-MS deal being "frustrated". "Frustration" is where an unforseen circumstance prevents a contract from being possible to fulfill. This appears to me to have happened. An unforseen change (the FSF deliberately altering the GPL licensing terms to affect the deal) would have prevented Novell from being able to fulfill its end of the Novell-MS deal. It wouldn't have been able to distribute SUSE under GPL3 because it couldn't extend MS's patent provisions beyond what MS offered in the initial contract without asking MS first. Thus the Novell-MS deal would get terminated, and there might have been a little wrangle about "reasonable recompense for the services provided". (Novell would need to go along to a court to get the contract declared frustrated, however.)
But with the get-out clause in para 11, even that won't happen.
All up, Eben Moglen's grand plan doesn't seem to amount to a hill of beans.
Disclaimer: Once again, this isn't legal advice. It is based on an engineer's shaky memory of engineering law lectures, and has the potential of being utterly wrong.
Fixed that for you.
FTA:
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
The point is that the GPL is so obviously-enforceable, that there is no need to test it.
More exactly, the GPL license is so legally solid under US copyright law, no-one has yet been suicidal enough to see a court case challenging its validity to the end. Serious legal brainpower went into the development of the GPL; invariably, challengers within reach of US civil jurisdiction have settled by complying with the license terms. Challenging the GPL is almost as silly as going to trial before a judge after you try to mug the City Chief of Police during his press conference in the front lobby of police headquarters.
Eventually, the GPL will be tested, more likely than not by someone who is simply willing and able to lose a few thousand bucks just to make sure there is such a court precedent.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
I am not party to the MS EULA
No.
Linux 0.01 was distributed under the following license:
This kernel is (C) 1991 Linus Torvalds, but all or part of it may be redistributed provided you do the following:
- Full source must be available (and free), if not with the distribution then at least on asking for it.
- Copyright notices must be intact. (In fact, if you distribute only parts of it you may have to add copyrights, as there aren't (C)'s in all files.) Small partial excerpts may be copied without bothering with copyrights.
- You may not distibute this for a fee, not even "handling" costs.
The Linux 0.12 release notes said:
The Linux copyright will change: I've had a couple of requests to make it compatible with the GNU copyleft, removing the "you may not distribute it for money" condition. I agree. I propose that the copyright be changed so that it confirms to GNU - pending approval of the persons who have helped write code. I assume this is going to be no problem for anybody: If you have grievances ("I wrote that code assuming the copyright would stay the same") mail me. Otherwise The GNU copyleft takes effect as of the first of February. If you do not know the gist of the GNU copyright - read it.The Linux 0.95 release notes said:
Linux-0.95 is NOT public domain software, but is copyrighted by me. The copyright conditions are the same as those imposed by the GNU copyleft: get a copy of the GNU copyleft at any major ftp-site (if it carries linux, it probably carries a lot of GNU software anyway, and they all contain the copyright).
The copyleft is pretty detailed, but it mostly just means that you may freely copy linux for your own use, and redistribute all/parts of it, as long as you make source available (not necessarily in the same distribution, but you make it clear how people can get it for nothing more than copying costs). Any changes you make that you distribute will also automatically fall under the GNU copyleft.
NOTE! The linux unistd library-functions (the low-level interface to linux: system calls etc) are excempt from the copyright - you may use them as you wish, and using those in your binary files won't mean that your files are automatically under the GNU copyleft. This concerns /only/ the unistd-library and those (few) other library functions I have
written: most of the rest of the library has it's own copyrights (or is
public domain). See the library sources for details of those.
Linux 0.99.2 was the first version that actually included the GPLv2 COPYING file.
Until Linux 2.4.0-test8 was released, no particular version of the GPL was actually specified for the kernel as a whole*, although it was clear that GPLv2 applied. Section 9 of GPLv2 states:
9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns.
Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.
The copyright status of Linux is a little more complex than most people would like (and than some people would like to believe.)
Footnote:
* This isn't true for individual files. To this day, some files in Linux are explicitly 'v2 or later', some are 'v2 only', some are BSD-licensed, etc. The only common thing is that (except for some disputed firmware files) they are all GPLv2-compatible.
http://outcampaign.org/
The thing you need to remember is that by default, you have no rights to the source code of said GPL software. It's covered by the same copyright laws that make it illegal to pirate Windows and such. However, there is the added option of gaining access to the source, if you choose to agree to certain terms.
Your whole idea of whether or not there is a transaction taking place is a technical nitpick that can be left up to the courts. It's along the same lines as the debate over the validity of click-through EULAs. What if I view the source and see where the "Agree" button links, but never actually click the button? Is that the same as clicking the button? As for being able to download it without clicking on some sort of license agreement, does that mean if I find a copy of Windows on some site that allows open downloading, I suddenly can use it without any regard for its licensing? Can I just take something from a sidewalk vendor stand, since it's out in the open and not a "real" store? Whether or not downloading software packaged with license details constitutes a legally binding agreement is completely separate from the validity of the license itself.
GPL is most definitely a "free with strings attached" license. You get it for free, and the attached string is that you have to pass it on to others freely (just as you received it freely). If you don't like that idea, don't use/support the GPL. The rest of your comments about transactions are legal details which don't apply to the GPL any more than to any other license, except that it's easier to find GPL software which you could use in violation of copyright law (as opposed to the hidden-away closed source of other programs).
Next time you are at the supermarket and they have those little hotdogs with toothpicks and a sign that says "take one, free", imagine how goofy it would be if there was a piece of paper next to them that had terms and conditions of taking it for free. Next time you're at the supermarket and they have one of those "buy one, get one free" sales, take the free one and tell them how goofy it is that they're forcing you to do something else to get the free one.This makes Opensource look very untrustworthy to me.
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
Nothing here at all whatsoever
The GPL is a license. The obligations under it may be contractual in nature but since you have no license to undertake X without agreeing to it, the contractual obligations may be unilateral. The GPL is STILL A LICENSE. It is license to become a distributor.
The contract (as a contract and not contractual obligations) can remove rights YOU ALREADY HAVE. But to do so, there must be a meeting of minds and must also convey benefit to both parties. The benefit is necessary in a contract otherwise it is probably illegal. The meeting of minds is how the law devolves deciding whether value for value was undertaken: if both parties have a meeting of minds, they both believe that they have had value from it.
A non-complete contract is a contract and NEVER a license. The reason is that you ALWAYS have the right to work for whom you choose. However, in negotiations you may decide to sign a 1 year non-compete agreement for months salary. This would be considered fair if you agreed to it. You now have given up a right for recompense. If the contract was given and you were told to take it then there is no meeting of minds. You cannot be forced into a contract (the contract becomes unenforceable legally).
A broadcast license is a license (and NOT a contract) that you must obey contractual obligations. If you refuse to meet those obligations then you have no right to broadcast in any case.
So:
License: refuse and you have lost no rights.
Contract: refuse and you have lost no rights.
License: accept and you have more rights.
Contract: accept and you swap rights for value.
You cannot sign a contract that gives you the right to broadcast. You can sign a contract that removes your right to work. You cannot sign a license that removes your right to work. You can sign a license that gives you the right to broadcast. If you stop doing what the license allows you can ignore the obligations. If you exercise the rights your contract took away, you don't get to just give the value back.
If you count that the obligations of the license are contractual as meaning a license is a contract, then why do we have two terms?
These aren't gift certs, these are vouchers to be redeemed against a particular product. That product is the retail edition of Suse linux which comes with commercial support from Novell. Don't let MS change the story after the fact, the vouchers are directly redeemable for software.
If these vouchers aren't distribution, then we are free to sell commercial support for Windows (which can be dl'd from TPB) with impunity. The FSF have maneuvered a malicious aggressor (Microsoft) into a lose-lose-lose situation, what more needs to be said?
Microsoft has publicly stated that they do not agree to the terms of the GPL v3, will not provide support to Novell customers using software under the GPL v3, and want nothing to do with it. As the License is a contract between the copyright holder and the licensee to distribute said software, Microsoft not agreeing to said terms means Microsoft does not accept them. If a Microsoft employee hands a friend a Red Hat disc, previous to this statement, you might be able to argue that Microsoft is distributing software. However, Microsoft's statement makes it pretty clear that they do not agree to distribute.
Now, if Microsoft or their agents distributes GPL v3 code, have expressly denied agreeing to the GPL v3, they are in copyright violation. They have copied someone else's software without permission, violating their copyright.
This statement is clever, because it means that if someone at Microsoft inadvertently distributes GPL v3 software, prior to this one MIGHT have argued that the implicitly agreed to GPL v3's terms, and attempted to get court order to force Microsoft to comply (and release some code). Now you have to sue them for copyright infringement.
Why is this important? Well, if they distribute software with GPL v3 code, you can probably get an injunction to stop them, you'll be able to sue for damages (although illegally copying software that you are giving away for $0 albeit with copying restrictions seems hard to do... you've been wronged, but damages are probably $0. The USFL sued the NFL and won an anti-trust suit, however, since the USFL's poor business decisions were determined to run them out of business, the award was $1, after appeals and interest added, the USFL Collected $3.76. I presume that a copyright infringement suit against Microsoft would be similar, collect $1, since no monetary damages were awarded.
I am not a lawyer, but this is my game theory read on the case.
Reply: Finally, someone that understands MS Lawyers and Mr. Gates, you must be the Sheriff of Nottingham. At least you appear not to be one of those treasonous subversive Welfare-Corporatist corrupting democracy and capitalism in the USA.
Don't worry, I am just deep sea fishing?
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
"The GPL is a unilateral contract offer that one side has already agreed to."
No, the owner of the copyright controlled by the GPL has agreed to NOTHING. Need not agree to anything. Ever. At all.
If someone wants to use the code they must agree to the (contractual in nature) obligations of the license. So they must agree beforehand.
The copyright holder doesn't need to agree to anything.
GPLv3 includes a definition of conveyance which is exactly what MS is doing:
"To "convey" a work means any kind of propagation that enables other parties to make or receive copies. Mere interaction with a user through a computer network, with no transfer of a copy, is not conveying."
Microsoft seems to be preparing to fight GPLv3 with two defences. They plan to deny that the coupons constitute distributing GPLv3 code and they plan to deny that GPLv3 can force its own interpretation of the Microsoft-Novell agreement upon Microsoft.
I would like to suggest a third defence to Microsoft which would probably be much more effective than the first two. Microsoft could pay Novell to cancel the Microsoft-Novell agreement before Novell actually distributes any GPLv3 code. Abolishing the Microsoft-Novell agreement would forestall the possibility that the Free Software Foundation might be able to extend Microsoft's software patent protection to all open source developers, distributors, and users.
---------------------
Steve Stites
Your logic is:
If I give away things to takers, I can't tell them not to sell it on eBay.
If I sell things to people, I can tell them not to sell it on eBay?
Well shit, it's both your choice to buy the thing I sold and the thing you took for free. I didn't force anything upon you. Imagine how goofy it would be if you distributed those little hotdogs. Gee, really? The license applies to distribution; you can use the free software to do whatever you want. Only when distributing or modifying the code do you need to concern yourself with the license.
Maurice Wilkes, debugging, 1949
This creates an interesting issue if Microsoft ever ends up using GPLv3 stuff within the company. IIRC, giving GPL'd code to contractors (as opposed to employees) is considered distribution per the license. Essentially, Microsoft is risking blowing the 235 patents if they have Linux or other patent-contested software available on their internal network, assuming contractors have access to it. One download, and the patents extend to everyone per the license.
This is somewhat off-topic, but I honestly wonder if this will sharply limit the use of GPLv3 software in corporations. Seems like you'd have to vet every single piece of GPLv3 software you use against your patent portfolio to be comfortable, or force contractors to download all their own tools from an external source (which is kind of a nightmare if you're trying to keep everyone on the same version).
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
It's been quite a while since I've read through the license (v2, that is), but IIRC, it states that the distributer must make available a machine-readable copy of the source.
How to enable garbage collection on a system without protected memory: #define malloc() ((void *) rand())
The GPL doesn't restrict you at all. It doesn't stop you doing anything that you couldn't already do with the program in question.
COPYRIGHT law is the restriction, and is there by default. The GPL then waives part of that restriction.
If I give you a program, unless I have said otherwise, you don't have the right to distribute it.
If MS distributes something under the GPLv3, then that is licensed under the GPLv3, nothing else.
If MS distributes something under the GPLv3 or something that is a derivative work of something under the GPLv3, or something that contains part of a GPLv3'd work except if this containing could be construed as an "aggregate" as per the clause #5 of the GPLv3, then that is licensed under the GPLv3, nothing else.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
now all one has to do is wait for the Novell to integrate new GPL3 licensed code, which they have said they will do, show your shiny voucher, smile, pick up you shiny new novell cds/dvd and load the distro onto bittorrent, then laugh evilly as all of microsoft's carefully calculated effort goes up in smoke. This has essentially undone a decade of patent hoarding and scheming to put linux and all gpl code into microsoft's pocket. If it were not true then you wouldn't hear microsoft screaming so loudly that it isn't.
No. Microsoft's patent portfolio doesn't magically pass into the public domain because the GPL's terms have changed. Basically Microsoft is saying their vouchers are no good for GPLv3 software. Which means their "patent protection" isn't good anymore, and no longer makes SLES any better than any other distro. Novell could accuse Microsoft of breach of contract (and very well might do so), but Microsoft's patent portfolio is still all their own, and will remain so until they knowingly, officially distribute software under GPLv3 terms.
include $sig;
1;
> MS have not distributed GPL3 code, no matter how much we would like them to have. They have offered a covenant not to sue Novell's customers, and vouchers offering support for Novell's product. This is very different. None of this makes MS a party to the GPL because MS do not need any kind of license or copyright provision just to say "I won't sue Joe Bloggs, and I'll help him with his technical issues". No matter what the FooBarSpecialLicense attached to the product Joe Bloggs happens to own says!
I don't believe that's what the vouchers do. Also, if you'd read the GPLv3, you'd understand that they define a new term, "convey", and frame the license in terms of it. It lists very specific actions, covered by copyright law, under which you can be said to have conveyed GPLv3 software.
FSF lawyers, privy to both the full legal language of the Novell/Microsoft agreement and the GPL have stated that the lack of expiration on Microsoft's certificates would prove to be a mistake, forcing Microsoft to convey the software when the voucher is redeemed. I'm afraid I'll have to take their word above yours, given that they are lawyers and they are familiar with the legal language while you, clearly, are not.
Anyhow, it looks like the story is that Microsoft wants to add the condition "not valid for GPLv3 software" to the vouchers they've already distributed. Given that that's unilaterally changing the conditions on them after the fact, I don't see how they can do that. But what do I know? From all the court cases they've been in, it appears that they like playing hardball. They'll brazenly violate any law or agreement in their way, fight tooth and nail in court, and pay up when forced to, even though the sums they pay are a pittance.
If I were competing with them and they forced me into court, I'd ask for "fingers" instead money, and I mean that as a metaphor for how the Yakuza operate. Damage their ability to compete with court-imposed restrictions and such (the "fingers"), not their cash flow. They value that more than short-term cash, so you can see how it's important, but their competitors are in it for money, not "blood", and that's why they constantly lose to Microsoft's style of competition. Enough people start playing hardball like that with Microsoft, and they wouldn't be top dog for long. But hardly anyone else operates like that (save maybe Oracle), so it's no wonder they lose.
Actually, I think you would do well to rethink that position. You might be shocked to learn who's given away more source code than anyone else on this planet. Have a look around MSDN. There's a lot of stuff up there.
Am I saying they're goodbear? Hell, no. But this is one place in which hating Microsoft doesn't work at all. Sure, they're doing it because it's good for their bottom line, but that aside, Microsoft has given away two point three metric buttloads of code, and it's all under extremely generous licensure.
StoneCypher is Full of BS
Your assumption seems to be that Novell could hand out copies of linux that are licensed with GPLv3, and Microsoft could do nothing about. If that's the case, how can you seriously consider Microsoft to be distributing the software? If they have NO ability to decide what software the users receive, I highly doubt that constitutes distribution in any important sense of the word.
You don't enter in to a contract with a burger joint. You buy a burger. They don't say (either before or after your purchase) "you may not critisize this burger. You may not give parts of this Happy Meal(tm) to anyone else.".
You.
Bought.
A.
Burger.
Once you've paid, you have your burger. you can do anything with it your heart desires as long as it is legal. Feed it to your dog.
You're right: you're not a lawyer and though you seem to know it, you don't know when you're wrong. You're not a councillor, are you?
This discussion suggests an entertaining scenario:
Microsoft has the resources, and OS sales are a small part of MS revenue; most comes from applications that sell well on any platform. Gates assigns a good project manager—one with a ripe sense of humor—to put together a crack team to fork linux/gnu based on pre-GPLV3 code only. The new source is scrupulously annotated, open and available. It is licensed with whatever terms both satisfy GPLV2 and cause the greatest rending of shirts among the Fosserati.
The most important new code in the fork is an extension of the APIs so that Windows applications run native alongside linux applications without virtualization. It includes virtualization anyway. New developments can mix and match. It supports .Net.
It is released as Microsoft New Generation Linux, sold in a pretty box loaded with advertising for MS applications. The OS is on a non-DRM self-installing DVD loaded with the OS, every driver known to man, a selection of best of breed free applications, and all the source. Microsoft pulls out all the stops in applying everything they've learned from the millions it has spent on usability research. The box includes a really well-written user guide, and discount certificates for the Windows Office Suite. Distributors like Dell are given a deal that fails to draw a substantial distinction between MS Windows and MS NG Linux.
Between the manuals and the DVD, ordinary consumers can install and use all of this without actually coming into contact with the linux community or its online resources. The great mass of consumers, who would rather spend a few bucks than become their own tech specialists, will buy more software, much of it from MS.
Experienced linuchim, if they have any interest, can buy it, get a copy from someone (it's legal), or download the three-gigabyte distribution file.
I'm a Programmer. That's one level above Software Engineer and one level below Engineer.
Not agreed.
They can at whim say "no". They offered. An offer is not considered binding. If I offer you an apple for free, until you take that apple from me, I can say "but not you". I have made no agreement to offer you an apple. Even after you've taken the apple, I could attempt to say "I've changed my mind" and the law would consider whether that was fair but would NOT consider it a breech of contract case.
You seem to want to believe that license=contract. So is contract=license? So you enter in to a non-compete license? A non-disclosure-agreement-license? A rental-license? Or does that sound silly? If so, then why is that not because they are different?
When you buy a bar license, is it actually a bar contract? Why then is there breech of contract but not breech of license? There isn't. When you abridge your license, your license IS TAKEN AWAY. Why is that? BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT CONTRACTS.
How the fuck did you manage a karma bonus?
I have just checked the GNU site, and the last t-shirt they offer is a stale 2001's levitating gnu...
> > Linux is the fastest growing unix-ish operating system out there.
> If you mean in terms of raw sales, it's OsX, not Linux.
Yeah right, raw sales is surely a good measure for a free OS.
> If you mean in terms of percentage userbase growth, it's QNX, not Linux.
Percentage growth is even more meaningless. A system going from zero to one user has thus infinite grow??
Meaningful measures are e.g. marketshare, total number of users or total number of installed systems.
> Your GPL is costing you tremendously.
No it doesn't. Any GPL project can incorporate BSD code, but not the other way around.
> with GPL, it's illegal for me to refuse even to release one line of source.
Only when you plan on releasing the binaries and that's really the point of the GPL.
> I can't release the object because of my Nintendo NDA, and I can't refuse to release the object because then I'm in violation of the GPL.
It obviously didn't occur to you that it might be the Nintendo NDA which is bogus and broken. NDAs for APIs are just plain stupid, so instead of ranting here against the GPL, simply refuse to develop for a plattform with such a hostile policy. If you don't (be it by choice or by necessity), you reinforce such policies and thus demonstrate the need for the GPL.
> But I can't use them, because GPL is so ridiculously paranoid.
As long as there are companies out there which demand NDAs for APIs, sue customers for reverse engineering or amass software patent porfolios, the question is really: Is it paranoid enough?
"As always, Microsoft remains committed to working with the open source software community ..."
Yeah, right
Microsoft is right that they aren't party to the license and that they aren't copying the distributed code. So, technically, "the license doesn't apply to them".
However, what does apply to them is the contract they have with their customers when they distribute vouchers, and the GPLv3 does apply to the recipient of those vouchers once they download the GPLv3 code. So, unless they become a party to the GPLv3 license, the vouchers are worthless and they aren't fulfilling their obligations.
This is really not so different from the kind of sublicensing agreements Microsoft makes frequently. I'm not a party to Microsoft's license with the MPEG-LA, but they are required by their license with the MPEG-LA to ensure that their license with me restricts my use of the software in the way that the MPEG-LA requires.
You can't bind Microsoft after the fact. The voucher sale was the moment of Microsoft's distribution, if there ever was one.
As a mind excercise, consider far more evil terms that the GPLv3 could have had. Consider terms that assign all profits in excess of $54321/quarter to the FSF. Would that have made the FSF rich? Imagine them going to court, standing in front of the judge, and trying to collect.
Well what's the difference then if I google for ubuntu, Google provides me the link and I download & install Ubuntu? Is Google "procuring the distribution of" Ubuntu? Wow. If this holds true it leads to interesting things like if someone recommends me to use Linux then (s)he is procuring the distribution of GPL'd code and is bound by the (current) GPL license. I, personally, avoid recommendating anything this forward.
You don't know what you don't know.
No, we don't normally say that, do we? Even though a cat and a dog do lots of the same things (shit in your garden, shag anything in season,...). We say dogs are dogs and cats are cats.
A license grants rights you do not normally have. Therefore breaking the terms of the license (which are contractual in nature) means you lose the license. Exercising those rights are now illegal because without a license you have no right to do something.
Contracts exchange rights or sell rights for value. When you break the terms of the contract, you have the right to do whatever you signed away legally, so you have to be prosecuted under breach of contract law.
That's why they are different.
The nearest you can come to conflating them is by saying a contract is a type of license where you must agree to not do something.
The law is a contract which is agreed to when you join society. The only reasons why there is no explicit meeting of minds is that
a) they are the government, who's going to tell them no
b) it is a big problem getting people to sign
c) society wants people to obey these rules: criminals would not sign and would not be able to breech a contract never signed
d) the rule-making process and judicial review is supposed to be the society's meeting of minds
though for (c) I think that it would be quite nice to have it signed anyway: you're supposed to get something back in contract, so make "protection of the law" the return part of contract. If you don't want to obey the contract and don't sign, you don't get protection when someone else robs you or whatever.
Microsoft's patent portfolio wouldn't pass into the public domain in any case: The GPL3 only stipulates that those you distribute the code to get an implicit license which means you can't sue them for patent violation for using or modifying GPL3ed software, but it doesn't offer protection in any other situation.
Also, while it may be questioned whether or not Microsoft is right to claim that future vouchers are no good for GPL3 software, it cannot make vouchers already handed out retroactively invalid for GPL3: If Novell decides to redistribute GPL3 software, at least the old vouchers are valid for GPL3.
IANAL, of course.
In Soviet Russia, government controls corporations.
In Capitalist America, corporations control government.
Be careful - IIRC, some of the code is licensed under terms which would be open source if it wasn't for the fact that you're only allowed to use it under Windows. (I think this means that, if you run any third-party Windows or .NET application under Linux whose developer hasn't been very careful where they get source from, you're at risk of being sued by Microsoft, even more so if you distribute it.)
If copying isn't copyright controlled, you don't need any license to install. And it is ONLY under the idea that you DO need a license for such a copy that an EULA can be considered required and legal.
So MS Doesn't Believe you are correct.
The writeup on this article is utter FUD. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for bashing Microsoft when they deserve it, but what they said was, they're offer to support Novell customers doesn't require they accept the GPL v3. They have said they won't support GPL v3 software, and as part of that, they are doing what they need to so they aren't forced to accept it.
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
The goggles. They do nothing.
Linux sux and tux can kiss my leopard seal ass.. I find it funny they say Linux sux but also say Linux is using ideas from Windows? yeah that must be the parts that make it suck!
You realize that what you are saying is that you think there should be no copyright on any material that is given away for free. Are you really sure you think this is a good idea? At least the advertising industry would be very hurt by this, and I'm sure it would have enormous other implications.