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.
The part of the GPLv3 that they are repudiating here is the part which might allow someone to claim that they can redistribute Microsoft code as open source by relying on the GPLv3.
This approach appears entirely reasonable and sustainable to me. If someone were to assert that they had the right to sell pirate versions of Vista based on some kooky reading of the GPL and the Novell deal it is going to fail pretty early on.
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. I think it probably works even if someone does prove that Microsoft has distributed GPLv3 code. Microsoft limits remedies for doing so to a tort claim brought by the actual copyright owner. They effectively cut the ability to claim rights derived through the GPL.
It is a perfectly sensible legal approach. RMS is not the law.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
I wouldn't worry if I were Microsoft. Even if MS flagrantly violated the GPL, based on this discussion it's unlikely anyone who likes the GPL could actually find a court, never mind know how to bring a lawsuit or actually make a coherent case. I don't think I've ever seen so much ill-informed crap written in such an authoritative tone in a legal discussion before.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
None of which would stand up for a second in a court of law.
For istance, the fact that minor children cannot enter into contracts merely means that you, as their guardian, can be held liable for their failure to perform, or that they are guilty of fraud. In the case at hand, you'd be guilty of constructive misrepresentation as well, and probably conspiracy to defraud -- and, guess what, you'd still be bound by the agreement. So you'd get the super whammy -- copyright infringement, any special damages defined by the license, and jail time to boot.
SuSe/Novel are big enough to fork gcc... it's not like new versions are really needed - all they seem to do these days is break compatibility with older versions.
Ah, so they will use a BSD license from now on?
-- Cheers!