Slashdot Mirror
Groklaw Explains Microsoft and the GPLv3
A Groklaw Reader writes "After all the questions about how the GPLv3 will or won't apply to Microsoft following Microsoft's declaration that they weren't bound by it, PJ of Groklaw wrote this story about how and why the GPLv3 will apply to Microsoft. Specifically, it covers in what ways Microsoft would convey GPLv3 software under the Novell agreement, and how Microsoft's refusal to allow previously sold vouchers to be redeemed for GPLv3 software would impact that agreement. Given that Novell has said that they will distribute GPLv3 software, Microsoft may have had the tables turned on them already."
HEADSHOT!
Is it just me or is anyone else hoping Microsoft drags Novell down into the muck? This would be a good lesson to anyone else considering getting in bed with them.
People are going back and forth about whether or not the GPLv3 will apply to Microsoft, but the real crux of the deal is that it won't matter if there is no one that both has the resources and the motivation to force Microsoft to comply.
How could it possibly stop Microsoft from doing anything they do as long as no one has the money or the reason to take them to court over it and see it through completion. IBM is the only company I can think of that would really have both, and Microsoft isn't stupid enough to violate any of IBM's licenses, nor is it strategically positive for IBM to place themselve directly against Microsoft right now either.
Otherwise, who are we really expecting to take Microsoft to court? Novell? The Free Software Foundation? Please... Microsoft has been stalling the sum total of *Europe* for almost half a decade, if you think Novell or the FSF is going to force Microsoft to comply witht eh GPL you're delusional.
FanFictionRecs.net
Microsoft said that it doesn't apply to them (now).
/. and FOSS vs Closed Source companies... :(
Groklaw says it does apply to them (in the future).
There is no argument here, no discussion. Does Groklaw actually think that Microsofts Army of Layers knows less than they do about law or something?
This type of round robin arguing, where everyone is shouting about different scenarios yet equating them because they are "similar" is so typical of
Look, I think M$ is evil as much as the next /.er, however, let me be clear.
I don't think you should ever be held accountable for past actions under a new license. If Microsoft sold vouchers before the GPLv3, then they did so under the assumption that the vouchers covered GPLv2 software. Furthermore, much of this whole argument assumes that all this software is definitely moving to GPLv3, and while I expect many of the GNU tools to do exactly that, I haven't seen that many official GPLv3 announcements just yet. The kernel is certainly not moving to GPLv3 anytime soon.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
I considered putting in a 'First post' 10 minutes ago and only a half dozen people have commented since.
Apparently nobody cares.
"The cup is in turn designed for holding hot or cold liquids, and has an open rim and closed base." --US Patent #5425497
The whole point that PJ has been going on about are Microsoft's little coupons. She is under the impression that issuing a coupon is the same thing as distributing - that if any of Microsoft's coupons are redeemed for a GPLv3-licensed product, that Microsoft has then distributed it. This is an extremely tenuous position, for the simple fact that Microsoft hasn't copied anything. A coupon is a method for a third party to step in and facilitate payment between a seller and a buyer. In this case, the seller (Novell) is the one doing the copying, and the buyer (the one turning in the coupon) is the one who is getting a license and will be bound by it.
In shory, GPLv3 can say anything it wants, but it falls under copyright law, and if I don't copy, I can't infringe. No version of the GPL can define what constitutes making a copy - only the law can do that.
So now Microsoft has modified what you get with the vouchers, or tried to. Novell won't agree not to provide support for GPLv3 software, though, so that blunts the effectiveness of Microsoft's announcement and I must say thank you to Novell for that. I doubt Microsoft realistically thought Novell would stop supporting the software it sells. Microsoft just wanted to say, "Hey, it's not us doing that. We don't authorize or approve. We tried to stop it." And since Eben Moglen has pointed out that the vouchers have no cutoff date, Microsoft, by my analysis, still has to face what it will mean for them if even one such voucher is turned in after Novell begins to offer GPLv3 software.
This analysis is wrong. If Novell chooses to provide software and services beyond what is required by the voucher, Novell is free to do so. That choice is not in any way binding on Microsoft. This is no different than saying that a grocery store may choose to give me a free box of cereal in exchange for a 35 cent coupon. That store's choice does not in any way compel Kellogg's to give me more free Froot Loops.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
I always thought that the GPL functioned on the premise you needed copyrights to the software to do anything with it you wanted. It therefore was a way to get those copyrights in exchange for giving them to those you gave copies to.
MS is not making copies, they are giving away coupons, from someone else. I don't see how they can possibly be held to the GPL. It makes about as much sense as me saying clipper magazine employees must where there shirt because I used there coupon at an eatery.
The only way I can possibly see it applying is if MS also chooses to directly distribute GPL3 software, because then they would have agreed to the concept that handing out a coupon is distributing, but without agreeing to that I hope that they can't be forced into it.
I also imagine it is possible for the GPL3 to force Novell not to sell any coupons to GPL3 software without getting the purchasers agreement to abide by the terms, in a sense attaching the restrictive (perhaps in a good way, but still restrictive) parts of the GPL to any coupon.
It could also force the "conveying" party not to convey its copy unless all parties involved in propagating and conveying agree to GPL3 terms, but I didn't read it that way at all, it clearly puts pressure on the propagating party, which does not need any permission from the GPL at all to act. I really think the GPL3 as it is written, and being interpreted is worse than a standard EULA in enforcability. It is trying to capture parties not involved at all (book sellers, box stores, ect) and bind them into a contract that they need no part of to carry on (thus undercutting the defense that the GPL is granting you rights you didn't already have).
It is a shame that the ideals that I bought into were sold out to stick it to the man, it makes me feel silly for defending the GPL vs BSD.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Microsoft will do NOTHING involving anything with GPLv3. THey already view the GPL as a dangerous virus and are quite particular about keeping that contamination out of their ecology.
Those "unexpiring" vouchers won't cover GPLv3 stuff, and even if it DID, it is highly unlikely a court would enforce the patent covenants.
So when Microsoft says it is unaffected by the GPLv3, that is perfectly correct, they will have NOTHING to do with it, and anything otherwise is wishful dreaming.
Test your net with Netalyzr
Goddamn it...just trying to read and reason through this argument makes my head hurt. This is like the old SCO orguments all over again. Both sides have lawyers trying to be clever by introducing more and more complexity. This is the diseased law system we now have, thanks to not only greedy show-off lawyers but people who are ready to accept them as necessary in their world. Software licenses should be pretty easy to understand - this goes for GPLv3 and everything else. Contracts between Microsoft and Novell should be simple and easy to understand. But they aren't. Lawyers screwing everyone again.
There can be such a thing as an honest and useful lawyer. A lawyer should take pride in creating a contract that clearly lays out the rights and responsibilities of both parties. There should be no vague language, and no grey areas left over. A contract should be designed so that any breach of it would be such a clear-cut violation that the violator would have not a leg to stand on in court, and therefore not think that they can get away with bad behavior.
There should be no wiggle room. None. Ockham's Razor comes to mind as a way of making everything clear and solid.
In a way, criminal and common law can also be thought of as a contract of sorts, and that the same principles of clarity simplicity, and zero wiggle room should apply. Laws should be engineered - no extra crap piled on. Like engineered products, there are occasional minor revisions that need to be made to fix bugs or to become compatible with another body of law. Eventually, however, a complete rewrite of a section of law would be commissioned - one in which the simplicity of the section of law becomes clearer and more simple, and is free of bugs, while being compatible. This is what our lawyers, courts, and legislatures ought to be doing, and are not.
There's just too much cruft in the law. I wonder what would happen if we were to take a crack team of programmers and turn them lose to rewrite the legal code.
The judge you get on the day, the jury, how well the lawyers convince the jury to see things their way, what the judge allows and disallows, what the various appeals processes rule, the politicians you buy to change the law at the last moment, all of those change it from absolute certainty to something much hazier.
In that haze, Microsoft's PR, lawyers, management, etc. can all state, "The GPLv3 won't stand up in court." Groklaw can state, "This is how it will go..." and we on Slashdot can argue, "Ha, we've got them now!" or "Microsoft will wriggle out of it somehow, like they always do." to our heart's content. The one certainty is that those are opinions, not absolutes for how it'll work out.
PJ's welcome to an opinion. More accurately however, the title should be "PJ from Groklaw has an opinion about how GPLv3 and Microsoft will work out." What it isn't, and can't be until it's gone through every last legal wrangling, is an absolute what "will" happen.
Right, because lefties aren't influenced by money? Microsoft has billions of dollars in cash, more than enough to buy whatever politicians happen to be in power.
Corruption isn't just a conservative phenomenon. By the time you get to the White House, unless you end up there by mistake, you're already crooked. The process of getting there guarantees it. I'm sure Microsoft slathers its campaign contributions around so that no matter who wins, they owe Redmond a few favors.
The only reason any politician would ever break up Microsoft would be if they thought they could somehow capitalize on its demise, and I don't see any reason why that's possible. You don't win votes by torpedoing one of the crown jewels of the U.S. economy and its economic dominance, even if you're a leftist. There might be some saber-rattling, but it's not going to be anything serious.
Your faith in one batch of weasels over another is cute, but ultimately I think you're just setting yourself up for disappointment.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
"Marvel, marvel at my adroit dissection! Pay no heed to the fact that my dissection is nothing more than occasionally witty, subjective hypothesizing by someone without a law degree, enjoy the fact that I'm ragging on Microsoft!"
Bah.
You forgot just how broad copyright law is, didn't you? Before, the GPL only concerned itself with distribution, so that confusion is understandable, but the GPLv3 defined new terms to use more of that "void" between all activities covered by copyright law and mere distribution.
If you read the Groklaw article, you'll see that there are fun secondary liabilities you can give rise to under copyright law. Yes, procuring the conveyance of a copyrighted work could be infringement under copyright law if I didn't have permission from the copyright holder. Seriously, if I sold download credits to "Joe'z Warez Sitez" do people think that the copyright holder couldn't go after me? Similarly, Microsoft can't be content to have Novell do their "dirty work" for them any more because the scope of the GPL has expanded.
Now yes, this does leave us in a murky legal area. But the GPLv3 CAN cover what it's covering here, it just hasn't cared about such conduct before now. Microsoft has expensive lawyers, though, so who knows? If anyone can buy their way out of this, they can, I mean, what do a few laws cost these days? I suspect companies write it off as a cost of doing business.
I can see that if Microsoft modifies or adds to a GPL'ed software package, that product will need to be copyleft-ized. What I'm curious about is, how does this affect their independently produced software (Windows, etc.) at all? I can see how whatever app they write using GNU/Linux libraries to do virtualization will need to be FOSS, but I fail to see how this will affect the software this virtualization package is meant to run. Won't users still need to buy a genuine copy of Windows, Office and the rest anyway?
> She is under the impression that issuing a coupon is the same thing as distributing
No, no she's not. The GPLv2 limited itself to distribution, but copyright law has fun theories of secondary liability, etc. The GPLv3 expands the scope that it covers to something close to the full scope of what's covered by copyright law.
Did everyone but me forget just how BROAD copyright law is? It covers loads of crap. Just like I can't sell warez vouchers for Joe'z Warez Sitez which happen to be hosted in a copyright-hostile country and claim no liability, you can't "procure the conveyance" of GPLv3 software as a license dodge any more. Yes, you COULD dodge like that under the GPLv2, but only because the GPLv2 said you didn't need permission for anything but distribution. But not any more, because the GPLv3 forbids it and copyright law says you need permission.
The rules have changed, folks. The GPLv3 is stronger, because it takes advantage of the ridiculously strong copyright laws that are so prevalent. But it really shouldn't matter much unless you dislike things like compatibility with the Apache license or planned to undermine people with weird software patent threats.
They are now legally bound to do nothing but offer support for a third-party's software, aka Linux. They will do this, make huge profits, all while claiming the evil FOSS movement forced them to do it. And then curious people will come to FOSS sites and see exchanges like this one... the decorum of angry rioters at a lynching, and all crying for Microsoft's head, as if they did something that much better.
What FOSS should do to steal Microsoft's thunder is to find some way to offer for-profit support for Linux, at a lower rate. That will actually deprive Microsoft of revenue, where the GPLv3 is depriving them of a costly proposition while still enabling them to sell support for something they now don't have to own, and are not negligent when/if it fails.
Anti-Globalism
The fact is, they sold a contract to support software that is being released under a licence they didn't control. Software that is developed by people who are hostile to their interests. And that left them open to being unable to meet their obligations. They should have known that the GPLv3 could have specifically said "M$ is teh evil, you cannot run this software and theirs in the same company" and had provisions in their support contract to deal with it. Did they really think Stillman et al would just let it slide? It's absurd.
Here is where I don't understand all the "Microsoft is screwed" talk though. If they refuse to honour the contracts, the worst a court can do is make them refund the money paid to them, and possibly a bit more for damages. I don't think Microsoft is loosing sleep over this.
If Wal-Mart ends up feeling burned by being left with unsupported Linux installs, and wants a bit of money, does Microsoft really need to feel all that bad about it? If just proves their point that running Linux can leave you out in the cold.
-- http://thegirlorthecar.com funny dating game for guys
You forget that Eben Moglen, a professor of law at Columbia University and general counsel for the FSF read the Novell / Microsoft agreements and drafted the GPLv3 with them in mind with the intent to undo the damage the discriminatory software patent agreements cause.
Given that he believes Microsoft is in trouble and that Microsoft *actually took notice* of the GPLv3 enough to issue an announcement, I'll have to say that while it's probably a thorny legal question, it's nowhere near as one-sided as you make it out to be.
Eben, BTW, is pretty much the foremost legal expert on the GPL. You know, having helped draft it and all. And it's not like PJ doesn't talk with lawyers about her posts. You know, like Eben...
But what the hell do I know? I just post snarky comments on Slashdot... like you do.
... to RMS' frequent claims of being a tireless, persecuted martyr for freedom that they apply to, say, an American politican's frequent claims that any policy which they think is a good idea is justified by freedom. "Freedom" is not a magic word which forgives all sins and justifies all measures. Not for the politicians, not for the activists.
And, yes, RMS is radical and radically wrong on some points. His definition of "freedom" involves having the government coerce people who disagree with him. Read the GNU Manifesto -- not just the fluffy "Oh, I'm going to give you tons of free goodies" bits but the hard core "I really desire a radical transformation of how EVERYONE, not just you and me, see software" bits. Actual quotes, emphasis is mine:
"If programmers deserve to be rewarded for creating innovative programs, by the same token they DESERVE TO BE PUNISHED if they restrict the use of these programs"
"Proprietary and secret software is the moral equivalent of runners in a fist fight. Sad to say, the only referee we've got does not seem to object to fights; he just regulates them ("For every ten yards you run, you can fire one shot"). He really ought to break them up, and penalize runners for even trying to fight." (This is a call for the government to *ban proprietary software*.)
There's another bit where he proposes funding software development by creating a transnational agency to tax all computer hardware, and then fund deserving projects. "The total tax rate could be decided by a vote of the payers of the tax, weighted according to the amount they will be taxed on." Quite aside from the fact that your Dell is now 30% or 300% more expensive than it was yesterday, do you really want ALL money flowing into software to be allocated on the basis of the priorities of the US business community, who will ALWAYS win the "election" for determining development priorities because they spend vastly more money on hardware than anyone else? For that matter, does the idea of any government agency determining how much money needs to be allocated to WoW relative to Office appeal to you?
Help poke pirates in the eyepatch, arr.
Had you read what I wrote, I addressed this. No matter what PJ might want to have be the case, the GPLv3 cannot define what constitutes its own invocation if the party doesn't cross the line given in national copyright laws. I can write a license that says anything. I can write one that says if you blow your nose, then you become subject to the license on my project. Does that mean the next time you blow your nose you're violating the license? This is ludicrous. GPLv3 cannot define a stricter interpretation of what constitutes copying than the underlying copyright law people are bound by. Which means that it is the law's definition that counts, not GPLv3's. And the reality is, since Microsoft isn't doing anything that constitutes copying according to the law, there's nothing the GPLv3 can do to impose any licensing conditions on them.
I would love it to be the case as much as anyone, but that doesn't make it so.
People, clue in, groklaw is (at best) a fledgling paralegal who blogs. At worst, it's an IBM facade. It's likely in the middle. What it IS NOT is any type of expert legal opinion by someone who has a clue about how the industry works today. I work for MSFT's #1 competitor as a senior legal staff member. I would *strongly encourage* this audience to understand the 'expertise' you are subscribing to....
IANAL, but the Lexmark case, IIRC, ruled that Lexmark's "lockout device" was just too trivial to be copyrightable and that the DMCA didn't protect it. I don't recall that they lost on the grounds of copyright misuse, although if you can find the ruling, I wouldn't mind rereading it.
Anyhow, you can thank secondary liability under copyright law for the GPLv3 being able to cover that. The GPLv2 only cares about distribution, but that's not all a software license can cover, it's just that it usually doesn't make much sense to do more than that with a free software license.
Copyright law is amazingly (and oftentimes overly) broad, after all. The GPLv3 is just drawing more power from it and trying to use it to keep people like Microsoft from suing people.
MS says this because they feel the same about their license, "You'd have to be a real sucker or totally lawyerless to be afraid of a contract..."
Under US copyright law, Microsoft can buy Linux CD/DVDs from any legal distributor (in this case, Novell) and sell it to others without ever agreeing to the GPL3.
See: Title 17 Section 109 Limitations on exclusive rights: Effect of transfer of particular copy or phonorecord.
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
You seem to forget that it's not the job of "Microsofts Army of Layers" (is it just me or .... ?) to tell the world about the implications of law. It's their job to spin the story long enough to convince some judges. Given the U.S. case law, they may prevail in the end. OTOH the SCO case demonstrates that spin doctors don't always succeed.
That being said, the GPLv3 does apply to everyone - as soon as they distribute GPLv3 software. If Microsoft doesn't do that today, fine (pretty improbable because AFAIK there has not been any project releasing GPLv3'd code yet). If they do that in the future, they had better watch out. The GPLv3 as a software license is as valid as any other software license, like the M$ EULA (which has proven not be valid in certain judiciary systems).
And by the way the M$ EULA does not apply to me either.
open (SIG, "</dev/zero"); $sig = <SIG>; close SIG;
In other news, SCO has announced that as a linux company, Microsoft is actively participating in the infringement of 294 items of SCO's intellectual property. The Free Software Foundation immediately came to Microsoft's aide, going as far as to offer legal council in the event that Microsoft could not afford it. RMS was unavailable for comment.
Stop the Slashdot effect! Don't read the articles!
IANAL, but from reading the article, P.J. describes why what Microsoft is doing fits under the GPLv3 definitions of conveyance and propagation. However, this doesn't address Microsoft's assertion that it doesn't accept the GPLv3 license, and is thus unaffected by it. In general, a license such as the GPL is a license given by the copyright holder to do something that would otherwise be prohibited by the copyright law. In the case of the GPL, it gives third parties the right to distribute the copyrighted material - something which without the license would be copyright infringement. Microsoft asserts that what it is doing with their voucher system is not illegal distribution under the copyright law definitions. Thus the terms of the GPL license are completely irrelevant - there is no agreement between the copyright holders and Microsoft - Microsoft is doing what it's legally allowed to do with any copyrighted material.
Whether or not Microsoft's voucher system is legal under copyright law is a matter for the courts (should it get that far), but this point is in no way addressed by the Groklaw article. From first glance, it might actually be legit, since they are buying a voucher from Novell, and then reselling it, which should be covered by first-sale doctrine.
In Soviet Russia, license own you!
> Microsoft aren't selling "Download Credits". They are selling patent licenses for patents that might (Your Interpretation May Vary) otherwise be infringed by the Linux.
No, that's exactly what they've sold! The SLES vouchers are redeemed for Suse Linux and a year of support / updates per the article.
And thanks to the grandfather clause in the GPLv3, Novell is allowed to distribute the software, but Microsoft can no longer be discriminatory in who it sues with its software patents.
So my analogy was correct, you just don't understand the situation. Not that I expect anyone to read TFA around here, but it does make that clear, you know!
Actually I'm a big Ron Paul fan. :) I don't agree with all of his stances necessarily, but I really like the guy for having a well-thought-out, consistent philosophy and not being afraid to talk about it. That's fairly rare at the national level, even more so for presidential candidates, even long-shot ones.
I don't think that he'll ever make it to the White House, though, so I'm pretty sure my theory is safe. Both the electoral system and national expectations are stacked against someone who's up-front and honest about their beliefs and philosophy, and who isn't reading from a prompter fed by the latest Gallup poll.
But I'm still planning on voting for him in the primary.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Seems more fitting anyways.
And, on the topic on hand, a Democratic government is *significantly* more likely to break up MS than a Republican government. The notion that this isn't so is extraordinarily absurd.
I'm not sure what you mean by "significantly," given that I think the odds of either party doing it are so vanishingly close to zero that it's hardly worth pretending that it's on the table.
You couldn't disassemble Microsoft, in the current climate (monoculture and dependence), without risking a huge upset in the tech sector. If Redmond catches a cold, the entire economy would feel it. And "it's the economy, stupid." Being 'pro-consumer' doesn't count for much if you're perceived to be bringing on the next dot-bomb.
If anything, Democrats depend far more on the high-tech sector of the economy than Republicans do for support, particularly corporate support. In recent years, Microsoft (and its employees) has been a major Democratic donor (#30 overall -- even bigger than the NRA and just beneath the AFL-CIO); in both '04 and '06 they gave the majority of their donations to Democrats.* Their employees are overwhelmingly Democratic donors and voters as well. Not to mention, Microsoft is also deeply in bed with the entertainment industry, another Democratic stalwart.
The political philosophy of either of the major parties is basically irrelevant; their actions are virtually always predictable by looking solely at their sources of funding and votes. Democrats are funded by the high tech industry, and many of their core constituencies are people who work in the tech industry, or are from areas (major urban centers) that depend on high-tech industries. They're not going to wreck that gravy train.
* Source is here although I'm not sure the deeplink will work. You can just search Opensecrets for Microsoft Corp.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Ok, think of it this way: Let's say I run a cafe that is close to a bookstore. To drum up business, I enter into an agreement with that nearby bookstore. I pay the bookstore for 500 copies of the new Harry Potter and the bookstore issues me 500 coupons that allow the bearer to get a free copy. I then run a promotion - come to my cafe and order so many meals and get a coupon. A customer takes advantage of this and turns in the coupon for the book. The customer is the buyer, the bookstore is the seller, and my cafe is doing nothing but paying the purchase price.
Now, saying that Microsoft is at all liable for anything under GPLv3 is like saying that J.K Rowling could claim the cafe is violating her copyright. I don't need J.K. Rowling's permission to give out coupons for her book, because my cafe didn't copy it. The publisher/bookseller (I'm lumping them together to make the analogy simpler) copied it. The publisher/bookseller is is the party that needs permission to copy the book, not me. I'm just acting as a mediator to bring together someone who is licensed to sell the book with people who want the book.
Now, if the bookstore was making bootleg copies of the book, and I knew this and got some sort of a discount on their coupons because of it, then a case could be made that my coupons facilitated copyright violations. This is where facilitation clauses in copyright law come in - but this doesn't apply in the Microsoft deal. There is no inherent copyright violation in Novell's distributing of Linux, so Microsoft giving out coupons for it doesn't count like that. Microsoft is not facilitating copyright violations with their coupons, because Novell is licensed (by the GPL) to hand out Linux. If Novell was violating the GPL in some way, and Microsoft knew about this and was using the coupons as a way of facilitating that violation, then they could be said to be liable under copyright law. That isn't the case, so Microsoft has nothing to fear. Microsoft doesn't need the GPL's permission to do what they are doing, because they aren't copying.
The GPL is not keeping anyone from suing Microsoft over this deal, because the GPL doesn't apply to Microsoft in this deal. Microsoft isn't copying the work. They are bound by nothing, just as my cafe isn't subject to any copyright laws for distributing harry potter coupons.
Please
Reduce, reuse, cycle
Seems to me that GPL is becoming like a large, badly factored code-base. It's very hard to see all of what it does in practice, even for experts and specialists; in TFA PJ notes missing an implication of the MS-Novell situation. The only way to be sure about GPL now seems to be to test it - and the only test is a live one, in court, since we don't have legal "evaluation systems".
When code gets like that, we say it's bad code and want to refactor it; or dump it and replace.
When FOSS code gets too hard to understand, then the pool of maintainers dries up and the ESR "bazaar" model doesn't work. If the complication applies also to the users, as in an API, then the software drops out of use. Licences can suffer the same fate.
You got a -1 as well? No surprise. I wonder, who will empty the bins, mow the grass, and develop interesting applications in Stallman's post-scarcity world? Who will stop the rubbish overflowing in the streets, the beauty spots being overcrowded, or serve the food in hotels when we're busy enjoying ourselves. Neither Lao Tzu, the Buddha, or Queen Victoria made a dent in how things are. Perhaps, Stallman is the prophet to end all prophets but I don't see that.
Ain't nobody gonna say it but if push came to shove the GPL would just get outlawed. I can see a feint possibility of that happening if it became too much of a threat to the software or entertainment industries. As a thing, the GPL seems more suited to academia and self-learning than commerce or politics. While I agree the GPL has some things going for it, Stallman suffers from the same duelism of mind his alledged enemies suffer from. That's not sustainable.
So, yes. While I agree with some aspects of Stallman's effort it seems inevitibale that one must conclude that he does hate programmers, if only in part. This lack of honesty with himself and in the itch scratching circle jerk it spawned is something that the GPL versus anti-GPL maelstrom he's unleashed can only uncover. This could be quite painful but is likely to lead to more opening of minds and greater acceptance of how things are.
The "reason" for an EULA is taken to be that you need to copy (install) software before running it. OK, pass the legality of that by, but when you get a pre-installed Windows machine you aren't making a copy when installing it. The OEM did. And, despite having no commercial relationship with MS, you MUST agree to the EULA before running the program.
That is worse than what the FSF are doing.
But it's OK whem MS does it, isn't it?
The judge you get on the day, the jury, how well the lawyers convince the jury to see things their way, what the judge allows and disallows, what the various appeals processes rule, the politicians you buy to change the law at the last moment, all of those change it from absolute certainty to something much hazier.
So what you're saying is that Slashdot discussion on these issues is ultimately a lot more useful than the law? I think we all knew that.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
Forgot about that, MS are a part of a contract (Novell being the other party, or, according to MS's theory, Novell's customers) which makes them a party to the distribution, even though they don't make a copy: they are conveying what they purport to be their IP along with the vouchers. NOT like a coffee shop selling on books that they bought retail. Oh, and a point from GL: if Novell cannot create the copies for the MS vouchers then MS is requiring a copyright violation of Novell. That is classic contributory infringement. It would be like the coffee shop buying unlicensed copies of books from a printers when they knew they had no license to print them, then selling them on.
And, of course, PJ is NAL. She is not licensed in any jurisdiction to practice law...
Did you actually read the Groklaw article?
"The whole point that PJ has been going on about are Microsoft's little coupons. She is under the impression that issuing a coupon is the same thing as distributing"
No, there is no 'impression' here, the issue is that GPL 3 specifically refers to propagating and conveying not just distributing, as such it most certainly applies to MS coupons.
"This is an extremely tenuous position, for the simple fact that Microsoft hasn't copied anything. A coupon is a method for a third party to step in and facilitate payment between a seller and a buyer"
It is most certainly a tenuous position, but only for Microsoft. Lets read what GPL 3 actually says about propagate and convey:
'To "propagate" a work means to do anything with it that, without permission, would make you directly or secondarily liable for infringement under applicable copyright law, except executing it on a computer or modifying a private copy. Propagation includes copying, distribution (with or without modification), making available to the public, and in some countries other activities as well'
'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'
"In shory, GPLv3 can say anything it wants, but it falls under copyright law, and if I don't copy, I can't infringe. No version of the GPL can define what constitutes making a copy - only the law can do that"
But if YOU use GPL code then YOU are bound by the license, regardless of what a MS lawyer might say.
was: Coupons do not make for distribution (Score:3, Insightful)
davecb5620@gmail.com
Microsoft gives money to Novell to distribute software. Novell distributes GPL3. Microsoft can not distribute software. Novell keeps the money. Novell sues Microsoft for not following up on their contract. Microsoft coplies and releases all their software under GPL.
Ok, the last two steps are imagination.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
With the GPLv3 I have to wonder if Microsoft expected this and have been working towards a courtroom confrontation. Microsoft have been keeping the 200 or so patent infringements of Linux secret when they could've gone to court at any time (chances are they'd eventually win, it's extremely unlikely that all the violations would be able to be proved to be invalid over) which would give them free reign to sue any company that has been using or distributing the code (doesn't matter if offending code is removed after the ruling, they'd still have used illegal code at some point). The main reason they haven't done this so far is the sheer logistics of sueing so many companies and the fact it'd be a PR nightmare. But what if Microsoft's hand was "forced"? If MS were taken to court over GPLv3 they'd almost certainly bring up the patents, possibly as a defence, possibly to countersue. They could/would be perceived as having no choice but to bring up the infringed code. Worst case scenario (for the OSS movement) is that Microsoft argue that infringing code is owned by them and isn't covered by the GPL so they're free to licence it (and the vouchers only cover the infringing code), MS win the case, proceed to sue everyone to maximise to effect of their patents. Best case scenario is that MS lost the case, have to pay damages and stop the novel deal but with their patents exposed they'd still go around and sue everyone. As you've probably guessed, I'm no lawyer but seems that's what I would see happening. OSS vs MS seems a bit like a mini cold war. Both sides have weapons which although not powerful enough to actually wipe each other out, would do some extremely heavy damage to each side.
Oh this seems to be like an epic war. M$ vs GPL !
Chris ,
Php Programmers.
Does anyone really want to look at Windows source code? I mean, it would be like gawking at a traffic accident, viewing an autopsy, walking through a plane crash site, touring a slaughterhouse. It would be fascinating and sickening at the same time. Some things are just not meant to be seen in public.
What are your thoughts on Obama?
There may also be the issue of willful infringement (probably not the correct legal term, but bear with me). Basically, you might legal damages owed in court if you can demonstrate "we thought we were in the clear" vs "we knew we were bastards." So statements about how GPL3 doesn't apply may be about mitigating future damages for the price of a piece of paper.
>Besides, if it turns out that some convoluted trickery in the GPL really does wind up
>costing Microsoft some money, is that "innovation" worth taking pride in?
Tnat has never been the intention of GPL.
Only a screeching moron would say that...
Microsoft just needs to force novel to offer a package that conforms to the microsoft deal that does not have the gpl3 code in it. Then novel can offer a free upgrade to gpl3 software.
Or they could require the receiptient to sign something that indicates novel will honor the GPL 3 portions of the contract and Microsoft has nothing to do with it.
Microsoft can redistribute new ones to its customers that already recevied them and say that the other ones are now void with the release of the glp 3. offering refunds to those that wont take the new offer.
Or novel can present them with a updated or current version when the customer does go to turn them in.
Im a gamer, not a grammer major. This post is full of spelling and grammer mistakes.
"Not an actor, but he plays one on TV."
What is the worst possible thing that can happen to Microsoft, in this scenario? They can wind up licensing their patents that cover Linux, to GPLed software. They'd still have their patents for all other purposes.
What's so bad about that? Lots of companies license patents for various reasons. Microsoft made a deal with Novell, got vouchers it could sell to defray some of the costs, and sold some of the vouchers. They aren't being forced to give away anything without consideration, since they presumably make money on the voucher sales.
Does passing the vouchers out count as distributing? IANAL (although I pontificate like one on Slashdot), but the FSF does have good lawyers who believe it to be the case. Microsoft's reaction looks to me like a company caught with a hand in the cookie jar rather than a company doing nothing wrong, so it appears to me that the FSF and Microsoft agree that Microsoft is not in the clear.
What does this mean for Microsoft? It means that they may lose the ability to sue people and companies associated with Linux for patent violations. Now, it seems to me vanishingly unlikely that Microsoft was going to sue in any case, as that would result in the patent equivalent of a nuclear war, with a nuclear winter that would possibly result in nobody being able to sell any software less than 20 years old in the US. As far as practical legal action goes, this means nothing to Microsoft.
So why is Microsoft concerned? The only reason I can see is the Microsoft anti-Linux FUD campaign. Microsoft wanted to establish the idea that only certain people who paid Microsoft could use Linux safely, and the rest were liable to be sued at any moment. If this looks less likely, there's less anti-Linux FUD. Whatever else the FSF has accomplished, they've obviously put Microsoft on the defensive, which is exactly where a company doesn't want to be while distributing FUD.
What does this indicate about Microsoft's long-term future? Microsoft at least believes it is in trouble, as seen from its actions. A software company that thinks it can compete with its software doesn't, in general, threaten with patents. Companies that do that are normally on the way down. There is also the threat that the EU will force Microsoft to open up its interfaces (or lose far too much business in the EU for the shareholders to tolerate), at which point anybody can write software that directly competes with Microsoft's.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Currently, they're ranked #4 in market cap, at $281 Billion USD. They used to be somewhat higher back around 2000/01, IIRC they used to fight for #1 with GE. I think what happened is a combination of their share price slipping a bit, and a dramatic rise in petrochemical/energy stocks in the past few years. (Note #1 is Exxon-Mobil.)
Just to put that figure in perspective, AT&T is #7 at $255, Wal-Mart is #13 at $197B, Cisco is #21 at $169B.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
The only reason any politician would ever break up Microsoft would be if they thought they could somehow capitalize on its demise, and I don't see any reason why that's possible.
Stallman for President 2008!
Get your Unix fortune now!
And even if they do get dragged into court will it matter? Did anything real happen after US DOJ convicted them of antitrust? (For that matter, did anything happen to anyone in the GWB admin after lying to justify the invasion of a sovereign country for monetary gain?)
IMHO the only thing that will ever make a difference is determined worldwide resistance to the use of Microsoft's products.
At its peak in early 2001, right before the beginning of the end, Enron had a market cap of $48B USD. While that's big by normal people's standards, it's only enough to have gotten them to #77 on the top-100 list at the time. (Source, from April 2001.) Enron employed 21,000 people prior to its collapse.
Microsoft, during the same period, was #2 at $370B, and today it's still $281B, almost six times larger than Enron was; Microsoft employs 71,000, or about 3.5 times as many people. Given that Enron's collapse is frequently described using words like "unprecedented" and "disastrous," and led directly to the one of the biggest changes in corporate securities law since the 1930s (Sarbanes-Oxley), not to mention the dismantlement of one of the nation's largest accounting forms (Arthur Anderson), a Congressional investigation, and jail time for most of the people responsible (except for Kenneth Lay, who had the good fortune to die first, to much applause), and speculation that its long-term effects would be greater than 9/11, I'm not sure I'd be so blasé.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Computer programmers have a hard enough time correctly and unambiguously specifying things (in languages designed not be ambiguous) to an interpreter that is merely indifferent and literal - a computer. It's possible that TeX is (now) bug-free, but I'm not aware of any significant program that hasn't had its share of bugs.
Lawyers have an even more difficult job. They have to specify things in inherently ambiguous natural languages[1] and the interpreters of their specifications can be, and frequently are, actively hostile to their intent.
I'm not saying that the general legal code couldn't be (heavily) cleaned up. (How about, for example, that for any law, ten randomly-selected people have to read it and summarize its effect in their own words? If at least 60% can't agree on what the law means, the law has to be rewritten to be less confusing.) But holding lawyers to a higher standard than programmers isn't helpful.
[1] One reason why legalese is so confusing to the layperson is that it has evolved away from normal language, and words have taken on different meanings. This helps to limit the ambiguity, at the cost of making much legalese unintelligible to people untrained in the lingo.
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
MS would not simply drop off the face of the earth. It might be split up into pieces. In that scenario, some of those pieces would survive. Others (like the entertainment division) would fail.
As far as the investors are concerned, the concept is known as investment risk. The threat of serious anti-trust action has been on the table FOR YEARS. Every single shareholder has either bought shares knowing that risk, or had the opportunity to sell them. Stock is not a guaranteed investment by any means. If someone's portfolio is not sufficiently diversified, they deserve whatever happens as a result.
No matter what happens, the money will not "disappear", it will simply go elsewhere. New opportunities would emerge. For every dollar that MS loses, there is probably two dollars to be made in the development of alternative technologies. I suppose MS might pay a massive fine (in the billions) in lieu of a breakup. If that happens, they are simply reducing everyone else's taxes. A substantial fine would ultimately impact the stock price. Ditto for a breakup. In any event, the people who financed the business practices would be paying the price. I see nothing wrong with that.
> Now, saying that Microsoft is at all liable for anything under GPLv3 is like saying that J.K Rowling could claim the cafe is violating her copyright. I don't need J.K. Rowling's permission to give out coupons for her book, because my cafe didn't copy it. The publisher/bookseller (I'm lumping them together to make the analogy simpler) copied it. The publisher/bookseller is is the party that needs permission to copy the book, not me. I'm just acting as a mediator to bring together someone who is licensed to sell the book with people who want the book.
Right, but say those were pirated copies of Harry Potter and you knew that. Do you think you could get away with selling those coupons (remember, SLES vouchers are sold, not given away) and claim that, although you knew that the copies were illegal, you're not at fault? Because that's what's happening here: Microsoft knows that the discriminatory patent pledge makes the copies of Suse it procures illegal if they contain GPLv3 software. That patent pledge is between Microsoft and the voucher-holder, not Novell, too, so Novell is the middle man here, not Microsoft.
Secondary liability for infringement, the same sort that sunk various P2P sites when they knowingly profited off the copyright infringement done by their users, is what puts Microsoft on the hook here. Distribution is NOT the only thing copyright law covers, folks! It's all the GPLv2 cared about, mostly because no one anticipated Microsoft's crazy legal trick. But once they studied that trick, they decided that the GPLv3 had to cover more, and therefore it had to care about secondary liability for copyright infringement. Honestly, that won't matter to anyone not trying to pull crazy tricks, but it's just enough to throw a monkey wrench into Microsoft's voucher plan.
No one is claiming that Microsoft is doing the copying. Your analogy is spot on for a GPLv2 distribution, save that the vouchers/coupons are being sold (but the "books" are legal for GPLv2). But this is why the rules have changed. And yes, copyright law really, honestly does cover that.
Mind you, IANAL, but I have read Groklaw a bit more carefully than most.
Quoth the AC: "What are your thoughts on Obama?"
To be honest I don't really have a strong opinion either way; although I'm probably best described as a libertarian, I'm a registered Republican and plan on voting in that primary. To that end, I've been paying more attention to the Republican candidates than the Democratic ones.
That said, based on what I've seen of him (which isn't insignificant; apparently the media thinks he's Jesus Christ with a tan) he seems far and away to be the most interesting candidate in the running. His foreign policy seems well-reasoned and sane, and I don't get the impression that he would be as much into appeasement as some of the others in his party. In terms of his domestic policy, I don't really have a firm grasp on what his overarching political philosophy is -- but then again, I haven't read any of his books, either. He seems to support free markets and has some people I respect working as his economic advisors, which is always a good sign.
Ultimately though, I find it unnerving that there's scant mention of individual liberties as a primary motivation for policies. That gives me significant pause, because the reason I'm willing to support someone like Ron Paul, who I occasionally disagree with but like anyway, is because I think he's fundamentally driven, or at least constrained, by a desire to protect individual rights and freedoms. Obama, in contrast, seems to be looking for a 'positive outcome' [1], and it's not immediately clear whether or how far he's willing to sacrifice individual rights in order to achieve certain outcomes. While his intentions may be good, there's a reason why the road to hell is said to be paved by them. By not guaranteeing my personal liberties up front, he's asking for a lot more faith than I'm prepared to give to anyone.
That said, he's far and away least frightening of the Democratic candidates (Edwards, with all the Marxist class-warfare rhetoric, seems like a real loose cannon) and I think that's his major advantage. I sincerely hope he can keep himself from self-destructing, because I really think that's about all he has to fear.
[1] "[W]e should be asking ourselves what mix of policies will lead to a dynamic free market and widespread economic security, entrepreneurial innovation and upward mobility [...] we should be guided by what works," from Wikipedia.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
You forgot, didn't you? The Novell / Microsoft deal has the pledge between the voucher-holder and Microsoft, with Novell out of the picture, because they'd run afoul of the GPLv2 otherwise. Now, Novell is explicitly allowed to continue distribution here because of the grandfather clause, otherwise yes, they would run into trouble.
So if someone turns in a voucher for GPLv3 code, who is the primary infringer? It seems to me that it'd be the voucher-holder. But the FSF has absolutely no interest in making trouble for them, so they'd go after the source of the problem: Microsoft and it's discriminatory software patent pledge. If they make that universal instead of discriminatory, the legal problems vanish (but so does their FUD).
IANAL, but the more I think it through, the more I understand how clever the FSF was at turning Microsoft's trick on its head. They used the trick that allowed Microsoft to step out of the picture to target only Microsoft instead of dragging Novell further into it.
After all, why would they get rid of the voucher program if they didn't think it would really cause them any legal problems?
The protections Microsoft is providing are against infringement of their patents. Is this infringement retroactive?
For example, if Microsoft is issued a patent for something that has been in common use for over 30 years (such as the technology of sudo that they patented a few years ago), did all the people who used that technology for the past 30 years prior to its being patented infringe Microsoft's patent retroactively?
How far can they go back? Is there a statute of limitations on retroactive infringement? What if everyone regarded the technology involved as being too obvious to patent? Would we still have to pay?
Are the Microsoft lawyers who interpret GPL3 the same ones who apply for their patents? We should all be very worried.
I see a lot of non-lawyers confused by the fact that copyright law covers more than just distribution. People seem to be of the mind that, because the GPLv2 only cares about distribution, that's all it CAN cover. Not so.
You can say that people need your permission to do things that would incur secondary liability for copyright infringement, too. That's what the GPLv3 is doing, and that's why the GPLv3 poses a threat to Microsoft that they're trying to mitigate with this announcement. Because if no one turns in a voucher for GPLv3 code, Microsoft has nothing to worry about.
Copyright law is ridiculously broad, folks. The GPL really can cover more than just distribution, it just never had a reason to until now. The GPLv3 isn't more powerful because it came up with new terms. It's more powerful because it's using more of copyright law to achieve its ends. So I'll go with the lawyers, like Eben Moglen, on this one. Not you.
So the FSF now wants to sue people for copyright infringement whether they've ever so much as been in possession of a copy of the material in question?
Welcome to the death of open source...
What does this GPLv3 mess mean for retailers? When GPLv3 makes its way into retail boxes, can I go in to a store and demand to be provided with a copy of all GPLv3 sources for every piece of GPLv3 code on their shelves? I was under the impression that copyright law prevented retailers from being required to abide by such licensing (the company that boxed it is the distributor)...
And that brings us to the McDonald's Defense. These vouchers are roughly equivalent to McDonald's gift certificates. Suppose I buy a bunch of gift certificates, give some to my daughter, she sells some to her friend, and they redeem the certificates. Have any of us thereby 'conveyed' hamburgers? Is the kitchen in my house now subject to Health Department regulations on restaurants, or McDonald's quality guidelines on its franchisees?
Further suppose that someone sells stolen meat to the restaurant where these gift certificates are redeemed. Does that make me, my daughter, and her friend guilty of some crime, even though we have no knowledge that it was happening when we 'abetted' it?
Eben Moglen says the way he enforces the GPL is to tell the violator that they're breaking copyright law. How would MS selling Novell vouchers violate anyone's copyright? A 'contributory' theory requires an actual violation to which the voucher somehow 'contributes'. And if somehow a judge can be persuaded that these vouchers contribute to copyright violations, Gates is going to have a field day talking about how viral the GPL is.
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.