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."
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.
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.
I hope Novell escapes from this wiser and embraces freedom-based principles more. They have a lot of good employees and industry power, so the work they do can really make a difference in a struggle like this. They've chosen to be used as a counter-example instead, but I hope it results in a lesson learned and not a lot of careers ruined. Microsoft can market it to convince most people they're in the right, and somehow it's the FOSS people's fault. Novell can't really do that, so they have to issue a public apology for their devil worship, or continue their decline into the fiery pits of hell.
Sam ty sig.
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
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.
I'm hoping Novell survives this, and furthermore takes every opportunity to deride Microsoft and counter their FUD, within the limits of their contract.
Software patents delenda est.
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
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.
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;
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.
This is quite possibly the most on-topic offtopic post _ever_
Cheers.
This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
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."
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."
I disagree. Novell does have some pretty neat products, and it would be a shame to see them die. You can be pretty damn certain that if Microsoft does drag Novell down with this, their products will disappear into a digital black hole rather than being open sourced.
Well, I certainly wish Novell no ill, what with all their contributions, both technical and otherwise (they probably will be the ones that finally crush SCO, before IBM gets a chance from that judge).
But it seems PJ and many people here is hoping Microsoft will be found to have distributed copyrighted works on account of those vouchers. As I see things, the only possible way one could argue the vouchers are distribution would be under some sort of contributory infringement theory---the kind of liability you would have if, for instance, you distribute coupons that some pal of yours will redeem for pirated software. You're liable even if you're not distributing, because you're contributing to the infringement by your pirate friend.
Under US law, contributory infringement requires direct infringement by some other party. So, in this case I think Microsoft can only be held liable is Novell is liable too. The direct infringement would be Novell's, and Microsoft would be contributing to it. That sounds like an awfully weak theory to me, but never mind that, my point is that hoping Microsoft will be infringing copyright implies that Novell will be in an even worse position. Which is effectively "hoping Microsoft drags Novell down into the muck", as the GP said.
Now, I don't give a rat's ass about Microsoft patents, so Novell taking some millions from them to "license" those to their customers is perfectly fine with me. More power to them, who cares. But people here seems to be implying that Novell's covenant was a big fucking sin, so ugly and despicable that we shouldn't feel any kind of gratitude for them, that there's nothing morally wrong if they get hurt, backstabbed by the very community that Novell is protecting from SCO.
I think that is disgusting. But hey, this is probably just me.
Wait wait wait wait - MS gives their software for free - at least it's free from the point of view of anyone buying a windows pre-installed computer. THAT is where the large user base comes from - first-time users!
No, no sig. Really.
ThePromenader
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
Yeah, I can't understand why anyone would want to deal with Novell either.
BTW, doesn't it seem kind of lame and pathetic that the entire point of GPL3 was to "get" Microsoft? Seems like the FOSSies need to concern themselves more with what they are doing, and less with what Microsoft is doing. But I guess maybe the idea is that maybe, just maybe, rather than having to catch up to Microsofts tail lights, they can slow down Microsoft enough that it gives Lunix the illusion of catching up.
Lots of luck on that one, guys. Lunix still hasn't caught up to Windows 95, and MS hasn't exactly been doing nothing for the last 12 years.