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."

Comments

Re:What matters is enforceability

[jkrise]

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. To my knowledge, very few cases have enforced Microsoft's EULAs in a court of law, even though most of their clauses may not be legally tenable. Likewise the GPL has rarely been tested in a court of law, but that does not mean it is any less effective. Nobody is holding any gun to developer's heads, and yet, GPL is one of the most widely used licenses for software development, if not the most common one.

It is all about mindshare, not compliance or enforcement - and GPL is clearly winning the mindshare battle.

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. IBM is not Microsoft's only enemy by any stretch. Had it been so, SCO vs IBM should've ensured the death of Linux. IBM still maintains both strings to it's bow - Linux AND AIX. But the marketplace and MORE IMPORTANTLY the Developer community have adopted Linux and GPL in a big way. Visual Studio Express and free editions of many other s/w offerings indicates the growing mindshare of Free Software as a viable commercial model for developing and distributing software; and proprietary firms' changing tactics to counter this onslaught.

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. Going to a court of law to ensure antitrust compliance or even standards compliance is so '90s. The customer has already voted with his dollars for Free Software solutions, and even companies like Dell have woken up to this fact. Companies offering standards compliant, open source s/w under less restrictive licenses are growing in number as well as stature. GPL3 removes the threat of the patent sword hanging over customer's heads as well.

All in all, recent moves have clearly indicated that the GPL is really working, and achieving the stated objectives of the FSF. Kudos to Stallman, Moglen and co.

But *copyright law* still covers them!

[Xenographic]

> 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.

Re:Coupons do not make for distribution

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Clearly, Microsoft doesn't want this -- that's why they stopped selling them. If true, that is a very interesting point.

For all the wailing that distributing vouchers doesn't give MS any liability, if MS stopped distributing those vouchers prematurely, and not just prematurely, but about the time that this supposed liability became public knowledge, then that says one of two things:

1. Random corporate shit happened and it caused a halt to the voucher distribution, or...
2. Microsoft's lawyers believe that the vouchers DO have the potential to put enough liability on MS to really fuck them up.

My money is on #2. And I find it very humorous to think that the extremely expensive and super effective with the sneaky-tactics lawyering team at MS missed the problem in the first place and OKed the whole SuSE voucher sneakiness. They were trying to pull a dirty-tricks campaign by manipulating SuSE and they ended up hoist by their own petard. It's just amazing that MS would make that big of a tactical blunder.