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:Microsoft Vouchers

[soulhuntre]

Funny how hard it is to take seriously anyone who uses the term "Microshit" in their analysis as if its witty or relevant.

OT: Obama

[Kadin2048]

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.