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!
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
You're completely alone in that feeling, as I'm sure a significant number of slashdot'ers are about to confirm.
- The Kessel run is for nerf herders. I can circumnavigate the entire Central Finite Curve in a lot less than 12 parse
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.
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.
Exactly, I personally hope everyone that gets entangled with Microsoft finds a way out of it - just like I did.
Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
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'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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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."
You make it sound like M$ is a drug.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
Perhaps people sleep sometime? Don't know where you are, but between 0001 and 0600 I tend not to be on my computer.... Just a guess.
Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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 I want to see Karma occur but I do want to see Novell pick them selves back up afterwards.
Yeah, I pretty much hate Microsoft's OS...and their business practices really suck...but their stranglehold on the industry is finally weakening.
What I'd really like to see happen is that Microsoft actually starts legitimately competing to hold onto its market share... Starts turning out a quality product... Makes Windows less of a headache to deal with... Makes Office appealing for reasons other than "we have to buy it because everything is in Word format."
Unlikely, I know... But anyone who can help point them towards the light deserves credit.
"Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
It sounds to me like Novell was smarter than everyone gave them credit for in this deal.
Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
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."
As I said at the bottom of my post, that may very well be true in the US, as well as presently in Croatia.
However, I remember the old days, when the software was not in the least cheaper than now, and my contact lenses cost as much as my mother earned in a month.
Amazingly enough, at that time virtually no-one ever bothered whether the software was paid for or not. PCs were sold with DOS and/or Windows, but unless you'd asked for it specifically, it was just something some tech would install as a freebie. I cannot say whether this was intentional on MS's part, but I do notice they're reaping all the benefits.
As for pre-installed software, I see many people believing it's free. I'm buying a laptop these days; having done some research some weeks ago, I decided on IBM/Lenovo T60p, as it was one of the very few models available without Windows preinstalled, and it was rated rather well in the Gentoo wiki. Tough: no longer in stock, anywhere in Croatia, at least the model without Windows. So now I'm getting a MacBook Pro; OS X I don't mind paying for, as it is something I will actually use (though in a dual boot). I'm not paying the MS tax ever again.
Ignore this signature. By order.
If this whole thing was infact a con on Novell's part, it's not as if Novell could clue everyone into the caper. For the con to work, they would need to look like a willing dupe and be subject to all of our derision.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
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
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.
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."
Nothing of this will happen while Microsoft is still ruled by bean counters that measure success exclusively in shareholder satisfaction. I'm sure the creative folks within MS want to innovate, but they are stuck within a nightmarish management hierarchy which allows for nothing but the lowest common denominator being decided upon and implemented.
MS is too oldschool in their strategies, and too large to manage itself. They have to restructure, and do it soon, if they want to compete by any other measure than pure market capitalization.
Want to hear the voice of GOD? cat
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!
> 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.
It is a common belief that this strategy works well. Look at DirecTV. It is believed that DirecTV knowingly allowed their technology to be compromised for years to create the largest user base they could. Then when they have millions of people using the technology they curtail the signal thieves. At that point a lot of them will just subscribe because they have the setup and are used to it. Certainly very many of them just started doing the same theft with the competitor Dish Network but for the most part they retain or gain a lot of legitimate customers.
It is unfortunate that this same strategy cannot work for Linux.
All points of time and space are connected.
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 completely agree with the unnecessary hatred towards Novell. In fact, I wish /. didn't exist in such a mob mentality with regards to it; I mean, for a site where the greatest number of people see themselves as libertarians, it is both ironic and sad that no one seems to think for themselves about this issue.
But also, I don't think this is about Microsoft being found guilty of infringement. I believe that what a lot of people are (rightfully) salivating over is because Microsoft will be conveying GPLv3 code, Microsoft's claims of "patent infringement" by Linux will be rendered moot. And for that, if that eventuality was Novell's purpose for this agreement, another laurel should be given to Novell.
It has been a nervous year, with people beginning to feel like Christian Scientists with appendicitis.
Edwards, with all the Marxist class-warfare rhetoric, seems like a real loose cannon
Edwards biggest problem is not that he's got Marxist rhetoric... Dick Gephardt had a long distinguished career despite being a lifelong one-noter with the class-warfare rhetoric. Edwards biggest problem is that he's, to put it bluntly, an idiot. Or more precisely: an empty suit with nice hair. In fact, I bet if his hair ran alone, it would poll higher than every candidate except maybe Clinton and Giuliani. People will come to their senses and reject Edwards for being the smarmy, vacuous snake-oil salesman he is, just as they rejected Howard Dean for being an insane loud-mouth.
Obama's biggest problem is that the Presidency is not an entry-level+1 position, and he's trying to bypass all that "accumulating experience and political stature" before he acquires enough baggage to compromise his chances. A lot of people like him, primarily because he's charismatic good looking and a good speaker, and let's face it, he's getting a lot of mileage out of the race factor even though it should be irrelevant (but I don't begrudge him that). Charisma and appearance are important criteria for a President, and it's not an indictment of the shallowness of Americans to say so, our President is the face of the U.S. to the whole world, and he _should_ be able to present himself well. But when it comes to real details and the nitty-gritty of what he would actually do as President, we just don't have enough to go on yet.
I heard Ron Paul him on C-Span and read up on his website and I think he's great, but it's his supporters that give me pause... anyone who attracts the sort of rabid, obsessive types (just look at all the comment spam they commit) that Ron Paul does makes me wonder what I might be missing about him. Nevertheless, he seems to be truly principled, which sets him apart from every other candidate of both major parties (and probably most of the minor ones too). Everything he says seems to reinforce his practice of the core beliefs he states, even when those things are unpopular or easy to misunderstand.
I'd vote for Ron Paul, but at this point I don't think he has a chance, because unlike every other Republican and all the Democrats, he would represent real change.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
I feel truly sorry for the engineers and developers that have poured their heart and soul into their software, only to have some executives with MBAs sell them out for an extra wing on the McMansion, a new yacht, and probably move on to another company.
"When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon
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.
Sounds like Microsoft is "conveying" GPL code to me, but methinks a judge will have to decide.
"When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon
Doesn't even sound remotely like that. They're not propagating or conveying anything but vouchers. The entirety of the transaction happens via Novell. Note the second sentence, if mere interaction with a user through a computer network, with no transfer of a copy, is not conveying, why would mere interaction with a user through some other means, with no transfer of a copy, be?
I think you aren't understanding the situation.
If Novell is guilty of copyright violation in the distribution of GPL3 software, it will be because they software was covered by patents that they knew about, and didn't have the right to allow others to redistribute. If this is the case, then they knowingly exposed other people to legal danger, and therefore deserve to be punished.
If Novell is not guilty, then either they didn't know about the patents, or they had the right to distribute. Novell's claim is that they don't know of any valid MS patents that cover the GPL software that they distribute.
If MS is endangered by the GPL3, it will be because of some part of the MS-Novell agreement that isn't public knowledge. As such, they will deserve to lose any benefit from hidden patents.
My suspicion is that Novell is being honest, and that MS is engaged in a massive FUD project. Nevertheless, to protect myself I do not intend to purchase from Novell or MS, or to use any recent Novell software, including mono, until this is resolved. I hope that Novell got LOTS of money from MS, but I don't care enough to re-examine the public parts of the deal.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
The goal isn't to hurt Microsoft legally. The goal is to get Microsoft to further weaken any patent cases. Essentially, the patent situation is thus:
Microsoft has 200+ patents they claim Linux infringes on.
In response, Linux has the following counters:
1) Microsoft itself likely infringes on a non-zero number of Open Innovation Network patents
2a) Many Microsoft patents cover obvious things.
2b) Many Microsoft patents are invalid due to prior art.
3) If we knew what the patents were, we could avoid some of them.
Linux supporters can plan to use (2) to try to obviate MS patents, while using (3) to get around a few of the patents, and (1) to have ammo to fight MS back with.
The GPL3 Microsoft-Novell thing gives Linux supporters a 4th weapon:
4) If MS "conveys" or "distributes" GPLv3 software, it waives its right to patent claims against people who use that software.
This defense, (4), works great if MS can somehow be proven to "convey" or "distribute" something like Samba or NTFS-3g or Mono under the GPL3, because it takes a dozen MS patent claims off the market in one fell swoop.
Sorry I feel like I need to capitalize and bold it because you don't seem to understand what loophole GPLv3 was designed to close (this exact one).
"When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon
If I give you a piece of paper that says "Get X here", I have not propagated X. Let's be clear, the GPL cannot restrict your ability to inform / disclose / encourage a certain thing. The voucher is not the product. That it could be redeemed for the product does not make it so, either. If your brother tells you of the voucher, and you get it, by your logic, he has "enabled propagation". This is laughable.
With due respect and all, but it seems to me that you are the one who doesn't get it. The language in the new GPL is irrelevant, it does not matter what the GPL says, unless Microsoft is bound by it. The only way Microsoft can be bound by the GPL is if they distributed GPLed software, where "distributing" is defined by copyright law, not the GPL itself.
Microsoft didn't distribute GPLed software, just vouchers. As such, and as I said, I believe the only way Microsoft could be held to have distributed, as far as copyright law goes, is under some theory of contributory infringement, where Novell is a direct infringer. In other words, if you get sued by Microsoft for patent infringement, and you intend to use GPLv3 as a defense, then you must argue that Novell is infringing copyright, because otherwise the GPL doesn't bind Microsoft.
Or, in yet another form: if Novell does not infringe, then Microsoft can't be contributing to any infringement, hence it is not distributing and is not bound by the GPL. No matter how and how many times the GPL defines "conveyance" or whatever.
I'd equate it more to a ball and chain. What's worse is that MS is trying to hamstring the industry by injecting cheap severely cut drugs (cut with potentially harmful chemicals) into the veins of the open source industry.
I don't care about any of those companies that signed an agreement. I would rather have not had anyone sign, especially since the OSS industry has been so set against it from the beginning.
Now I'm hoping they all just shrivel up and die, including Linspire.
There are enough distros and enough reward to have others fill the small cut when they do finally drop dead.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
Novell lost much of their relevance in the IT world before I graduated. Though I've heard great things about ZenWorks - but AFAICT it's rather more expensive than a Windows Server AD infrastructure and doesn't do quite as much.
There's three problems with opensourcing something like that:
1. Any company that is dying probably has higher priorities than open sourcing their products.
2. They may not own enough rights on all the code to opensource it.
3. If they're dying, they could well get bought out by someone like Microsoft with a view to either selling off assets or simply closing down competition. Even if Microsoft didn't do it directly, I wouldn't put it past them to finance someone else to do their dirty work like they did with SCO.
Yeah, except Novell made money and sales from MS's FUD _to their own product_. They use code from other companies under the GPL and sold them out (their suppliers! talk about suicide), without even consulting with those copyright holders as to whether it violated the GPL, like the FSF and IBM. They established a huge precedent for MS that you see with Linspire and Xandros. The MS-Novell marketing budget involved FUD towards Red Hat and the May 2007 Fortune magazine article about patents in Linux. The FSF threw a wrench in that plan.
Yeah..the GPLv3 wasn't already in Draft 2 while Novell and MS were plotting to take on the free world. Idjit.
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)...
The GPLv3 only applies if you distribute the code directly. You fail to understand copyright law, apparently. By your logic, a finance company is held to the GPL if they pay for a Dell computer with Linux installed for you (hire purchase). In real life, are they? Hell no. Why is this? Because no agreement to ANY license is required unless you distribute the code itself (and even then, ONLY if you have to make copies to do so. First Sale doctrine says you can distribute without a license if you are the first recipient of a legal product).
I think the FSF and Groklaw are both horribly deluded in this matter. I'm not a lawyer, but by damn if they actually believe in what they're saying, THEIR lawyers need to be DISBARRED!
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
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.
"When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon