Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Excludes GPLv3 From Linspire Deal

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the v3-is-a-hard-sell dept.

rs232 writes to tell us that Microsoft is excluding any software licensed under the new GPLv3 from their recent patent protection deal with Linspire. "Microsoft has since been treating GPLv3 software as though it were radioactive. 'Microsoft isn't a party to the GPLv3 license and none of its actions are to be misinterpreted as accepting status as a contracting party of GPLv3 or assuming any legal obligations under such license,' the company said in a statement released shortly after GPLv3 was published on June 29. In addition to excluding GPLv3 software from the Linspire deal, Microsoft recently said that it wouldn't distribute any GPLv3 software under its SUSE Linux alliance with Novell, even as it maintains in public statements that the antilawsuit provisions in the license have no legal weight. "

4 of 342 comments (clear)

  1. Re:So what? by BlueParrot · · Score: 5, Informative

    GPL 3 creates what in essence is a walled garden. If you GPL 3 your code, you're putting it into that garden.
    That is exactly the point. If you don't like it you can always use a license like the X11 license and permit anyone to do whatever they want with your code. The GPL is all about protecting the rights of the user by limiting the restrictions a developer may impose. This includes copyright, DRM, patents etc... The restrictions apply only if you choose to accept the license, which you only have to do if you want to modify or redistribute the program. In fact, the license explicitly gives you the permission to use the program without recognising the license.

    9. Acceptance Not Required for Having Copies. You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program. Ancillary propagation of a covered work occurring solely as a consequence of using peer-to-peer transmission to receive a copy likewise does not require acceptance. However, nothing other than this License grants you permission to propagate or modify any covered work. These actions infringe copyright if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or propagating a covered work, you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so.
    The bottom line is that if you want other developers to be able to prevent users from doing this or that with the program, the GPL is not for you. The GPL is NOT about giving developers the greatest freedom possible ( that would be public domain or BSD-style licensing ) the GPL is about defending the USER. In particular it is about defending his/her right to run, study, modify and redistribute the program. Patents and DRM-style lockdowns are attacks against these rights, which is why they are dissalowed.
  2. Re:So what? by NickFortune · · Score: 4, Informative

    Look, Microsoft is not an "Open Source" software company. Neither they, nor anyone else ... are obligated to distribute software under GPLv3

    Which is true as far as it goes. The missing detail is the vouchers MS have been selling for SUSE Linux which have no expiry date. This means that, in principle, if anyone redeems such a voucher for a copy of SLES, and if that collection contains any code licenced under GPLv3 at the time they redeem the voucher, then there's a chance MS may be held to account under the terms of GPLv3.

    Now whether that will stand up in a court of law or not is another matter. Eben Moglen and RMS seem to think so, since they wrote the new licence to allow the MS-Novell pact specifically for this reason. But like I say, we won't know for sure until it's tested in court.

    On the other hand it seems reasonably certain that Microsoft sees some legal exposure there, or they wouldn't be making such a fuss. Because for all they talk as if the licence poses no threat to them, they are nevertheless backing away from it at every opportunity.

    The thing is that if the GPLv3 does apply, then anyone they sue for patent violation hereafter is going to be able to claim that Microsoft licenced the patent for their use - else they had no right to distribute in the first place. That too will need to be tested in court, but again it seems that Microsoft are taking the threat seriously.

    So that's "so what". It's not Microsoft don't use GPLv3 and we think they should.

    It's more a case of MS may already be using GPLv3 which makes them a lot less scary.

    Hope that helps, have a nice day.

    --
    Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
  3. Re:So what? by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Informative

    There's already a fork - samba-tng - and we don't know what's happening to that yet.

    Uh, yeah we do. According to its Wikipedia entry, it's pretty much dead. It's at version 0.4.99, which was released almost two years ago, and apparently hasn't had more than "minimal" development since it was forked:

    Samba TNG was forked in late 1999...

    Since 2000, development on Samba TNG has been minimal...

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  4. purpose served, project ended by r00t · · Score: 4, Informative

    Samba had been encoding/decoding network packets in a very manual way, with a collection of ugly macros to do the job. Samba-TNG was forked largly to switch over to doing RPC via IDL (an Interface Devinition Language, which gets processed at build time to produce *.c stub/wrapper functions to do the marshalling and unmarshalling).

    The main Samba team learned their lesson. They switched to an IDL for Samba 4. Samba-TNG has been a very close clone of the Microsoft implementation, warts included. Samba 4 is far better.

    Thus Samba-TNG has served it's purpose: teach the Samba developers that IDL is a good idea. Done. Mission accomplished.