Microsoft Excludes GPLv3 From Linspire Deal

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. "

Comments

Stallman

[timeOday]

he must be doing something right if Microsoft is shunning it.

So what?

[Frosty Piss]

Look, Microsoft is not an "Open Source" software company. Neither they, nor anyone else (including "Open Source" software companies), are obligated to distribute software under GPLv3. Indeed, contrary to popular beliefs, GPL is not the only real "Open Source" license.

Re:So what?

[Ohreally_factor]

Unless there's been a radical change in the last week, the Linux Kernel developers are eschewing GPL 3, saying it's a much worse license than GPL 2, which they consider to be a pretty good license. Most of their objections are due to the GPL 3's attempt to control hardware design and usage. The FSF has sent some squads to the LKML (Linux Kernel Mail List) to argue why the kernel developers "misunderstand", but so far I don't think they've convinced anyone, made any solid arguments, or overcome the kernel developers objections.

All the FSF can do is take the GNU/ userland GPL 3, but all the GNU/ tools up to that point are still GPL 2 and can be forked. On top of that, the BSD userland can be adapted to the Linux kernel. So I really don't see Linux going GPL 3, in whole or in part.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

The GNU/ tools up to that point are still GPL 2 and can be forked.

At enormous cost. Linux itself is just a kernel. The GNU toolchain outweighs it by a huge factor in terms of what actually makes a linux distro a linux distro, and the BSD userland is laughably inadequate compared to it.

I personally hope that as much as possible of the average linux distro goes GPLv3 as soon as possible. The mere fact microsoft is reacting so vehemently to it is an indication the GPLv3 gets something right.

Re:So what?

[Znork]

"On top of that, the BSD userland can be adapted to the Linux kernel."

Did you know, the BSD userland actually has a BSD kernel too (a whole bunch of them, in fact)?

I think we can safely conclude that anyone who wanted the BSD userland and BSD licensed kernel would, in fact, already be using BSD. And looking at the history of the unix wars we can draw some further conclusions about how the anything-goes approach plays out. The only ones who'd be interested in a repeat of that would be Microsoft or some aspireing semi-proprietary vendors who arent familiar with the pile of proprietary unices that fell at the roadside.

The fact is, the bigger participants in that round have been staunch supporters of the FSF's approach on GPLv3; both Sun and IBM appear to have learned the lessons of fractured markets and IP warfare. It creates many more losers than winners, and it damages the market as a whole - better then to live with an enforced level playing field where you compete on being the best, as opposed to being the best backstabber, where you compete on being the quickest, not the quickest to lauch lawsuits.

In the end, even tho the ability to deny others freedom can lead to short term benefits for one or a few players, in the long term the enforced market freedom creates a bigger pie for all players.

Re:So what?

[Ohreally_factor]

I think you're mixing up GPL 2 and GPL 3 there. Admit it, they are two very different licenses. GPL 2 is a quid pro quo license. You get, but you have to give back (if distributing binaries; if a user wants to modify the code for private use, there is nothing protecting other users from this "stinginess").

GPL 3 reaches past this (some would say overreaches), and controls attempts to control the hardware designs of the user. The GPL 3 is much more focused on the rights of certain users, shifting those rights away from other users and developers.

I totally agree with you that any given developer should careful examine all his licensing options and choose the license that is right for his or her project. GPL 3 is not going to be the right license for some GPL 2 projects and vice versa. For some, neither will be right, and perhaps the BSD is better suited.

Also, perhaps calling the GPL 3 a walled garden is unfair of me. A garden sounds like it's going to be small no matter what, and the GPL 3 doesn't and won't have any such physical constraints. Yet there is a wall there between it and GPL 2. A GPL 3 fork cannot be merged back with GPL 2 code.

Re:So what?

[mikelieman]

SAMBA. Not being able to package Samba is the kiss of death.

Re:So what?

[shura57]

What good is the naked kernel? For any user, kernel is a must, but so are the applications. If applications all go GPLv3 then good luck selling naked kernel.

Re:So what?

[Burpmaster]

The GPL 3 is much more focused on the rights of certain users, shifting those rights away from other users and developers. Huh? What 'other users'? A user is the person using the software/device. GPL3 protects the rights of owners. The manufacturer is not a owner once they sell it, and they certainly aren't the user.

Re:So what?

[DRJlaw]

"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."

No. The missing detail is that the vouchers do not specify the version of SUSE Linux that must be distributed, nor do they specify that it must be the latest version. Microsoft and Novell are free to amend the agreement between them, if it was at all ambiguous in the first place, to only cover versions of SUSE in existence prior to June 29, 2007, and/or versions of SUSE created after June 29, 2007 and not subject to GPLv3, and those buying the vouchers are out of luck.

Microsoft's public stance is quite rational. Customers buying vouchers prior to June 29, 2007 do not have a strong claim to fulfillment using newer versions of SUSE, and customers buying vouchers after the public announcement can no longer claim that they made the purchase with a reasonable belief that they would receive a version subject to GPLv3. Moreover, even if Novell ships a version of SUSE subject to GPLv3 in fulfilling a voucher request, Microsoft has virtually assured that such a distribution will not affect its patent rights, as Novell lacks both the actual and apparent authority to distribute GPLv3 code under the voucher program.*

GPLv3 zealots are hoping for a hook buried in the crunchy middle (the intervening 2-3 weeks since the introduction of GPLv3). While I'm not familiar with the operation of the voucher program, I would speculate that the probability of such code having worked its way into the distribution and actually been distributed through the voucher program prior to the announcement is very very low.

*This assumes that the private agreement between Microsoft and Novell, if it was at all ambiguous, was amended in response to GPLv3 to exclude patent indemnification for GPLv3-associated code.

Re:So what?

[RobBebop]

GPL 3 reaches past this (some would say overreaches), and controls attempts to control the hardware designs of the user.

If you consider the company that makes Tivo to be a "user", and not the people who are actually watching their digitally recorded television programs, then you would be correct in stating that the controls are over-reaching.

I prefer to view somebody who is using the device a user, though. The company making money off of it is simply a vendor.

And GPLv3 doesn't say "You cannot make money from selling your product" to the Tivo people. They say, "Play fair and share the innovative features that you added to the core software that you paid no money for."

The Tivo company has every right to keep selling hardware with its tailored software on it... as long as they give users the rights to change and continue to innovate it.

This makes it easier for Tivo competition, which would only need to design their own hardware and then run the same software as Tivo. This competition arises not from a "control" of the GPLv3, but because it isn't right for Tivo to "control" the 2% of code that they made to produce their box.

Why isn't there a "noshit" tag?

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

Why isn't there a "noshit" tag? The whole idea behind GPL3 was to keep Microsoft from license-protecting customers from lawsuits. Microsoft's main contention is that GPL2 allows them to do what they're doing. Why not just save room by posting a story that says "some old story, different day"?

Success!

[kebes]

Well, given that the GPLv3 was written specifically to make those "patent protection deals" untenable, this is a huge success for the GPLv3. Microsoft is essentially admitting that, legally, the GPLv3 does what it intends to do.

So, anyone who was bothered by the MS/Novell deal (and its variants) can and should encourage usage of GPLv3. Coders who want to prevent MS from using patent threats to splinter the community should consider adopting the GPLv3.

Since a certain number of important projects have already switched to GPLv3, this means that within a year or two the MS/Novell deal (and variants) will essentially disappear. As someone who was not happy with those deals in the first place, I say good riddance.

Darth Gates

[sconeu]

I have altered the deal, pray I don't alter it any further.

Re:Darth Gates

[Constantine XVI]

The same could be said about GPLv3
(see also: your own sig)

Re:An other example of GPL3 suckyness

[eclectro]

just a little bit become open source friendly then the rules change.

I think the rules changed when Microsoft (or the companies before them) started shaking down everyone with their patent portfolio. I would be more willing to take your side if Microsoft had the courtesy to tell everyone what patents linux was violating. As it stands, Microsoft is the king of suck, and I do not see this zebra changing it's stripes anytime soon.

Re:An other example of GPL3 suckyness

[ZeroPly]

I'm afraid you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how open source development happens.

Specifically, you are getting the cart before the horse. Company XYZ doesn't pick an arbitrary project from SourceForge and, strictly out of the goodness of their heart, task several paid programmers with working on it - with the goal of someday using it. Rather, they start using an existing product which is established (Linux, Apache, etc), and after heavy use realize that contributing to it is in their own best interest. Linux was successful BEFORE IBM invested a dime in it. Apache was successful before any corporation officially contributed a single line of code.

How exactly do you think corporations are going to "block" GPLv3 code? By the time the sofware is worth blocking, it has either gained a following or failed. If it already has a following, the only choice the corporation has is whether to jump on the bandwagon. 90% of corporations are USERS, not developers. GPLv3 makes absolutely no difference to my boss since he's not planning on redistributing any of the code. If 7Zip comes with GPLv3 rather than GPLv2, you really think he's going to skip on it and pay $40/license for WinZip?

Re:15 years ago:

[vux984]

It might be a very beautiful garden, but your code will never get out.

Not quite. You can take code out of the garden and modify it for personal/internal use, and you don't have to share those changes. You only have to put your modifications back into the garden if you redistribute them, and putting them back in the garden is the only way you are allowed to redistribute those changes.

This ensures that changes that are redistributed are available to the original authors, and the community at large. That 'walled garden' is always open, and anyone can use it.

Other licenses allow you to take code improve it, and then redistribute it in proprietary walled gardens that may restrict who can use it. Why would I want to contribute code to be used in someone elses proprietary walled garden... where one day I might be required to pay a license covering the code I wrote and contributed.

The only real objection Linus has...

[Anonymous Coward]

The only serious objection Linus has is over TiVo-ization. He thinks it should be OK.
He says he is angry that FSF is claiming to protect freedom while taking away a certain freedom from companies like TiVo.

But the freedom that FSF is taking away is the freedom to take away freedom from users of the software. Thanks you Linus, great protector of ... wha??

But keep in mind the politics that Linus has to deal with. There are many developers who would have to sign off on GPLv3. One of the biggies is Greg Kroah Hartmann of Novel, who owns the USB subsystem. Novel no doubt takes GPLv3 personally. Greg has actively tried to discourage even the "or any later version" clause from being included in kernel patches.

On top of that, even if everyone wanted to go GPLv3, they would have to track down hundreds of developers. So it's just easier for Linus to say no to GPLv3 in any case.

Re:An other example of GPL3 suckyness

[tkrotchko]

"that all any given Open Source project really represents is the right to have the source code AS IT EXISTS NOW."

What gives you any better choice?

When you buy Windows Vista, and you agree to the EULA, what exactly is it giving you the right to, except the license to run the binaries AS IT EXISTS NOW?

I "get" the purpose of GPL3. I "get" why companies like MS object to it. What I don't "get" is why this is an issue. The GPL2 is still there. BSD is still there. Apache is still there. Use those.

But implying that the GPL3 is taking something away from users is pretty silly. You know the score before you start... you get the candy for free, but you have to always share it with anybody who asks. If that's not okay, then don't use it! It doesn't limit your rights in any way.

Doesn't this fork *.everything?

[davek]

I still haven't made up my mind on GPLv3, but I was under the impression that it was designed to unite, not to fork.

If most F/OSS goes GPLv3, and simultaneously Microsoft denies GPLv3 bug still has a vested interest in Novell Linux, won't that just mean that MS will fork every open source project at the point where it switches to GPLv3? They'll create their own faux-communities loyal to the regime and play them off as open source, and the public will eat it up since they don't know any better. Those who believe in F/OSS as a philosophy and accept GPLv3 will be branded pinkos and commies by "commercial friendly" open source, and die a slow death...?

I sure hope I'm wrong.

Re:Doesn't this fork *.everything?

[vertinox]

I still haven't made up my mind on GPLv3, but I was under the impression that it was designed to unite, not to fork.

It was never that intention. GPLv3 was created solely to close the loopholes that many of the companies that were taking advantage of the GPLv2 in order to prevent their customers from gaining access from modifying the source. (aka "tivo-ization") in which vendors would simply deny modification of the source they were to provide by using another developers code under GPLv2 by adding hardware DRM.

Or in Microsoft's case by means of patents.

From my understanding there is nothing that compels any developer to upgrade from GPLv2 to GPLv3 unless you desire to use someone else's code that is being upgraded to GPLv3 with code changes (you are still free to hold on to their GPLv2 code without updating)

And the other main beef that people have is the "and later versions" clause in GPLv3, but you are free to remove that if you want as a developer of your own code (Not so much if you are using someone else's code! But no one is forcing to use other people's work instead of making you own!)

Re:pleading in the alternative

[gstoddart]

I'm not a lawyer, yet. .... This would be OK, becuase even though (d) seems to contradict (a), that doesn't automatically mean that (a) is invalid, even though BOTH statements can't be true at the same time. These are all alternative theories of how you might avoid blame/liability for the act, and in filing or responding to lawsuits, this practice is known as alternative pleading.

Well, thank you for demonstrating why legal stuff seems so damned asinine to the rest of us.

Sure, we can argue five different things, no two of which can be self-consistent, but as long as we can get someone to give us the go ahead on one of those, then we'll act like that was the truth and our position the whole time.

The press release reads like they're anticipating a lawsuit, and they're trying to get their story straight ahead of time... In this situation, their story is plausible deniability. and it doesn't matter which alternative theory ends up working, as long as one of them does the job.

Or, when you put conflicting statements in front of anyone but a bunch of lawyers, everyone else will call shenanigans and point out you were full of crap from the get go?

I mean ... "We're not bound by that license, and if we were, we're negating the terms of the deal which would make us bound by it, and by the way, you're all doody heads, and, hey, look, a unicorn". WTF?

I'm sure someone could post a boring explanation as to WHY you can argue several contradictory points. It would only serve to reinforce to me that law in this realm isn't so much about truth, as being able to convince someone that something might not actually be false (even though it clearly is). Sadly, I'm sure there's very good reasons why we need to have this in law. It just seems so ... bizarre!!

Cheers

3 problems: Samba, GNU Coreutils and Tar.

[strredwolf]

Don't they know that coreutils and tar form a good chunk of any Linux distribution? And Samba's used to talk to MS Windows?

Don't they know that those packages are GPL v3?

In other words, Microsoft ether has to rewrite those packages themselves, break the distro into an unusuable state, or drop any Linux deals.

Or give up on the patent saber rattling.

Re:pleading in the alternative

[hawk]

>I'm not a lawyer, yet.

But I am :)

This isn't legal advice. If you look to slashdot for legal advice, you need a shrink far worse than a lawyer.

The logical end of pleading in the alternative is referred to as "the Cheshire Cat" defense. Similar tol your list, it's to the effect that, "I wasn't there. If I was, I didn't do it. If I did, it was really my cat. But it wasn't my cat, it was the Cheshire Cat . . ."

Anyway, there's nothing inconsistent between microsoft's positions here. "That's nonsense, it doesn't bind us, and we're staying far enough away to avoid the costly litigation that this mess is going to bring up."

And as for the folks expecting them to be caught up by future versions of SUSE: the wild and free licensing of ms patents as a result of a fundamental post-contract change made by the other party (SUSE) just won't happen. That is *so* far outside of the *reasonable* expectations of any of the parties, and so drastic, that it just won't be the case.

hawk, esq.

Code is free as long as people may use it

[skandalfo]

What's "free code" (I reckon you prefer "open code", but GPL is about "free") if people does not have the freedom to use it?

The two things that made most noise about GPL 3 were its stance agaist patents, and its requirements against effective tivoization.

I feel lucky that software patents seem unenforceable still here in the EU. The intent of the GPL 3 in this respect is clearly to avoid a (re)distributor from applying a layer of selective patent licenses on the receiving users. Many of us would like to ban software patents globally, as they actually can strangle independent innovation and be the means that incumbents may use in order to squash any competition, in this case in the software field. A third party (a non-user and non-distributor) could try to enforce software patents against GPL 3'd software users; GPL 3 cannot project its software-freeing agenda here, since the license does not bind a third party that does not use or (re)distribute the software. So, in the end, the behave-well-with-patents enforcement is done on the only ones the license applies to (users and redistributors), which is as far as the license may take this part of the FSF political agenda. This is, BTW, part with which I happen to agree fully.

I recognize the aspect about anti-tivoization to be a more difficult point because, unlike the former one, transcends out of the software world into the hardware one. In the TiVo case you get the code... and you would be able to use it if you were able to replicate the hardware that it's intended to run on minus the selective restrictions on the software it can run.

The case of TiVo may seem a petty one, as in this case the restriction on the software isn't placed on individuals on an arbitrary basis. "It's their hardware; let them do what they want with it." That's what people that doesn't like this aspect of the GPL 3 say. Ok; maybe you cannot replicate their hardware, and you lose some little bit of code thats GPL'd but actually unusable because there's no free hardware to use it on.

But if Microsoft is able to take along its agenda about "Trusted Computing", in which each computer available to customers would be required to enable hardware-based DRM on software (no TPM, no Windows, that's what the computer vendors would hear), then they would in fact be able to control ANY code that could be used in the hardware that's readily available to customers. And that would be very similar to a new layer of selective licensing that could be used against any user of any software, free or not.

So, even if you may be in the "free software is ok; free hardware is not really needed" camp, you may recognize that free software may be successfully reduced to insignificance if no free hardware (or "open hardware", at least) is available in order to run it. Although I don't really mind proprietary hardware to enforce restrictions on the software it may run (I simply don't buy the hardware), the possibility of ending up with no unrestricted hardware if we do nothing about it, actually makes me fully support the anti-tivoisation clause.

So, paraphrasing the famous poem:

• First, they came to secure their game consoles, so that no one would run unlicensed software on them.
• I did not worry, because I didn't use game consoles, nor wrote software for them.

• Then, they came over the TiVo, so that the broadcasters could have their contents controlled.
• I didn't say anything, since I had my MythTV.

• Then, they came to oversee home optical media, so that no one could copy those contents, or even skip the commercials at the beginning.
• I did not mind about it, since I used free players on my computer systems.

• Then, they came with Trusted Computing, saying they would patch in hardware the gaping holes in their software.
• Then, as time passed, my computers died one after another of natural death, and I was no longer able to find any new computer to run my software.

Re:15 years ago:

[h4ck7h3p14n37]

I agree with you that a BSD license is superior to a GPL license if you're looking to build a business around the software. So why are so many companies using GPL licensed code? Why are Microsoft and Novell trying to make money from a Linux distribution when they could have selected a BSD distribution instead?

Re:The GPL is ALL ABOUT the developers!

[I!heartU]

It sounds like you don't want to use the GPL for that project then.

Does GPLv2 attempt to control software design?

[Anonymous Coward]

GPL 3 reaches past this (some would say overreaches), and controls attempts to control the hardware designs of the user. The GPL 3 is much more focused on the rights of certain users, shifting those rights away from other users and developers.

The GPL was a radical invention to begin with. From the BSD point of view, even GPLv2 is overreaching. So calling GPLv3 overreaching isn't very convincing.

Calling it an attempt to control hardware design is fallacious too. If you want to run GPLv3 software in your hardware product, you can design it any way you want so long as you don't take away the user's ability to modify that software and run it on the same hardware.

That's the same kind of restriction that GPLv2 puts on software, and you don't run around saying that "GPLv2 attempts to control software design".

Re:15 years ago:

[geschild]

"Yep thats pretty much explains why BSD is the product of choice over Linux in many of the above cases. 15 years later BSD made it into mainstream products from large manufacturers (F5, OS/X and iPhone, etc) And the companies that try to abuse Linux (Tivo, Cisco) are treated as the enemy by GPLv3. Has GPL been like GPLv3 from the get go, would Tivo or Linksys ever consider using Linux or would those be BSD products?" There, fixed that for ya.

Re:15 years ago:

[mrchaotica]

Well, Microsoft is pathological. But the question remains: if BSD is really so superior, why are so many companies (not just the "big guns" like Novell, Red Hat, and IBM, but also ones like Trolltech, MySQL, etc.) betting the farm on the GPL instead?

Re:15 years ago:

[jimicus]

GPL does something BSD doesn't. It levels the technology playing field, forcing companies to compete on services rather than products.

Let's say I produce a brilliant product which once installed doesn't require a great deal of service. There's no sense in me basing it off a GPL project because then I'd have to make the source code available to everyone, and Fred down the road could undercut me because he isn't doing any development.

Now, change that business model slightly. Let's say I contribute to a product, but my main business model is based around selling services and consultancy to go with that product. Now it doesn't matter so much if I use a GPL product because I'm going to make most of my money from charging consultancy fees to adapt it to specific businesses. In fact, there's something to be said for the GPL because it means that the product will wind up with my name all over it - so anyone who wants consultancy may well think of me first.