Slashdot Mirror
Lawyer Thinks Microsoft Can Evade GPL 3
rs232 writes with a link about a disheartening observation on the GPLv3. Unless there's something more specific in the Novell agreement that would fall within the new version of the GPL, Microsoft should have no trouble slipping free of it. Silicon.com has a piece speaking with a leading intellectual property lawyer from Australia. She says, "'I would be very surprised to see this upheld. It was a nice try on the part of (the FSF), but at this stage, I'd say it's not going to be an effective strategy. It will be tough to hold up in court.' In this case, she said, Microsoft never acted — never 'entered' into the agreement, and the terms and conditions can only apply to new actions by Microsoft, not older ones. She said: 'Their actions so far are not enough to say that they are bound.'"
For a fee
And so while Microsoft might well get away in a court battle, the market has already made up it's mind when MS made it clear they will have nothing to do with GPL3. While existing customers might not implicate MS into GPL3 obligations; they may not have ANY future customers. And so, it is still a win for the FSF, without any need to go in to court.
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
Pretty sure I've read that the FSFs intention was to address future deals, not this specific existing one (though some have tried to think of ways it could apply anyhow. You know, non-expiring vouchers and what not)
but I really don't understand why we're all so hung up on the GPL3 vs. Microsoft thing. For now and in the near future, anything that happens of any significance in the desktop or corporate IT world will have to suffer MS putting their nose in. It's just a fact of life. Will there always be companies selling linux distros that will be willing to sleep with the devil (speaking very figuratively; please don't flame me)? Yeah, probably, and I don't see anything wrong with it--they are within the rules of business, rules for which we are responsible. If you believe in the linux cause, you have to admit that it does more good for the OS and its philosophy to spend your time contributing to linux (vis-a-vis cash, development, or intelligent discourse) than to whine about the bully who wants his cut.
The Schwartz space ain't from Spaceballs.
but the Linux distributors who have an agreement with Microsoft must abide by the GPLv3.
Seems to me this is a lot like the software security situation. Virus makers make a virus. It gets fingerprinted and blocked. The virus maker evolves the virus around the AV software and the game continues indefinitely.
Since the legal code is really just like software for running courts, the same sort of evolution will continue indefinitely between free software and proprietary software vendors. What happens in this situation is the lawyers will profit greatly.
The most effective tool in this battle is publicity. Get the word out about free software and why people should care that the software they run is free. An event is coming up for this purpose...software freedom day. Why not participate? Join or start a team at http://softwarefreedomday.org/
Please. It would be a horrible, horrible legal precedent for a party to be bound by a license which was changed after the agreement, even if there's the 'or any later version' bit in the text of said license. I mean, could the FSF just add "The blood of their first born child should also be splattered over a paper copy of the source code." ?
I find the whole "Look at all these clever circumstances in our new GPL3 situation that means that we've fucked M$ good an proper" just to be amusing. The Courts uniformly reject these sorts of attempts to ambush someone by contract into unintended consequences. Will never be upheld. The idea fails on not just one but many doctrines of contract interpretation. You can forget it.
C//
Most slashdot readers would agree that evil lawyering is... well, evil. It's bad to get people bound to something they didn't actually agree to. Frequently we hear about scummy cellphone or cable operators pulling something like this.
But when the FSF tries it, we moan. It's even "a nice try." Because, you know, it's the FSF and it's Microsoft. The particular situation doesn't matter as much as the companies involved. Situational ethics.
Instead of bemoaning this, we should be cheering. I expect the FSF itself has little problem with this, since the evil lawyering was intended to prevent future deals, not retroactively change existing ones. Poisoning a well doesn't mean hunting down everyone who's drunk from it and shooting them.
(For extra points, guess what the EFF's response would be.)
...You may not convey a covered work if you are a party to an arrangement with a third party that is in the business of distributing software, under which you make payment to the third party based on the extent of your activity of conveying the work...So all Microsoft has to do is give the patents to a proxy company that is not in the business of distributing software, ie. a patent troll, and the proxy company can do the Proxy-Novel deals for them, even over GPLv3 software, without Novel being in violation of the GPLv3.
And if you are thinking of removing the "that is in the business of distributing software" part for your project, think again. Your license would have additional restrictions not present in vanilla GPLv3. Your modified GPLv3 would not be GPLv3 compatible and your code would no longer be able to link to GPLv3 code. You would not be able to accept patches to your code under GPLv3.
I can't even figure out what they are trying to say with this article.
Microsoft doesn't distribute GPL software so of course they will not be bound by the GPL.
And secondly, I though the MS Novell deal was grandfathered in anyway. The only reference I can find for that though is this line: "Among other things, the released version grandfathers in the Novell deal so that Microsoft's SLES coupons will undermine their patent threats" from the GPL ver. 3 release posting. link
IANAL ... but the GPLv3 is a LICENSE not a CONTRACT.
If Microsoft does not follow the LICENSE then Microsoft cannot LEGALLY re-distribute the software. Doing so would put Microsoft in violation of basic copyright laws.
Which is why Microsoft quickly distanced itself from the GPLv3.
I may just be forgetting the facts, but I thought that the final revision was altered in such a way to not retroactive punish the ms/novell deal? Wasn't it designed to keep them from entering any others and to take effect once SLED integrated GPL3 code but not n the current GPL2 codebase?
I stole this
Of course, Microsoft/Novell don't have to worry about this because prior agreements are explicitly exempted.
For later agreements, the lawyer is missing the point. If Company X distributes under the GPLv3, they are bound by its terms. If Company X later enters into an agreement with Company Y, they need to make sure that they are complying with their obligations under the GPLv3 in that agreement, and that may include imposing conditions on Company Y. If they fail to do so, then they lose the right to distribute the GPLv3 software.
This isn't some bizarre legal theory, lots of software licenses work that way, including Microsoft's own.
It's not retroactive, nobody ever claimed it was. The thing is that MS have distributed vouchers without an expiration date, knowing about both indirect distribution and or later clauses. They also knew GPLv3 would have an Apache style patent clause.
The courts take a poor view of bad faith attempts to break licensing agreements and Microsoft admitted to working around the GPL for the Novell deal. Microsoft, unclean hands and all will want to keep this one out of the courtroom.
For instance, if the terms of a credit card is changed, I believe one has the opportunity to cancel the card and continue to pay off the debt. So I can see that if MS and Novel never using new software that uses the GPL3, and never having to worry about the GPLV3. What I do not see is how MS can demand that the are allowed to interact with current software and not be under the current license. That would be like saying that MS users can never be under a licensee more restrictive than the first one agreed to upon initial use fo the software.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
A software license shouldn't be a morality tale.
Uh, I thought that the patent provisions in GPL3 were more to do with preventing the Novell side of the deal happening - Novell is effectively prohibited from entering it's side of the bargain. After all, they're the one distributing other people's GPL3'd code.
Or did I miss something?
Why doesn't the gene pool have a life guard?
Regardless of the FSF's intent, this whole GPLv3 episode has been very disruptive within the OSS community.
Many top developers, including Linus, have wasted many an hour discussing (or arguing) the merits of the GPLv3. But while that was happening, they weren't coding. Spread over a large number of OSS developers, that's a major waste of time and effort.
Microsoft doesn't have to have anything to do with Linux for me to use it, so regardless of what they do I'm not even affected. That's the beauty of using Linux!
Twinstiq, game news
The "deal" isn't what's relevant. The fact that Microsoft may distribute FSF "property" is. This distribution would come as a reult of them entering into an agreement with someone that creates derivatives of FSF "property". Every time Microsoft chooses to distribute (or indirectly distribute or whatever) an FSF derivative, that is a itself a new act that can trigger new obligations. The fact that Microsoft was under contract to do so really has nothing to do with it.
The real question is one of wheteher or not what Microsoft is/has been doing can be construed as distribution under the copyright act. The related contract is is just a side show and a red herring.
Microsoft's option is pretty simple really: break it's contract with Novell. In the grand scheme of Microsoft shenanigans, it's not such a big thing for them.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Microsoft must redristribute GPL v3 licensed software in order to be bound by that license. As far as I can tell, no software is redistributed by Micorsoft under GPL v3. So why would it apply to MS?
Microsoft is free to drag people to court over patent issues, if they feel their rights have been violated, even if those alleged violations are in GPL v3 software. Only those that either uses, copies or redistributes the GPL software are bound by its license. Not MS.
Am I missing the point?
The problem Microsoft (potentially) faces isn't that it suddenly won't be able to distribute certain software; that very "or any later version" ensures that Microsoft can continue to apply GPL2 to their distribution of the software, no matter how much the author might wish otherwise. The problem occurs when new versions of such software are released, because with a new version, the author can change the license freely (since nobody has a copy of it yet). Once this happens, at least according to the GPL3-owns-Microsoft camp, Microsoft will be faced with a dilemma: either it has to accept the GPL3's terms, or it has to stay with the old, GPL2 software, which will no longer be updated unless Microsoft does so itself.
Not only is MS not bound in the case of the MS-Novell deal, but isn't this deal specifically "grandfathered in"? Wasn't this some of the larger news about the last (or last few) revision(s) of the draft, leading to the final license? /F
"The number you have dialed is imaginary. Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and try again."
"You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
...unless they distributed GPLv3 software themselves. Whatever Novell does or doesn't do can't bind Microsoft. A voucher to get software from Novell isn't distribution by Microsoft. The ones that could get stuck in the middle is Novell, if a court finds that it can't simultaniously satisfy the GPLv3 and its agreement with Microsoft. That would force Novell to refrain from distributing at all, which would practicly be a death sentence.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
.. a while back. here
Just 'cause M$ say it isn't covered by GPL3 doesn't necessarily make it true.
PJ has, as ever, done a thoughtful piece.
Trying to associate Microsoft with "fun" is like trying to associate Satan with aromatherapy. -Tycho
...yet.
This is because it, as far as I know, haven't distributed (or "conveyed") any GPLv3 code to anyone redeeming a voucher. It's plain common sense that the GPLv3 doesn't apply to any vouchers redeemed for GPLv2 code.
However, what the license does prevent is Microsoft "conveying" any GPLv3 code for those vouchers in the future -- an action which Microsoft has full control over. When people talking about the FSF screwing over Microsoft, they're talking about the fact that Microsoft is forced to do one of the following:
Obviously, none of these options are as palatable compared to what Microsoft would prefer to do, which would be to release the newest versions of the software with submarine patent mines, in order to extort license fees from Free Software (which would effectively kill it).
If Microsoft can successfully redeem the vouchers for GPLv3 software and without giving away its patents, then one could say it had "evaded" the GPLv3. Otherwise, this lawyer is an idiot.
(* let "violating the GPL" be defined as shorthand for "failing to abide by the terms of the GPL, thus rendering it void and causing the distributor to violate copyright law.")
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
It sounds like some people are intending to use the GPL3 to target Microsoft. As soon as the GPL becomes a tactic rather than a license you're playing a stupid game. Then you have to start writing into it piece to try to blunt everything else every other company comes up with that is not desirable. It's a losing game because it's never ending.
Sure the GPLv3 does not apply to Microsoft unless they distribute software that is licensed under it. The purpose of the new patent clauses were never intended to directly hamper someone like Microsoft, but rather prevent someone like Novell from making similar deals in the future. Now it may or may not do a good job at that, but the article didn't even get into that issue, instead pointing out a bunch of facts that are both irrelevant and well known to those who followed the GPLv3 drafting process. Pretty worthless analysis (or at least worthless reporting).
PS. Yes the Novell deal,and any other deals prior to 28 March 2007, were grandfathered in - see the second to last paragraph in section 11.
A contract is an agreement between two or more parties.
Thus, a license is a contract, but a contract is not necessarily a license. I may not be a lawyer, but I -do- have access to a dictionary.
You are also spewing some nonsense about copyright, which doesn't belong there either: not abiding the terms of a license has nothing to do with copyright law.
It's really amusing that all the best FOSSie minds in the world just started crying because the GPLv3 they just custom crafted in order to specifically attack Microsoft doesn't amount to anything. It seems like FOSSies losing out to Microsoft is kind of a universal theme, like Cobra's schemes always losing out to GI Joe.
Lawyers never quite commit themselves, therefore this lawyer "claims" to think that...
News at 11
Be very, very careful what you put into that head, because you will never, ever get it out. - Cardinal Wolsey
So what's the point of GPLv3? To make sure that companies that sells Linux software are doomed?
Fill me in. I'm not up to date on this stuff.
These lawyers act like they haven't read the damn gplv2 and v3. Its VERY clear that any customer that wants to use the gplv3 license *instead of* the gplv2 has that right-- and it was granted in gplv2.
I read through the GPLV3 & it looks like just about any other license, what's so different about V3 that it would be such a large problem for Microsoft ?
What does it say Microsoft would have to do, that Microsoft doesn't want to do ?
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
its a license. Acceptance is done by using the software, distributing it, etc..
MS is certainly bound by it, in the event they use it.
There is no sort of entrapment as MS most certainly had the same opportunity to know what was developing with version 3 of the GPL as everybody else. Its not like t happened over night. It was a rather long process.
If there was an argument to be had, and there is not, that MS was being entrapped by this change then it could as well be argued that MS intentionally sought agreements with Novel, or anyone they could find that was a klinux distributor with backing, to try and void itself from needing to comply with the license change.
And in a court case it, that will never happen, it would certainly be brought forward that MS uses unvalidated threats against others to motivate them to pay MS extortion money for the use of teh product of MS competition to MS.
It is obvious the MS intends to pursue the application criminal activity on their part.
It should be clear that the article is really nothing more than typical MS distortion of facts.
If there was a scale to show the believe ability of MS and MS supporting news and announcements, wouldn't the scale show a continued drop with this FUD?
My distaste for MS continues to increase.
I wonder how they picked September 15th?
I picked January 11 because that was the day
that IBM threw down the gauntlet regarding software patents
to counter the Microsoft FUD.
Plus 1-11 has that nice binary look.
Anyway, every day is Software Freedom Day when you
kick the Microsoft software addiction.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
Yes. That's correct. So what? WE ALREADY KNOW THIS. That's why the GPL3 contains THIS language: "You may not convey a covered work if you are a party to an arrangement with a third party that is in the business of distributing software, under which you make payment to the third party based on the extent of your activity of conveying the work, and under which the third party grants, to any of the parties who would receive the covered work from you, a discriminatory patent license (a) in connection with copies of the covered work conveyed by you (or copies made from those copies), or (b) primarily for and in connection with specific products or compilations that contain the covered work, unless you entered into that arrangement, or that patent license was granted, prior to 28 March 2007."
Not only that, but the GPL3 doesn't actually cover any of the software that Novell is currently shipping... it's all GPL2.
The "great insight" here is that the GPLs can't do something that it explicitly does not try and do, regarding software it doesn't even cover!
Sheesh.
Even if that would work, do you think msft wants to give their patents away? Not long ago, a patent troll that owned a tiny part, of a part, of a process sued msft for $1.5B. Msft would be taking one helluva chance giving their patents away.
If msft had some sort of contract with the patent troll, then it could be argued the the the patent troll doesn't really own the patent.
GPLv3 is a defense against msft's under-handed tactics. Msft has always been the antagonist - not just against Linux but the entire industry.
Eben Moglen is a very smart lawyer. However, he was the General Counsel to the Free Software Foundation, and the FSF is at war with Microsoft. In any war the fist causality is truth. Eben Moglen is running a bluff, but he knows his bluff can not be called.
I order for the bluff to be called, Microsoft would have to try to enforce one of its bogus patents. Microsoft will never do that because it would expose the patent to scrutiny. Moglen is proceding on the theory that "one good lie deserves another" and "any stick is good enough to beat a mad dog with". The theory is designed to appeal to unthinking suits and PHBs, the kind that could be fooled by Microsoft patent FUD.
Unfortunately some free software advocates have started "breathing their own exhaust fumes" and started believing this preposterous theory.
This counterFUD move may be a brilliant tactical move, but it may be in the long run counter productive, because people like PJ destroy their own credibility by slavishly following it.
Could the FSF possibly have done better than they did?
I'm not sure we'd want them to have it retroactively apply, but for her to say "it's not going to be an effective strategy" sort of implies that there might be an effective strategy somewhere.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
And in these courts there are people with jobs and they are called "lawyers". Each "Lawyer" puts forth a view contrary to their opponents.....
A license is not a type of contract, at least not in the USA. I'm not sure where you've gotten your legal training, but it doesn't apply here. If you live in a different country with a different legal tradition, you statement might be correct. I can't comment on that.
Here in the US, if you don't sign something, it isn't a contract (yes, dramatically simplified). A contract is a legal agreement between two or more parties. Each side agrees to do (or not do) certain things and legally bind themselves to fulfill those obligations. Usually one side agrees to perform some action, and the other agrees to transfer money, but the actual mechanism is far more general than that. But the key thing is that multiple parties agree, and sign something that is binding to them. Note that no one else is bound to it, just the signatories (and successors as appropriate).
A license which is one party holds all the cards an unilaterally allows deviations from the norm for use of something. A license cannot be used to restrict actions, that is what a contract is for, but many licenses have gotchas where you gotta do X if you want to do Y. No obligation, but if you don't meet the letter of X, Y is off limits to you.
In this case the GNU General Public License (note - not contract) allows copying and use of software that normal copyright law does not. You have to follow the rules of the GPL if you want to use/modify/whatever the covered software. Without the license the use of the software falls under normal copyright laws, which say you can't touch it without the owner's OK.
Microsoft is completely correct to say that it never agreed to anything GPL. It doesn't matter what they agree to. They are powerless and have no rights what so ever. At square one they cannot touch someone else's software. The only way to move beyond square one is to a) accept the GPL, no matter how distasteful, or b) steal it via copyright violation. They can bitch and moan as much as they like, but the choice is black and white.
Go visit http://www.groklaw.net/ if you want to research the differences between contracts and licenses. It has lots of the basics, and targets the geek community.
- doug
The Microsoft EULA and the way they try to control my computer to my detriment is driving me to Linux. For myself the GPL is far less of a shackle than is the Microsoft EULA.
This shackle as you call it only seems to bother those who want to take other peoples code and make it proprietary without agreement to do so. Why should they not be shackled that way? They have no right to the code that is not given to them by the license (the GPL in this instance). If they don't want to be members of the GPL using community then they only need to not use code released under the GPL, easy actually. To be affected by this shackle they have to willingly don it. What is so bad about that?
I find it hard to believe that this "leading lawyer" from Australia is competent to make proclamations any important jurisdictions, such as any state of the United States (especially Louisiana, yikes), where most of these companies headquarter and do business. The U.S. lawyers are wisely keeping their mouths shut pending actual litigation that would provide a real case to evauluate, I should think. They have reputations to worry about, after all.
Besides, I thought the GPLv3 already exempted the MS-Novell deal as "grandfathered?" If so, this isn't even a legal opinion, it's a summary of exemptions written into the GPLv3. TFA seems primarily concerned with a deal that the FSF has already said is "off limits."
This article is a waste of time and bandwidth.
--
Toro
The GPL puts user freedom above all. Just because it won't let a company work around a loop hole in v2 doesn't mean it's "getting closer to anti-capitalism." I would call it becoming ultra-capitalistic; more rights and protections for users to resell GPL'ed software.
"All you have to do is be fragile and grateful. So stay the underdog." Chuck Palahniuk, Choke
I think that speaks more to the greedy nature of those companies than the majority of people that stand behind the GPL
No sig for you!!
The lawyer is completely confused about the situation.
The judge is basicly saying that indirect infringement requires direct infringement. If this principle were applied to the "coupons expiration date + gplv3" theory, it would say that Microsoft is not guilty of infringement if Novell is not guilty of direct infringement.
Free software advocates, in their zeal to get Microsoft, should not attack this principle, because that would make it easier for the RIAA to persecute innocent people accused of copying songs.
Because of the grandfat her clause, the FSF has all but admitted it does not intend to proceed against Novell.
How this got rated insightful, I will never know, because it is not. A couple of points.
First, Free Software under the GPL is certain free for you to use in any way. You can even embed GPL'd software in your embedded rocket flight control computer if you want. Microsoft can *use* GPL'd software in any way they see fit. In fact Microsoft has entire labs full of Linux machines (they believe that one should know one's enemy). Contrast this with Windows, which is not free for me to use in any way I see fit. I cannot run it under certain Virtual machines, I cannot install it on more than so many computers (as provided by the EULA). In contrast, GPL'd software has no EULA; there are *no* restrictions whatsoever on its use.
Second, there are restrictions on *redistribution* of the code, though, as there should be.
What you are saying is pretty silly. If I downloaded a copy of MS's source code from somewhere and tried to redistribute it, you wouldn't say that I am shackled when copyright law does not allow me to do so. GPL'd software is the same. Without the terms of the GPL I have no rights to modify and distribute the source code at all! How the GPL shackles my existing non-rights to distribute copyrighted code that I don't own, I will never know. For without the GPL, I cannot distribute the code to others, and others cannot distribute the code to me!
Seems to me that the GPL ensures freedom in a couple of ways. It ensures that I can use the code freely for any purpose, even without agreeing to the terms of the license at all! Also it ensure that as the author of GPL'd code, my code will never be stolen from me against my will, and sold back to me with restrictions on its use.
So let's stop right now with this nonsense about the GPL shackling freedom.
It is only to doom companies who become friends with MS.
The question isn't whether Microsoft can be bound by the GPLv3; it is whether Novell can be bound. Novell cannot simultaneously honor the license on any GPLv3 code they distribute and the contract they executed with MS. The best the FSF could have hoped for was to defang a portion of MS' patent portfolio. If this lawyer says that can't happen, I tend to agree. The GPLv3 does make it impractical and of no benefit to execute any more of these deals with MS.
No one is going to sue MS over GPL3, but GPL3 is a great defence for anyone being sued by MS over IP in Linux.
I want you to give us all this irony-free-freedom you are talking about, now that I got freedom I will use my freedom to lock you into a room and not let you go out ever again.
Or ... we could implement true freedom which would prevent anyone from removing freedom from others.
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
GPL3 explicitly recognizes this situation and exempts deals in force before the GPL3 was released.
This idea that the GPL3 is designed to attack any existing deals is a fabrication. I don't know if the person who posted this article is incompetent to practice law or trying to FUD the GPL... but if even someone like me who thinks we'd be better off without the GPL can see through it, it's pretty poor FUD.
"A voucher to get software from Novell isn't distribution by Microsoft"
Care to test that theory in a US court of law? Or at least cite some case law backing up your legal theory?
As Novell puts out future versions of SUSE, they will incorporate GPL 3 software into their OS. If MS then distributes this GPL 3 software, they would be bound by the license just like anyone else.
From articles on Slashdot over the last year or so, my understanding is that the Novell certificates MS was selling did not have an expiration date, making it possible for someone to redeem them after SUSE has been injected with GPL 3 code, thus pwning MS with the greatest pwning in the entire history of pwnage. Or so the story goes.
FAQs are evil.
n/t
Eben Moglen tells how he enforces the GPL without it being a contract.
Next time do some reading before calling someone a moron.
The jaded version of news that I see on Slashdot presents GPLv3 as a device that can be used to trap Microsoft. I'm sure it stands on its own as a fine license, but the way it's presented here it appears to have been designed specifically as a type of poison pill for certain organizations.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
Rockets! What a great hypothetical example to show one of the areas where GPL 3 really bites. Let's say that I build and sell rockets to the serious hobbyist market. These rockets are controlled by free software, but for safety reasons (and possibly liability) I've locked out unsigned software in the firmware. Can't use GPL software for my toy rockets.
This is the sort of unintended consequence we get from the GPL 3 reaching past being a software license, and in effect trying to control hardware. According to the FSF, if I take measures to prevent my users from weaponizing my toys, I'm bad because everyone should have the right to weaponize whatever free software touches.
Rather than repeat the success of the GPL 2, the FSF has made the mistake of trying to go after specific companies they don't like, not giving a damn about unbalancing the fairness of the license, and not caring about who they might hurt if that helps them "get" Tivo or MS. They've moved from principles and are operating on personalities.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
To the extent that it is based on the GPL 2 and is a natural progression of the GPL 2, it's a great license. The GPL is an elegant legal hack that uses the power of copyright to enforce "copyleft". Part of it's moral strength comes from it's quid pro quo nature: Tit for tat, code for code. The GPL 3 is a kludge that goes beyond dictating the terms of software distribution and reaches into how hardware may be designed.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
I find it quite natural that those hobbyists would want to tinker with the software. That you think that this shouldn't be possible (except for yourself) is quite strange to me. The talk about weaponizing the toys is just the ordinary terrorism scare tactic, so try better next time.
If you want to lock down software, don't use software licensed under the GPLv3. It is certainly not an unintended consequence that you are not allowed to do so. It is one of the main points that the new version addresses that the old one didn't. If you don't like it, go write your own software.
I've noticed a lot of people in this thread making assertions about legal issue without specifying whether they are lawyers or not (probably not, how many lawyers read Slashdot?). And even if they were lawyers, nobody can say with absolute certainty how a court would decide. I'd take their assertions with several tons of salt.
I certainly wouldn't mind testing it. How about gift cards? Coupons in magazines? You're not going to get any legal claim against whoever was distributing the voucher, unless the voucher itself is fraudulent. I seem to remember Pepsi giving away several million iTunes Store song "vouchers", are you saying Pepsi> distributed those songs? It certainly would be a creative interpretation which I'm sure the RIAA would like to hear about.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
"Kay Lam-Beattie, principal with intellectual property lawyers Idealaw, said that based on the limited information available to the public, the Free Software Foundation's (FSF) efforts to hinder Microsoft's bullying over patents are likely to be fruitless."
Confident statements based on lack of information. Well...
The next paragraph basically says the same thing in different words.
She said: "This [initiative] is squarely aimed at Microsoft. The question is, do Microsoft's actions regarding the [support certificates] fall within the definitions in the GPL 3 of what makes them a party to GPL 3?"
Nowhere do we see an attempt to answer this question.
It gets hilarious as
Lam-Beattie said: "The GPL 3 is trying to bind Microsoft accidentally. Microsoft is saying: I have no intention of being bound by these rules."
Is that a lawyer speaking?
Then comes another paragraph on lack of information on the Novell-MS deal. What's the point in going on and on?
The esteemed lawyer then goes on to confuse license with contract. Looks like she missed a few classes at the start of her law school.
Or maybe it is the reporting after all.
While existing customers might not implicate MS into GPL3 obligations; they may not have ANY future customers. And so, it is still a win for the FSF, without any need to go in to court.
This is really simple. All versions of the GPL are a license that leverages the power of copyright. M$ and anyone else can have it at no cost as long as they abide by the terms. When software is released under those terms, all distributors are bound by them or they don't have permission to distribute. If M$ wants to avoid GPL3, they will have to fork everything GPL2 and maintain it themselves. Their ability to maintain both that codebase and their own is zero as Vista demonstrates their inability to maintain their own code. I doubt there's anyone dumb enough to listen to M$ about this crazy talk about contracts - M$ has a simple choice between a stale distribution and a license that emasculates their patent threat.
M$ is trying to own free software, which is a blatant admission that free software works and non free can't compete. GPL3 prevents them from doing this with patents, so all the money they spent building a patent warchest was a waste. People who use patents to fight software freedom are not welcome to the free software party and are going to have to do everything themselves. Their FUD against GPL3 is not going to fool anyone, so they had better get coding.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
That lawyer obviously reads Slashdot, she went straight for the largely irrelevant car analogy.
They post most of them here too. It's a pretty good piece of infowar. By making us all sick of something they think Joe Sixpacks likes, they think they are driving a wedge between Slashdotters and the rest of the world. Unfortunately for them, Joe Sixpacks can tell when M$ is blowing smoke up his ass with a false analogy. It's easy enough to ignore the analogy and make your point directly.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Why don't they just put into the license, plain and clear, a phrase like " The company Microsoft (or whatever it is in legalize) can not use or interact with software that is covered under this license unless it is by its customers using their OS.." etc. If everyone knows they wrote some parts of it to go against the actions of one company, why try and do it so vaguely. After reading the GPLv3 it is very clear some parts of it are politically motivated. I don't even agree with it on some points, but it's not my license, so they should just put in it what they want just like they already have. Right now everything I do I issue no copyright on and am happy if someone else wishes to use anything I may have thought up.
At this point the only useful job it can do is to die. Everything else would hurt everyone else, so why should I care for the well-being of everyone's enemies?
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
The GPL3 has nothing to do with Microsoft. No one ever thought that Microsoft would ever choose to release any software under it. Simply put it blocks other companies and developers from paying Microsoft protection money. If you gain privileges from Microsoft then you no longer have the right to distribute the GPL3 software unless you can transfer your privileges to all subsequent developers which MS obviously won't allow. This part of the GPL3 is all about trying to keep a level playing field. It prevents open software from being locked up and restricted through patents.
A great feature is that open source developers don't need to use the GPL3, that it exists gives them political clout should a company like MYSQL try to lock up open source software though a patent. If any such company tried to do that they know the open source developers outside their company could easily jump ship with a code fork under the GPL3 (patching the code with a non patented technique) and the company wouldn't be able to touch the new code base, open source developers could turn the table on said company.
MS uses the Linux environment for interoperability purposes. Sadly one of Linux's great strengths, openness, is being exploited by MS. It's easy for them to make Windows interoperate with Linux (you can do NFS mounts on Windows Server 2003 R2 for example, I found doing that far easier than trying to mount an NTFS5/SMB share from Windows Server from Ubuntu).
Trying to get Linux to interoperate with Windows on the other hand is a horrible task because the source for Windows is closed so you can't know exactly what is going on. Apparently they are supposed to open it up a little more because of the EU stuff but as far as I can see it's still a nightmare.
I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
In the sense that it's used in the GPL?
Does this mean that I can go to CompUSA and demand *they* provide me a copy of the source to any versions of Linux embedded in any routers or other devices that they sell, since they're part of distribution of those devices and therefore (by this theory) they're also specifically bound by the GPL?
I'm a Programmer. That's one level above Software Engineer and one level below Engineer.
You can surely *use* GPLv3 software in your own rocket, but the moment you want to sell that to others, I believe the phrase is, "if you don't like the license, write your own damn code." Why should you be allowed to sell software you're using when you don't own the copyright, except as allowed by the license?