FSF Positioning To Sue Microsoft Over GPLv3?

mjasay writes "Groklaw notes that the Free Software Foundation has decried Microsoft's attempts to distance itself from its obligations to abide by GPL Version 3 (press release here). Citing Microsoft's earlier declaration that they are not bound by GPLv3, the Free Software Foundation declared, 'Microsoft cannot by any act of anticipatory repudiation divest itself of its obligation to respect others' copyrights.' The press release implies that the Free Software Foundation may sue Microsoft over the issue."

Comments

I smell hypocracy... yes, it's coming from /.

[isa-kuruption]

Amazing how in one week people will be whining about how mean and terrible the RIAA and MPAA are for enforcing their copyrights and then give a big thumbs up when the FSF does the same thing.

Re:The Steve Balmer Fan Club

[Vulva R. Thompson, P]

Anyone else think that these pro-MS trolls are getting as boring and unoriginal as the anti-MS trolls? How about something fresh and original?

Innovate people, innovate.

Oh God I hope so...

[petrus4]

The two biggest institutional obstacles to the truly universal, mainstream adoption of FOSS legally locking horns, and potentially destroying each other. Legally, economically, and in terms of public opinion.

Yes, please God, YES!

To me the FSF is itself just as big a problem as Microsoft, and I'd like to see it, as an organisation be destroyed to the same extent as Microsoft itself. I'd thought of how wonderful this could be if it were to happen...these two organisations crashing together and mortally wounding each other in the process...but I never dared hope...or dream...that it MIGHT ACTUALLY HAPPEN.

Please do sue Microsoft, FSF. You will lock yourselves and Microsoft into a legal battle which, God willing might even take years. It would prevent you almost entirely from taking action of any other kind during that time. It would exhaust you economically, and if you were to sue pre-emptively, before any concrete violation of the GPL v3 had been committed, it would irrevocably destroy you in the court of public opinion.

Words cannot express the joy that that would bring me.

Re:Deals like this are bad and must be attacked

[fsmunoz]

Nobody who writes anything worthwhile likes it. Quite a vast generalization don't you think?

The GPLv3 is a steaming pile. (...)

The GPL basically means "if you use this body of code, whatever you contribute must be given out freely".
This is a great deal when what you contribute is of negligible value compared to the original codebase. So, you're objections are not only against the GPLv3, but to the GPL as a whole. Nothing wrong about that, it actually follows the pattern I've been seing so far.

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[Kalriath]

Actually, that's crap. Regardless of what the delusional fools at FSF believe, they cannot redefine the legal definition of "distribution". It is legal to distribute Linux without agreeing to the GPL for example, provided you do so in compliance with base copyright law (i.e. you distribute it in unmodified form - the law allows you to pass on any copyrighted work you currently possess without an explicit license from the copyright owner).

Also, as I said, NOTHING in the law permits you to bind third parties to a contract via definitions of distribution. The entire "conveyance" bullshit is null and void, because no law permits it to take effect.

I've said it before, and will say it again: any lawyer who actually believes those provisions of GPL3 will work needs to be disbarred, because they know law like I know astrophysics.

Which is to say, not at all.