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

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.