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

How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[I'm Don Giovanni]

Can someone explain how MS would be bound by GPL3? They make no GPL software.
The Novell deal was made prior to GPL3.
How does GPL3 relate to MS at all?

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[EveryNickIsTaken]

Sounds like FSF just wanted to get in the news. Or on slashdot, or whatever. Reading the press release, they don't really SAY much... other than "We hate you Microsoft, neener neener neener."

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[just_another_sean]

IIRC the GPL3 would apply to MS as soon as someone redeems a SUSE voucher that they received from MS. MS would argue that merely giving out the vouchers is not distribution but most people (the FSF included) see it differently.

I'm not sure if that holds true or not (IANAL, etc.) but it should be interesting to see how this plays out. MS is obviously at least slightly worried or they wouldn't have issued the PR in the first place.

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[IBBoard]

The claim I've always seen from the FSF is that Microsoft will (when Novell's Suse distro starts using GLP3 packages) become a "GPL3 distributor" because of their vouchers. There's something in being a distributor that means they're not allowed to be part of the deal that they were part of (which would mean they couldn't have the vouchers, which would mean they would be in the situation, which would mean the GPL3 might never have included the section prohibiting it, which means MS and Novell may have done a deal...)

TBH, I can't see how it would stand up in court, but then IANAL.

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[mr_mischief]

The angle MS and Novell are taking is that Microsoft's vouchers apply to Novell's GPL v2 stuff. If Novell just happens to distribute GPL v3 stuff in place of that, then it's Novell distributing it of its own free will and not a procurement via Microsoft.

I say the FSF has a right to question that tactic. I'm just not sure where the courts will fall on it.

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Suse vouchers that MS handed out had no expiry date and nothing stating which version of Suse they were valid for.
GPLv3 states that if you give rights to certain users, you must extend those same rights to ALL users without exception.
If a single person uses a Suse/MS voucher to obtain software licensed under GPLv3, ALL users of that software are immune from lawsuits by MS.

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[stinerman]

I'm at a loss there too.

As we all know, the GPL relies on copyright for enforcement. If I distribute GPL'd software, and I do not accept the GPL, then I have committed a copyright violation as nothing but the GPL allows me to distribute the software.

To be sued for copyright infringement, I must have actually made copes of and distributed GPL'd software, not "conveyed" or "propagated" or any other such language. Unless Microsoft has actually redistributed (not caused someone else to distribute, like Novell*) GPLv3 software without abiding by its terms, they are off the hook for copyright violations. They'd only be on the hook for a contract violation.

Again as we all know Microsoft has not signed the GPLv3, so it is not a party to it and does not need to abide by it.

*Unless my understanding of copyright law is wrong, one must make copies of a work and/or distribute them to be on the hook for infringement. The FSF might have a contributory copyright infringement case, but that would be much harder to prove, AFAIK. Of course, I'm an armchair lawyer, so hopefully someone who actually has a law degree will clear this up.

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[EveryNickIsTaken]

MS is obviously at least slightly worried or they wouldn't have issued the PR in the first place. FSF issued the press release, not MS.

MS would argue that merely giving out the vouchers is not distribution but most people (the FSF included) see it differently. Sorry, but most people, (IANAL) including judges IMO, would not. If I buy a movie from blockbuster, and they give me a coupon for a free whopper from Burger King, would blockbuster be suddenly responsible for the conduct of the BK employees and the food service?

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[veganboyjosh]

this post is untrue.

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[m0nkyman]

I'd say that because the distribution of the vouchers predates GPLV3, that MS has a leg to stand on here.

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[DragonWriter]

IIRC the GPL3 would apply to MS as soon as someone redeems a SUSE voucher that they received from MS.

This is inconsistent with the FSF's contention that the GPL is a copyright license but not a contract in which the licensee gives up pre-existing rights, since no rights under copyright are necessary to distribute the vouchers and therefore a pure license of the type the FSF claims the GPL is would be completely irrelevant.

That contention aside, even viewing the GPL as a contract (or, rather, a contract offer), the argument seems to fail since there is no evidence of agreement by Microsoft to be bound by the contract, and thus no contract formed that is binding on Microsoft in the first place.

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[Random832]

MS is obviously at least slightly worried or they wouldn't have issued the PR in the first place. FSF issued the press release, not MS.

This was a reaction to a statement by MS. They would not have made that statement if they were not worried.

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[just_another_sean]

I'm not going to argue your movie/burger analogy (+1 for originialty though!). However I would like to point out that MS did issue a concerning the GPL3 which is what prompted the response from the FSF.

And sure, maybe "most people" was over stating it a bit. How about - "enough people, including the FSF, feel differently". Of course you are right in that it will ultimately be up to a judge to decide whether or not MS's partnership with Novell and the voucher distribution constitutes software distribution.

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[cp.tar]

To be sued for copyright infringement, I must have actually made copes of and distributed GPL'd software, not "conveyed" or "propagated" or any other such language.

Well, why don't you ask the MAFIAA what they think about it.

Making it available in any way (and why vouchers would be excluded escapes me) makes you guilty of copyright infringement. Check one of the recent articles here, for one.

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[Enoxice]

Hmmm...the premise for Back to the Future IV, perhaps?

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[plague3106]

Giving out vouchers is NOT distributing software. If you have to go to Novell to redeme the voucher, its Novell doing the distributing, not MS. Also, doesn't v3 exclude the MS Novell deal anyway?

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[IBBoard]

Any more detail on that, or just a blanket "it isn't true"?

Some of the exact details may be wrong, but the general "MS being a distributor of GPL3 and hence bound under GPL3" thread of my reply seems to agree with the thread of the main reply to the OP.

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[stinerman]

That isn't precedent (yet), and it's a pretty obviously wrong decision written by someone who has no clue how computing systems work.

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[fishthegeek]

Mod parent up. It's one of the more insightful posts I've read here. I'm not fan of MS by any stretch of the imagination, but this is just turning into a witch hunt.

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[Doctor-Optimal]

This was a reaction to a statement by MS. They would not have made that statement if they were not worried. And if MS had let this pass without a statement the slashtards would (still) be channeling Neil Patrick Harris and yelling "It's scared!". When you are an ideologue all evidence points to your favored conclusion.

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[Bruce Perens]

Well, the theory is that since Microsoft is paying Novell - and has a contract with them - to distribute copies of SuSE to customers who have coupons. The coupons are not just like paying with dollars, since the coupons have no real cash value and there is a contract that says what they are for. So Microsoft is a party to that distribution because it has essentially contracted for someone else to distribute software for them. If you contracted for someone else to distribute bootleg copies of Britneyz new hit, do you think you would have much chance of convincing the court you aren't a party to her label's copyright license or otherwise an infringer?

All of the software that gives "GPL 2 and any later version" as its license is now optionally under GPL3, and new versions of Samba, LIBC, etc., will be "GPL 3 and any later version" and will be included in SuSE. So, Microsoft is obligated under GPL3 if SuSE accepts one coupon for a distribution that contains "GPL3 and later" software. Possibly MS is obligated for "GPL2 and later" software, although that is less clear.

Microsoft has the right to tell SuSE to stop honoring coupons now and keep the money, and then Microsoft would have to refund anyone who had outstanding coupons and eat crow in public. If Microsoft does not do that, it's going to be difficult to show that they didn't accept the license, since they had a way to escape from doing so.

MS is obviously concerned, they would not be making noise if they were not. I suspect that they have lost their last chance to keep Free Software away from their patent portfolio by doing this. They gave up the chunk of rights that we would not have already had due to doctrine of laches, etc. And they will settle for that rather than go to court.

Bruce

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[pete-classic]

They make no GPL software.

I don't know who modded this up, but the question doesn't make any sense. People who make GPL software aren't bound by the GPL with regards to their own software.

The GPL applies to anyone who distributes covered software and doesn't own the copyrights.

-Peter

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[Pensacola Tiger]

Microsoft is worried enough to have repudiated the vouchers that Novell was to have used as FUD where GPLv3 software is concerned:

At this point in time, in order to avoid any doubt or legal debate on this issue, Microsoft has decided that the Novell support certificates that we distribute to customers will not entitle the recipient to receive from Novell, or any other party, any subscription for support and updates relating to any code licensed under GPLv3.

So it looks as if Microsoft will be left holding a bag of worthless vouchers as soon as Novell adds GPLv3 code to SuSE.

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[Aim Here]

Don't think 'copyright violation'. Think along the lines of estoppel.

The threat here isn't that the FSF sues Microsoft for a GPLv3 breach; the FSF is making clear that there's a defence to a patent infringement lawsuit, namely that Microsoft aided and abetted the distribution of software under GPLv3 terms. If Microsoft sues RedHat over some FSF code, Eben puts on his cape, leaps into the courtroom and shouts "Aha! But you helped everyone distribute that code. Under the GPL. And because of the intricacies of the voucher system, under GPLv3. And the patent provisions of GPLv3 make clear under what conditions this software is allowed to be distributed. Novell gave EVERYONE permission to use every patentable idea in this software, and by helping Novell do that, you gave everyone permission too"

I reckon that's roughly the scenario that the FSF is hinting at here. It's obviously not a straightforward 'you distributed our software' copyright lawsuit.

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[morgan_greywolf]

They make no GPL software. They don't? Yes, the latest version includes GNU utilities and gcc. Since these had to be modified to work for Interix, then, since Microsoft has owned Interix since 1999...Microsoft makes GPL software.

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[Bruce Perens]

Well, for analogy, consider that I contract with someone to distribute bootleg copies of a CD for me, in return for coupons. I then claim to the judge that I owe nothing to the record label, since the license of the CD was not a contract and did not compel me to give up my pre-existing funds. :-)

I don't think it's relevant that the GPL is a license rather than a contract, since MS has the right to tell Novell to stop honoring those coupons, and thus to stop joining Microsoft to the license.

Bruce

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[mhall119]

If I buy a movie from blockbuster, and they give me a coupon for a free whopper from Burger King, would blockbuster be suddenly responsible for the conduct of the BK employees and the food service? Good analogy, but I would take it one step further. If Burger King decided that the name "whopper" would from now on refer to a beer (perfectly legal), would Blockbuster then be required to have a liquor license? Would Burger King even be required to allow the coupon to be redeemed against the new "whopper" product instead of the old "whopper" product they made when the coupon was issued? I think in both cases the courts would rule no.

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[morgan_greywolf]

Why does everyone seem to forget that Microsoft also itself distributes software whose copyright is owned by the Free Software Foundation? It's not just the coupons, folks! They are distributing GCC and the entire GNU toolchain!

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[roscivs]

Well, for analogy, consider that I contract with someone to distribute bootleg copies of a CD for me, in return for coupons. I then claim to the judge that I owe nothing to the record label

This is absolutely correct. The record label has no reason to sue you for copyright violation, as you weren't the one (a) duplicating their CDs, or (b) distributing them. This seems pretty straightforward to me.

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[krgallagher]

"If you contracted for someone else to distribute bootleg copies of Britneyz new hit, do you think you would have much chance of convincing the court you aren't a party to her label's copyright license or otherwise an infringer?"

OK, but what if I distribute vouchers to purchase legitimate copies of Britneyz new hit, and the distributor decides instead to distribute bootleg copies? Am I in violation of the copyright? I entered into a contract with my distributor in good faith. They changed the rules after the fact.

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[HermMunster]

Microsoft implied they were not bound by the GPL v3 for anything and that it could not be enforced against them. That's what the FSF is talking about. They are saying that they are immune to anything having to do with the GPL simply by declaring it. The FSF is going to take issue because it means that any company can so declare if Microsoft isn't taken to task on the issue.

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[Eco-Mono]

Then couldn't they distribute only v2 software to voucher-holders?

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[HermMunster]

In as much as there are slasdotards there are propritards (tards that use proprietary software) that use MS Software. Now, if you don't want to get into such a stupid ad homenen fight then stop trying to insult others. If you do not, then we can clearly take from your position that you do not have a clear idea of what FOSS is nor what it is trying to accomplish.

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[UbuntuDupe]

You think MS can legally weasel out of the GPL obligations? What are you, some astroturfer or something?

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[veganboyjosh]

sorry if that was unclear. i was making a joke, since the ggp post was somewhat circular. my "this post is untrue" was referring to itself.

if it's true, then it makes it untrue, which makes it true, etc...

sort of like "there's a hole in the bucket..."

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[FuzzyDaddy]

That's the rub, isn't it, if contracting out an activity constitutes engaging in it? Certainly for criminal activity, it amounts to the same thing. For civil cases, I'd say you'd have a pretty good case too, so I'd have to disagree with you. If you paid someone to, for example, damage my house, you can bet I'd sue you - and win, too, if I could prove there was a contract.

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[Thomas Charron]

Microsoft is DEFINATLY concerned with the GPLv3, specifically because of patent issues. Hence, they issued a global statement saying that Microsoft does NOT accept it, and will not accept it, and hence, can't use the software.

All they did is scream to the entire world that they most definatly do not, so if anyone inside of Microsoft ever DOES, they can refer to anyone that had ever read the press release that they do not, and place blame on the person as not acting on behalf of Microsoft.

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[arth1]

All of the software that gives "GPL 2 and any later version" as its license is now optionally under GPL3, and new versions of Samba, LIBC, etc., will be "GPL 3 and any later version" and will be included in SuSE.

Of all people, I though you'd be careful to say GNU LIBC or glibc when you meant the GNU implementation only, cause plain libc is not subject to GPL -- there are implementations under various licenses.
(And even if you meant glibc, that's LGPL, and not GPL.)

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[Doctor-Optimal]

I don't have a "position" on whether the FSF is in the right or wrong (I don't know anywhere near enough about the GPL to have a meaningful opinion). My only "position" on this matter (and I'd call it more of an "observation") is that certain people would take any action (or lack of action) from/by MS as proof of guilt.

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[Thomas Charron]

Hrm..

Tell me, if you decide to never, EVER sell something that's made by, say, Toshiba, could you be held accountable for Toshiba batteries exploding? :-)

That's what they said..

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[ZachPruckowski]

It only could possibly occur (under the FSF theory) if someone redeems a voucher for a SUSE distro that includes GPLv3 software. Now, as it happens, that's gonna probably happen soon, since a lot of the GNU software (bash, gcc, etc.) is moving to v3 for newer software. The FSF's goal is to either force SUSE to fork everything from the older GPLv2 code, or else distribute GPLv3 code. If Microsoft is involved in "conveying" said code (and "conveying" code versus "distributing" it was a distinction created largely for this sort of a reason), then they surrender their right to enforce patents against it or its derivative works, or something to that effect. This would presumably knock out a non-trivial number of the patents MS is threatening Linux with. Microsoft is basically now trying to retroactively make the vouchers not valid for GPLv3, or avoid being considered "conveying" the code.

I am not a lawyer.

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[notamisfit]

She's actually not a lawyer...

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[HermMunster]

If Novell does not include any GPL v3 products in their SuSE and people then redeem them Microsoft is not bound. But if Novell does decide to include a GPL v3 product and someone redeems then the license applies to Microsoft (just as the GPL v2 would apply). Novell could refuse to accept the redeemed coupons in order to protect the agreement between themselves and Microsoft and then the redeemer could then go back to Microsoft and ask for a refund. This essentially freezes the SuSE product--and Linxpire and Xandros too. But to say that a product that is covered by the GPL v3 that becomes included in the SuSE products it does make at least Novell bound to the GPL v3. The question as to whether Microsoft knew the GPL could change (as it did from v1 to v2) and that Licenses often change (as their EULA states clearly that they are subject to change) would certainly play into whether Microsoft is really bound by the agreement even if it were not stated up front.

What some are trying to say is that Microsoft is not bound by the GPL v2 either. They are trying to say that only Novell is. What the FSF is saying is that Microsoft is as much bound by the GPL as anyone is. It would be completely wrong to allow for agreements between two parties for the purpose of allowing them the benefits of the software developed under the GPL without that company being bound by the terms of the GPL. That's what's wrong with the Novell-Microsfot agreement. That's why the GPL v3 was created. It was created to protect the developers to keep companies such as Microsoft from stealing their work.

If the agreement between Microsoft and Novell excluded any GPL V3 product as a possibility, well, that's one thing. But if they didn't include a clause or two regarding that in their agreement then certainly this is a matter for the courts. Either way, it would be a matter for the courts.

Certainly Microsoft has the right to cease selling the the vouchers (in the event that there is no clause (or two)).

Clearly it is an issue the courts could answer. I don't know the law in that regard but companies such as Microsoft have tried to enforce this sort of thing in their favor in the past. So, I think there are some pretty clear cases representing this position.

Really it is the responsibility of Microsoft to do more than declare they are not bound. They must, at least, attempt to recover the vouchers and then in turn get them back from Novell or work to ensure that Novell does not make them bound by the GPL v3 by intentionally including GPL v3 software in their distribution.

The GPL v3 is doing what it is supposed to do. It is keeping Microsoft from thwarting the purpose of the GPL to begin with, which is to protect the developers. To even attempt to thwart it is a knife in the back of anyone giving their resources to create a product they want others to enjoy for free.

I could personally care less about whether Microsoft's proprietary software becomes less popular (or any company's software for that matter). It isn't up to the people that are part of the FOSS to protect Microsoft's markets. If they choose to make something and give it away for free then that's their business. It is really sad when company owned by the "once richest man in the world" thwarts the intended purpose of a license to keep competition under their thumbs.

There is nothing in the world that says that free and open software is bad for anything, including the economy. I venture to say that in fact it is more beneficial to the economy because the money from the sale of the proprietary software generally go into small group of people's pockets and sits in bank accounts, etc. What happens when those that would have to pay for that software can use that money for something else (e.g., eduction, dental bills, clothes for their children, or repairs to their cars, etc), is certainly more beneficial to the economy.

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[volpe]

Possibly MS is obligated for "GPL2 and later" software, although that is less clear.

I don't see how. MS if free to distribute such software under the GPL2 license.

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[notamisfit]

Which is why their patent attacks haven't addressed the toolchain or gcc but rather the Linux kernel, GNOME/KDE, and OO.o (ie, stuff they *DON'T* distribute).

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[gad_zuki!]

The FSF just wants to strengthen copyrights so arbitrary changes to licenses are retro-active, which is of course a nightmare.If MS was doing this the slashdot servers would be melting from all the outrage, but because FSF is doign this, its great!

This is why copyright will never die nor will it ever be reformed. Big business and free software depend on it too much. No one really wants to do anything about it but use it as a power grab. Its pretty depressing.

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[VGPowerlord]

It's a moot point, Microsoft has the right to say "we don't agree with your license" and continue to distribute vouchers under the Doctrine of First Sale.

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, but what if I distribute vouchers to purchase legitimate copies of Britneyz new hit, and the distributor decides instead to distribute bootleg copies? Am I in violation of the copyright? I entered into a contract with my distributor in good faith. They changed the rules after the fact.

That is the wrong analogy - the decision to go GPLv3 was by the Samba authors, not by Novell.

It is MS's problem that they promised something, profited from it, but now they decided that they dont like the current price of fulfilling that promise. It's like contracting to provide technical support and terminating the support agreement once the customer files a critical bug. "We did not know it was going to be that expensive for us to fix that! The customer's bugreport increased the cost of the contract after we entered into the contract, so it is null and void!"

Claiming that they did not know that the GPLv3 was coming along is disingenious at best. It is like claiming that they did not know that by building in San Francisco they might be affected by earthquakes. MS could have contracted in a way to eliminate the "risks" from the GPLv3 but they apparently failed to cover all bases - and that was their own doing. With their size of a legal department they certainly cannot claim incompetent legal representation :-)

Even though MS stopped distributing new vouchers, fact is that MS profits from hundreds of millions of lines of GPL-ed SuSE code right now (which code was written by tens of thousands of authors and is worth billions of dollars or more), by selling Windows alongside the SuSE vouchers to customers, and they contracted Novell/SuSE to distribute that code with no time limit on the vouchers.

That means that MS profits from the vouchers here and now . (as customers rely on MS's promise that Novell would be willing to honor the vouchers, and those same customers are paying for MS's services as we speak, partly encouraged by the availability of the vouchers)

And the law is fortunately not on the side of companies that try to circumvent obligations put on them by copyright licenses. Judges also have a dim view on the concept of profiting from other people's works without their authorization.

The largest software company on Earth profited tens or hundreds of millions of dollars from code written by others for free, and they now claim that the license is null and void and that they want to preserve the right to threaten with patent-lawsuits, which threats both the GPLv2 and the GPLv3 explicitly forbids? They also claim that the Novell contract is null and void because they were unfairly out-foxed by a single pro-bono university law professor who made the patent language in the GPLv2 match the original intention of the GPL even more? Try to go before a jury with those kinds of arguments, I definitely want a front-row ticket for that show :-)

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[Aim Here]

First sale?

No.

First sale relates to the distribution of physical copies of copyrighted works. In this case, the physical copies are of vouchers, and nobody cares about the copyright status of what's printed on the vouchers. First sale doesn't cut it.

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[ejasons]

The Suse vouchers that MS handed out had no expiry date and nothing stating which version of Suse they were valid for.
GPLv3 states that if you give rights to certain users, you must extend those same rights to ALL users without exception.
If a single person uses a Suse/MS voucher to obtain software licensed under GPLv3, ALL users of that software are immune from lawsuits by MS.

I'm always amazed at the technical people who think that the legal system is a computer program that they can hack.

The justice system does attempt (though it may not seem so at times) to apply common sense, rather than just blindly following the laws. As such, I can't believe that there is a judge in the world who would compel Microsoft to comply with a license that wasn't even in existence when the vouchers were created.

Even as much as we all wish that it were so...

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[DragonWriter]

If Novell does not include any GPL v3 products in their SuSE and people then redeem them Microsoft is not bound. But if Novell does decide to include a GPL v3 product and someone redeems then the license applies to Microsoft (just as the GPL v2 would apply).

Nothing in the text of either the GPLv2 or GPLv3 would apply to Microsoft in that situation and, furthermore, even if there was text that did, and even if the GPL was (contrary to the FSF's usual claims on the question) a contract rather than a gratuitous license, there is no offer and acceptance to form of a contract between Microsoft and the copyright owners of the GPL-licensed software Novell would be distributing which would bind Microsoft.

Novell could refuse to accept the redeemed coupons in order to protect the agreement between themselves and Microsoft and then the redeemer could then go back to Microsoft and ask for a refund.

No, assuming the GPL prohibited the transaction, Novell could refuse to honor the vouchers to protect their (Novell's) status under the GPL; this would, almost certainly, violate their agreement with Microsoft, rather than protecting it.

But to say that a product that is covered by the GPL v3 that becomes included in the SuSE products it does make at least Novell bound to the GPL v3.

Sure, Novell's permission to distribute software that for which they have received the GPL as a license offer is governed by the GPL, because Novell received the GPL software and decided to include it in a product they distribute, and the GPL is the only thing that gives them permission to do so. But Novell is not Microsoft. (But Novell is not, under the FSF's own characterization of the GPL, "bound" by the GPL, since the GPL is not, per the FSF, a contract, and thus the licensee is not "bound" at all, they merely are given certain limited privileges out of the goodness of the licensor's heart without being bound to anything by the licenses. Of course, the law of gratuitous licenses is not consistent with the kind of security that the FSF likes to pretend that the GPL provides for licensees, but that's a different problem.)

What some are trying to say is that Microsoft is not bound by the GPL v2 either.

Except insofar as as Microsoft is themselves distributing GPL software in either source or binary form, any limitations in the GPL are simply inapplicable to them.

They are trying to say that only Novell is. What the FSF is saying is that Microsoft is as much bound by the GPL as anyone is.

Most other people are also not "bound" (even loosely, in the sense that Novell is) by the GPL, either.

It would be completely wrong to allow for agreements between two parties for the purpose of allowing them the benefits of the software developed under the GPL without that company being bound by the terms of the GPL.

Whether it would be "completely wrong" to do so or not, neither copyright law, the law of contracts or of gratuitous licenses, nor the text of the GPLv2 or v3 actually prevents companies from entering into agreements where one of them provides vouchers that the other has agreed to honor with distribution of GPL-licensed software without the voucher-providing company being acquiring any obligations under the GPL. Of course, the company actually distributing the software is bound by the GPL, and may be put in a lose/lose situation (since the vouchers are themselves a legally-enforceable obligation) if the vouchers are open-ended and it wants to switch from GPLv2 to GPLv3 and it can't provide the necessary patent-freedom guarantees when it does so.

But to me it seems that, at worst, Microsoft may have put them in a position of being liable to Novell for some share (or all) of the damages Novell might owe for failing to honor vouchers if Microsoft refus

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[ConceptJunkie]

You think MS can legally weasel out of the GPL obligations? What are you, some astroturfer or something?

They legally weasel out of plenty of other things. The first step is to see if the courts rule against them, the second step (a part of the judicial system only open to super rich and super powerful companies) is to try to find a way to wriggle out of it even if you do lose. Witness the anti-trust case. Microsoft lost and the biggest penalty was the threat of another suit, which, as we've seen, hasn't had much effect either.

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[Bert64]

Microsoft made the mistake of not specifying a time limit or a particular version on the vouchers...
The vouchers are basically valid for "ANY version of Novell Linux at any time".
They had no stipulation that only certain approved versions would be valid, they could easily have made the vouchers only valid for the current version and later offered newer vouchers covering newer versions...

To put it another way, If i'm a budget car manufacturer and i give you a voucher entitling you to "any vehicle from my range" with no expiry... And you dont like any of my budget cars, so you file the voucher away... some time down the line i start producing a range of expensive luxury cars, would you not claim your free luxury car? It's my fault for giving you a voucher on those terms, you as a customer are only looking out for your own rights and best interests by claiming the best vehicle you can.

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[Citizen of Earth]

I'd say that because the distribution of the vouchers predates GPLV3, that MS has a leg to stand on here.

Lots of software is distributed using GPL 2.1 "or any later version". GPL 3 is "any later version". All anyone has to do is acquire any "or any later version" software through an MS voucher, assert that they are using "later version" 3, and poof, Microsoft's patents turn into pumpkins.

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[HermMunster]

That is apples and oranges to what's at issue here. You are speaking about stopping a legal act and replacing it with an illegal act. We are talking about a modification to a license which is not illegal in any version.

Your analogy would have been better made if you stated that they changed albums (say that was created by a popular artist such as Bob Dylan). If you contracted to sell coupons for the first album that Bob Dylan recorded and then the distributor decided to honor the coupons for the 10the album he made (which may be much less popular) then one could ask that question. Would you be bound by the terms of the license governing the 10th album made by Bob Dylan?

In this case you would be obligated to give the customers their money back, or to notify them that they are entitled to their money back, or to inform them that they can accept the coupon and honor it for the 10th album (which may be less value), or that you would not be held liable for any redemption of anything other than a specific album. For those accepting the 10th album (instead of the first album) you are bound, unless...

You must have covered that in the contract covering the voucher and you must have covered it in the contract that covered the deal with the distributor. You can't escape the contract or the "tie in" by simply claiming you aren't bound by it. If it isn't covered then the customer isn't bound by your demand to give them their money back.

Clearly these issues were not covered either way because if they were then we wouldn't be having this discussion. Microsoft put no expiration date on the voucher and clearly it doesn't cover any specific release of the Linux distribution. If there had been terms covering this in the original contract we would be seeing clauses of those terms cropping up in this discussion thread. As well, if it had been covered in the original voucher we'd been seeing those clauses in this discussion as well.

Since they obviously weren't covered then we have an issue for the courts and thus we should expect some sort of lawsuit to address the issue. The FSF may realize that fighting Microsoft is like fighting the proverbial 1000 pound gorilla and that it will cost them a fortune. Microsoft must realize that a lawsuit (if they loose) simply means that they can't use FUD any more and that more than likely they'll have drained the FSF of funds and the will to fight future battles. What the FSF knows is that if they get a win they may successfully indemnify every user against Microsoft.

This is something we should not be fighting to begin with as Microsoft technically has no leg to stand on as far as IP goes--yes we are talking about indemnification against IP, not copyright, infringement--since Microsoft essentially won't disclose what is being violated, hence they are simply abandoning their rights to any protection as it is.

What's happening is that the FSF is fighting the wrong battle. The battle that needs to be fought is to force Microsoft to disclose which IP is in violation. It would probably be easier and less costly to just force Microsoft to disclose the IP in question and then to work with the FOSS community to ensure that any violation is addressed promptly.

After that they can go after Microsoft to ensure that the rights of the developers are being protected but we'd not have the battle over IP, because as it stands now the battle is on two fronts--IP violations and copyright violations.

Hopefully the IP violations are being taken care of currently in that some group of people are reviewing the patents that Microsoft owns that relate to anything that is being done in the Linux Kernel, X, and Open Office. Once those are identified then a review of the code to ensure that any violation is identified and removed and that a declaration of the removal is made publicly.

Once that's done we have no need to worry about whether anyone is indemnified.

As time goes by we'd see the Open Source IP portfolios rise dramatically.

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[harlows_monkeys]

MS would argue that merely giving out the vouchers is not distribution but most people (the FSF included) see it differently

There are two problems with this. First, there is no support whatsoever in either copyright statute or case law for the notion that distributing vouchers to a copyrighted work is legally a distribution of that work. (And the very idea is weird. Would the FSF say that if I went to the theater and bought tickets for a movie, and then gave those tickets to someone else, I'm distributing the movie?).

Second, even if it were distribution, it would not obligate Microsoft to GPL, because it is a ditribution that is allowed by copyright law. Microsoft bought a given number of vouchers from SUSE, and they are redistribution those vouchers. (At least, this is what the early stories about the deal implied...anyone know for sure if this is correct?). Microsoft is not printing new vouchers, or modifying the vouchers--just doing a one-to-one passing on of the vouchers they received from SUSE. That puts them squarely under the first sale doctrine. For those not familiar with first sale, it basically says that if you legally obtain a copy of a copyrighted work, you can pass that on to someone else, via sale, rental, gift, etc., without needing the permission of the copyright holder. Once the copyright holder places a particular copy in the stream of commerce, it is beyond his control.

First sale is what makes used bookstores legal, for example, and also what makes loaning your books to your friends legal. I suspect that one of the reasons the deal between Microsoft and Novell was structured to use vouchers supplied by Novell was to make sure Microsoft would be covered by first sale when they used the vouchers.

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[Eponymous Bastard]

I don't know who modded this up, but the question doesn't make any sense. People who make GPL software aren't bound by the GPL with regards to their own software. At least until the first time they accept a patch. At that point they have to abide by the patch author's license, i.e. the GPL.

And let's face it, who distributes GPL'd software and doesn't accept patches?

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

MS is obviously concerned, they would not be making noise if they were not. I suspect that they have lost their last chance to keep Free Software away from their patent portfolio by doing this.

And that would be unfortunate for several reasons.

For one thing, it will have lowered the FSF to the same level of trying to gets its way through contemptible legal trickery as the very people it claims to oppose. It all but admits that the collaborative ideal isn't as great as it's supposed to be. After all, if so-called Tivoization is against the spirit of OSS and a free, collaborative world is better, surely the philosophical response is to have the community take the same baseline OSS code and build a better product than Tivo on top of it?

For another thing, I would expect any successful legal action brought by the FSF against Microsoft for this to pretty much define the time every big player in the software industry that doesn't already have a big investment in OSS started avoiding it like the plague, particularly anything connected with GPL3. Given that most of the big name OSS development is at least partially backed by commercial sponsors, that could be a serious blow.

And finally, if the gloves are off and the lawsuits start flying, my money is overwhelmingly on Microsoft. The FSF talks a lot of talk about what it thinks the GPL means, but the simple fact is that statements by the FSF are not legislation and the whole topic is almost entirely untested in court. Microsoft, meanwhile, has an army of lawyers with a track record of great success, and it has so much more money to throw at them that the exact scale doesn't matter. If the FSF wants to get itself into a fight that could completely destroy both the organisation and the licensing strategy it has adopted, this would be a pretty good way to go about it.

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[harlows_monkeys]

I'm not going to argue your movie/burger analogy

A more accurate analogy would lose the burger, and use two movie tickets. You buy two movie tickets. You keep one, and give one to your girlfriend.

Did you just distribute the movie to your girlfriend?

If the FSF's argument is right, you did!

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[Bruce Perens]

GNU LIBC is the only C library in common use in GNU+Linux distributions. Anything not using it is probably targeted to the embedded market. It might be possible to make a BSD C library work with the kernel, but nobody does it and getting it to be LSB compliant is a further task once you get it to work.

Bruce

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[DragonWriter]

Don't think 'copyright violation'. Think along the lines of estoppel.

Yeah, it doesn't work under those terms, either.

The threat here isn't that the FSF sues Microsoft for a GPLv3 breach; the FSF is making clear that there's a defence to a patent infringement lawsuit, namely that Microsoft aided and abetted the distribution of software under GPLv3 terms.

Except that, well, they didn't. They issued vouchers when SUSE was (as it still is) distributed under GPLv2 terms, under an agreement with Novell, with very specific limitations on where the patent guarantee applies that are inconsistent with the GPLv3 (which didn't, IIRC, exist at the time the agreement was made.)

And the patent provisions of GPLv3 make clear under what conditions this software is allowed to be distributed.

Yeah, they do. And, under the terms of the GPLv3, Novell is not permitted to distribute software under the GPLv3 with only the guarantees Microsoft has provided, which are not as broad as the GPLv3 requires. The result is not that Microsoft's guarantees would be legally treated as broader than they are if Novell changed the licensing on SUSE, the result is that (1) if Novell choose freely (because the software was GPLv2 or later and they wanted to use v3) to use the GPLv3, Novell may be liable to downstream redistributors and users not protected by Microsoft's guarantee for implicit or explicit misrepresentations, particularly if they induced the decision to spend money on SUSE, or (2) if Novell incorporated some else's GPLv3 software into SUSE and thus was compelled to distribute it only under the GPLv3, Novell would be prohibited from honoring the SUSE vouchers and would be liable to Microsoft for breach of contract and/or to the voucher holders as third-party beneficiaries, or, if they chose to distribute despite the terms of the GPLv3, would themselves be in violation of the GPLv3 and liable for copyright infringement.

Most likely, though, what it really means is that Novell doesn't move SUSE to GPLv3 until and unless the vouchers aren't a substantial issue and they are willing to absorb the costs associated with doing so, and if they want to put out a GPLv3 Linux product in the meantime, they do it under a different name, and don't make it eligible for the vouchers.

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[DragonWriter]

I don't know who modded this up, but the question doesn't make any sense. People who make GPL software aren't bound by the GPL with regards to their own software.

Uh, yeah, they are. In fact, under the FSF's "GPL is a gratuitous license, not a contract" argument, the only people who are "bound" by the GPL (that is, the only people whose legal rights, privileges, remedies, etc. are constrained by the GPL) are copyright holders who offer their software under the GPL. Other people benefit from the grants of privileges in the GPL, and benefit only so far as the GPL allows, but since it doesn't restrict any pre-existing rights or privileges, it is inaccurate to portray them as being "bound" by it.

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[EvilRyry]

Many places require copyright assignment for that very reason.

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[Bruce Perens]

OK, but what if I distribute vouchers to purchase legitimate copies of Britneyz new hit, and the distributor decides instead to distribute bootleg copies? Am I in violation of the copyright? I entered into a contract with my distributor in good faith. They changed the rules after the fact.

It seems to me that Novell can't possibly have guaranteed to Microsoft that it either party would continue to have the right to distribute under Microsoft's contract terms, or that the licenses on the software would stay the same. There are a great many third parties who are copyright holders of the distributed software and were not party to the deal. They can not arbitrarily terminate the licenses on old versions of software that are under the GPL, according to the GPL's own terms. But they don't owe Microsoft any obligation to keep their license the same on any subsequent versions, and Novell can't stick with old versions if they want their distribution to be marketable.

So, in analogy, if Britneyz label decided to change the terms on their license to prohibit distribution under the coupons, the distributor and you would not have any right to continue distribution. You would not be able to show in court any reasonable expectation that the terms would stay the same because the label would not be party to your deal at all.

Some of the copyright holders are disgruntled over the loophole around the patent terms in their licenses that Novell and Microsoft attempted to engineer, and would consider this move on Microsoft to be pay-back or fair-play.

Thanks

Bruce

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[Aim Here]

"Except that, well, they didn't. They issued vouchers when SUSE was (as it still is) distributed under GPLv2 terms, under an agreement with Novell, with very specific limitations on where the patent guarantee applies that are inconsistent with the GPLv3 (which didn't, IIRC, exist at the time the agreement was made.)"

Now there's two things here that give the FSF leverage. One is that Microsoft agreed that Novell should release software under a 'GPLv2 or later' license. The other is that the SuSE vouchers did NOT have an expiration date. Meaning if someone has one of those vouchers, they can wait until GPLv12 to cash it in. There's no way that Microsoft can plead ignorance of the 'GPLv2 or later' language in the code it was distributing, there's no way it can complain about the lack of the expiration date, since it clearly agreed to the voucher system, and Microsoft must surely have been aware that the GPLv3 was being drafted. How can Microsoft suddenly be surprised that it was going to help supply the world with GPLv3 software?

"ah, they do. And, under the terms of the GPLv3, Novell is not permitted to distribute software under the GPLv3 with only the guarantees Microsoft has provided, which are not as broad as the GPLv3 requires."

Except that Novell has confirmed that it's going to go ahead and distribute GPLv3 software anyway. If Alice comes along with a voucher, supplied to her by Microsoft, and gets GPLv3 software from SuSE, and then reads her GPL, happily offers that software to Bob, who gets sued by Microsoft for patent infringement, who is at fault? Bob isn't, he took his GPL at face value. Alice isn't, she took her GPL at face value AND Microsoft helped Alice get this software, with full knowledge that it was going to contain a GPL license. The answer is that both Novell and Microsoft are at fault. Microsoft can't sue Bob, because Microsoft helped Bob (via Alice) get his software with all the GPL guarantees and whatnot. And if Microsoft DOES have the right to sue, then Novell is guilty of copyright infringement for not providing a secure enough GPLv3 guarantee along with the code it supplied.

"Most likely, though, what it really means is that Novell doesn't move SUSE to GPLv3 until and unless the vouchers aren't a substantial issue"

Novell ARE distributing GPLv3 software. The FSF DOES believe the vouchers are a substantial issue, and made that clear as soon as they spotted that the SuSE vouchers had no expiration date. Your 'most likely' scenario is already in the bin.

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[Bruce Perens]

I don't see how. MS if free to distribute such software under the GPL2 license.

But they are not legally able to strip off that "and any later version" language. So, what if I get the software from Novell with a Microsoft coupon, and I accept the GPL3 on GNU LIBC? Did Microsoft and Novell not convey it to me under that license? Do Microsoft and Novell have the right to say I can only accept that software under GPL2? There is room for litigation here...

Bruce

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.

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[Bruce Perens]

For one thing, it will have lowered the FSF to the same level of trying to gets its way through contemptible legal trickery as the very people it claims to oppose.

Copyleft was always about turning the present legal system on its head, using the present legal system as the tool. I doubt that FSF wants to bring suit, anyway. They want to have an estoppel defense if Microsoft brings a patent suit. They would have some very big friends in doing that, bigger than Microsoft.

Regarding whether any of this would scare business away, I just don't think so. I work with large corporate customers all day, they are aware of Microsoft's nature and express a good deal of anger. None of the FUD, SCO, etc., has scared them off so far.

Bruce

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[falconwolf]

Reading the press release, they don't really SAY much... other than "We hate you Microsoft, neener neener neener."

Is this more FUD? Unlike other /.ers I read articles and neither in this one or the press release I did see anywhere in there where it said the FSF hated Microsoft. What they said was that MS has used anticompetitive conduct, which courts in both the US and in Europe have acknowledged. Not in one place did I see "hate" other than as part of "whatever".

Falcon

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[Bruce Perens]

I thought they discontinued the Unix compatibility product that contained GPL components. In which case this would be moot.

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[namgge]

In England (and presumably elsewhere) you can't create a contract commisioning a criminal act. This type of agreement is not a contract it's a conspiracy.

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[pete-classic]

Interesting. After several careful readings, I believe that you are correct. I continued down the path of using "bound" the original poster started.

But you are splitting hairs a bit. My point is that only the copyright holder can distribute without regard to the responsibilities under the GPL. And I think that point stands.

-Peter

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[notamisfit]

Does the patent license expire immediately after discontinuation, or must it be offered for 3 additional years like source code?

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[DragonWriter]

Now there's two things here that give the FSF leverage.

You are wrong in both cases, IMO, about the leverage.

One is that Microsoft agreed that Novell should release software under a 'GPLv2 or later' license.

If true, that allows redistributors to choose to use the GPLv2 or a later license. Of course, redistributors receive no patent pledge from Microsoft unless they negotiate it themselves, and without negotiating a universal pledge, any using the GPLv3 would be violating its terms. But that's a separate issue.

Except that Novell has confirmed that it's going to go ahead and distribute GPLv3 software anyway.

Which, given the content of the Microsoft pledge, is a clear violation by Novell of the GPLv3, since the GPLv3 expressly prohibits them from doing so. This may have consequences as to their rights to the software involved. OTOH, its not a violation of anything by Microsoft.

Note that agreeing that Novell use the "GPLv2 or later" term which allows redistributors to use some later version of the GPL is not the same as agreeing to Novell using the GPLv3.

The other is that the SuSE vouchers did NOT have an expiration date. Meaning if someone has one of those vouchers, they can wait until GPLv12 to cash it in.

They can wait and hope that Novell releases SUSE under the GPLv12, but there is nothing in the agreement that permits Novell to release SUSE under terms incompatible with Microsoft's patent pledge.

If Alice comes along with a voucher, supplied to her by Microsoft, and gets GPLv3 software from SuSE, and then reads her GPL, happily offers that software to Bob, who gets sued by Microsoft for patent infringement, who is at fault?

Alice, if Microsoft's pledge (that she received) did not cover Bob, and she represented to Bob that he was protected, explicitly or implicitly.

Novell is at fault for violating the GPLv3, but probably not liable to Alice or Bob for the specific problem here unless, despite the specific content of Microsoft's pledge, the GPLv3 could reasonably have misled them.

Microsoft isn't at fault at all.

Microsoft can't sue Bob, because Microsoft helped Bob (via Alice) get his software with all the GPL guarantees and whatnot.

There is no "helping you get it" provision of the GPL, and no legal basis for it being enforceable even if there was.

And if Microsoft DOES have the right to sue, then Novell is guilty of copyright infringement for not providing a secure enough GPLv3 guarantee along with the code it supplied.

Novell is clearly guilty of that if they release GPLv3 software with a patent guarantee more limited than that required by the GPLv3 whether or not Microsoft has the right to sue. That's unquestionable.

What is FUD is the suggestion by Moglen than Microsoft's patent pledge magically becomes universal if Novell chooses to violate the GPLv3 by distributing software for which it has received a limited patent pledge for its customers from Microsoft under the GPLv3 which prohibits distribution with such a limited pledge.

The FSF DOES believe the vouchers are a substantial issue

The fact that the FSF believes, or at least publicly proclaims, many (some of them mutually contradictory) things about the legal consequences of the GPL does not make them true.

The other is that the SuSE vouchers did NOT have an expiration date. Meaning if someone has one of those vouchers, they can wait until GPLv12 to cash it in. There's no way that Microsoft can plead ignorance of the 'GPLv2 or later' language in the code it was distributing, there's no way it can complain about the lack of the expiration date, since it clearly agreed to the voucher system, and Microsoft must surely have been aware that the GPLv3 was being drafted. How can Microsoft suddenly be surprised that it was going to help supply the world with GPLv3 software?

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[architimmy]

I would think that if the coupon did not include a disclaimer stating that the terms of the coupon were subject to vendor participation that yes in fact they might be suddenly responsible for issuing a document entitling the holder to a free burger which no "burger supplier" would honor. At least, I assume so, because I've never seen nor heard of a "counterfeit coupon" before.

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[Bruce Perens]

Oh, sorry, I didn't consider that point. There is a estoppel regarding the last versions of GNU tools that Microsoft themselves distributed. That won't terminate, and could be used to defend us regarding algorithms that appear in those versions of those tools, including when those algorithms are used in other GPL software. It's just that this estoppel applies to many fewer things than are in SuSE.

Thanks

Bruce

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[YU Nicks NE Way]

No, Bruce, there's no room for litigation here.

There is room for litigation concerning whether the terms of the GPL are enforceable, at least in California.

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[stinerman]

In fact, even if you just point out where people can get my work, say by putting a tracker on a Bittorrent site, or giving someone a voucher which lets them download it, you still need my permission.

I don't think that theory has been tested in a US court of law. I'd like the FSF to take down MSFT, but I'd like them to do it in a way that doesn't pervert copyright law in the direction most of us have been fighting against.

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[Anonymous Coward]

Regardless of what the delusional fools at FSF believe, they cannot redefine the legal definition of "distribution".

The FSF nor the GPL do not define how copyright law applies, nor how it does not apply. Copyright law itself defines this. Copyright law is quite strong and far-reaching.

The FSF are copyright holders in GNU software. Under copyright law, this fact gives the FSF strong rights to control how their software may be copied. Note that the rights pertain to "copying", not just "distributing". This is copyright law, not the GPL.

OK, copyright law says that in order to give out vouchers for a copyrighted work that enable someone to get a copy of the work, you need to have permission of the copyright holder. This is the law, it is not something invoked by the GPL or by the FSF.

OK, the FSF do give such permission via the GPL. Anyone abiding by the GPL has permission from the copyright holders to give out vouchers for GNU software. Anyone not abiding by the GPL has no such permission. It is as simple as that.

The FSF press release is a statement of these facts.

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[killjoe]

Maybe not if they distributed a GPL2 'or later' license.

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[nmx]

No, it doesn't work that way. If the copyright notice says "version 2 or later" it's up to the person who distributes the work to decide which version to distribute it under. That would be Microsoft. In that case they could just distribute it under GPLv2. However, if the notice said "version 3", then Microsoft *would* be bound by it, if they chose to distribute it.

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[GPL Apostate]

"You're soaking your hand in it."

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[GPL Apostate]

It's safe to say that you work with a fairly selective range of 'large corporate customers.' Perhaps it could be said that said customers are those who don't 'drink the Microsoft Koolaide,' but that's just a point of view, and further, its a significant distinction from many other large corporate entities who've bought deeply into 'The Microsoft Way.'

The thing that saddens me about this whole issue is that it seems like a lot of game playing and entrapment trickery. The FSF already has a rep in this regard that it needs to slough off by not shaking certain rattles in public.

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[Bruce Perens]

No, Bruce, there's no room for litigation here.

This isn't argument, it's just contradiction.

There is room for litigation concerning whether the terms of the GPL are enforceable, at least in California

That finding is not relevant to the GPL because JMRI used the Artistic License, which gives away just about all rights until it's like public domain with attribution - and that fact was important to the case. So, this is more relevant to BSD and Apache licenses than to the GPL, which very clearly does not give away all rights.

The finding did not say the license was unenforcible, but that it had to be enforced as a contract rather than through copyright law. This precludes treble damages and an initial prohibition on distribution before the trial starts, but still gives the copyright holder rights to enforce the license.

But anyway, this is not of precedent to any other case until it gets by some appeals courts, and IMO it would not get by them - knowledgable commentators believe the judge misread the law.

Bruce

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[GPL Apostate]

The FSF itself strongly urges contributors to assign copyright to the FSF, in addition to releasing the code under the GPL.

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[VGPowerlord]

First sale?

No.

First sale relates to the distribution of physical copies of copyrighted works. In this case, the physical copies are of vouchers, and nobody cares about the copyright status of what's printed on the vouchers. First sale doesn't cut it.

Yes, but without the boxed copy of Linux (afaict, the agreement is for boxed copies of SuSE), Microsoft isn't party to the GPLv3.

There's really only two interpretations here:
1. Microsoft is distributing vouchers and not GPLed products.

2. Microsoft is distributing boxed copies of GPLed software... but can disagree with the license and distribute it anyway due to the doctrine of first sale.

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[volpe]

Bruce, I've been reading your posts for a long while now, and with all due respect, I think you're misinterpreting the "and any later version" verbiage. (And if it were anybody other than you, I wouldn't even have this twinge of doubt in my mind about that.) The idea is pretty darn clear: MICROSOFT wants to redistribute the software. MICROSOFT needs a license to do so in order to avoid copyright infringement. The copyright owner has granted to the public (and therefore to MICROSOFT in particular) a license to do so, under GPL2. The fact that the copyright holder has proclaimed in advance that they intend to ALSO release the software under GPL3 does not, and in fact *can* not, constitute a revocation of the existing GPL2 license to redistribute. Thus, MICROSOFT can continue to redistribute the software to someone else (the "Recipient") under the GPL2 license. Once the Recipient has received the software from Microsoft, anything the Recipient does with it is between him and the copyright holder. The copyright holder has released the software under GPL2 and GPL3. If the Recipient wishes to redistribute the software, he may decide whether the terms of GPL2 or GPL3 are preferable to him. His choice to do something with the copyright holder's software, under terms provided by the copyright holder, has no bearing on Microsoft and cannot be construed as imposing any ex-post-facto constraint on Microsoft.

IANAL, but I really think this is just common sense, isn't it?

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[volpe]

I wrote:
Thus, MICROSOFT can continue to redistribute the software to someone else (the "Recipient") under the GPL2 license.

Sorry for replying to my own post, but I felt the need to clarify something I just said. When I say Microsoft "redistributes under the GPL2 license", I do not mean that MS gives the GPL2 license to the Recipient as the means by which the Recipient has the right to possess/use/redistribute the software. In this context, the license is with respect to the redistributor, i.e. Microsoft, in that if someone asks Microsoft, "What gives you the right to redistribute this software that's copyrighted by someone else?", Microsoft can point to GPL2 and say "This gives us the right. We're abiding by the terms in this document.".

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[WhiteWolf666]

Nonsense.

This court is "simply wrong". There's nothing about the GPL (or any other open source license) that resembles a contract.

From wikipedia:

In common law jurisdictions there are three key elements to the creation of a contract. These are offer and acceptance, consideration and an intention to create legal relations.

Please feel free to verify this with Black's Law, or any other legal dictionary.

Particularly, the ruling in this case specifies that the JMRI project did not expect any sort of consideration; furthermore, there's no creation of legal relations.

Beyond that, the specific license in question, the "Artistic License" does not have a termination clause. Therefore, it's not 100% clear that violating the terms of the license would immediately be defined as copyright infringement. The court left this open for the time being.

Most OS licenses (like the GPL) contain a termination clause. In the case of a violation of license terms, your rights to distribute are immediately canceled. This is then considered copyright infringement.

Termination clauses are not something up for legal debate. If subsequent courts decide to uphold this ruling (which I feel is _very_ unlikely) it will only strengthen the need for termination clauses in OS licenses.

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[WhiteWolf666]

(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).

Pray tell;

Where did you get a copy of Linux without agreeing to the GPL? What gave you the right to acquire said copy?

Is it legal for me to distribute Windows without agreeing to Microsoft's license agreements? If, and only if, every "copy" I acquire is legally acquired.

It is _copyright infringement_ to distribute Linux without agreeing to the terms of the GPL. Period. Nothing gives you the right to generate copies, other than the GPL. Specifically:
Conveying under any other circumstances is permitted solely under
the conditions stated below. Sublicensing is not allowed; section 10
makes it unnecessary.

You cannot make copies of Windows without Microsoft's explicit permission. Anything else is considered piracy.

Similarly, you must gain the permission of "Linux" authors in order to make copies. Anything else is considered piracy; and the _only_ way to gain this permission is by agreeing to the terms of the GPL.

There is nothing that permits you owning, distributing, or modifying GPL'd software other than the GPL. You cannot acquire GPL'd software without agreeing to it; everything else is infringement.

What of that isn't clear? Luckily, you're not a lawyer.

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[Citizen of Earth]

If the copyright notice says "version 2 or later" it's up to the person who distributes the work to decide which version to distribute it under. That would be Microsoft.

The copyright notice is presented to the end user. The GPL version is the end-user's option.

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[aichpvee]

Wouldn't they have to assert the "later version" before microsoft distributed it? I don't know if they're going to get reamed over this one, and I can't think of a more deserving corporation, but I'd assume that if it says "GPL version 2 or any later version" that microsoft could just claim that they're using version 2 when they distribute it and then anyone after that would have the freedom to assert a later version themselves.

Even if Suse incorporates GPLv3 code (explicitly, not version 2 "or later") into their main distribution, I don't see any particular reason why they couldn't maintain a "special" (like the little bus) version with whatever previous version of the software could be licensed under v2 or with GPLv2 replacements for the v3 parts.

My money's on microsoft not being on the hook for this one, but they might end up paying some folks off anyway. They tend to do that a lot in situations where they'd rather not have a precedent if it might go against them at the time or in the future.

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[snickkers]

This still doesn't email things well enough. I've had similar questions on my mind - what does it /mean/ for MS to be bound by GPL3? Are you trying to tell me that as soon as someone redeems a SUSE voucher that they received from MS, then MS will need to make available all it's Windows and Office source code? That make no sense. Or do they just need to make the source code available for their vouchers?

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[Wordsmith]

And all it governs is distribution. The end-user doesn't need a license to USE the software - only to become a distributor himself.

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[sumdumass]

Suppose I write a program and give it to Microsoft, specifying that the license is GPLv2 or later. Microsoft then redistributes the software to you under the same terms.

You opt to use GPLv3. Your license would be with Microsoft, not be with me, the original copyright holder. Microsoft made the offer. I might, for example, have decided I didn't like GPLv3 and am now distributing the software as GPLv2 only. If you didn't license with me earlier, it's too late to do it now.

It wouldn't be that way. That is unless you also give the copyright to MS and they are foolish enough not to change the license. Even then they aren't distributing the GPLv3 versions so it still wouldn't come back on them. The GPL isn't an end user license. It is a contract stipulating terms in exchange for license rights to copyright covered works you (the copy holder) owns. If I got the GPLed software from Microsoft and violated the license, it would be the copyright holder who has to make me obey the license terms not MS. MS would be powerless to enforce the terms of the GPL (any version) unless they owned the "copyrights".

So in the end, you give permission to distribute or use the software in a certain way according to the rights copyright law give you. So if MS distributed your works under the GPLv2 or later, when I distribute the work, I am using the permission you gave me under the GPL and the terms that require all the works to retain the GPL licensing. The only think MS would be doing it giving someone else an opportunity to use your covered works under your terms. The fact they were in possession of the covered works at one time means nothing except to the extent that they followed the terms set force in the license they received and used when distributing to someone else.

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[Hal_Porter]

That's true. But Microsoft never agreed to distribute GPL3 code, it's just that third parties conspired to change the license out from under them against their wishes. Whatever you think of Microsoft and the FSF that's bogus. You can't get A to agree to one license, offer a B more rights under a new version and then allow the B to decide which one to accept over the objections of A. That just isn't fair, no matter how much you dislike A.

Mind you, it's this sort of possibility that makes me never want to have anything to do with the GPL or FSF. Since intellectual property law is completely non intuitive, the fact that it seems incredibly unjust doesn't necessarily mean that you won't end up in an expensive lawsuit over something like this, or even that you'd win the lawsuit in the end.

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[sumdumass]

So it looks as if Microsoft will be left holding a bag of worthless vouchers as soon as Novell adds GPLv3 code to SuSE.

"As soon as" is the key here. It might not be anytime soon or anytime period as far as the vouchers are concerned.

The vouchers are pretty clear on what Novell products are covered in them. Even if Novell does start including GPLv3 covered works into those products all they have to do is name the offerings something different enough to evade coverage of the vouchers. Then when the covered works stop getting updated because of too many products included going to the GPLv3, they just stop updating the covered versions and claim the end of life on it. And that doesn't even touch the possibility of forks keeping the Novell versions alive for quite a while.

But back to the as soon as. Well, it hasn't happened yet so it is pure conjecture at this point. I'm wondering why people have to continually mention it like it will be some saving grace or something. There is really no reason to spout "What if"s that might never happen as if it was fact. I dislike MS as much as the next person but this idiotic "the GPLv3 will infect everyone" BS coming from some areas of the the Free software community is getting old. I have sat down and saw several ways to subvert the intentions of the new stuff in the GPLv3 and it doesn't appear to be all that hard. Furthermore, I have seen a lot of liabilities that it opens up which could come back to bite people. It isn't pretty and it isn't much better then the GPLv2 while in some ways, it is much worse.

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[sumdumass]

Maybe MS isn't worried and is just using this as an opportunity to pull the crazies out with all the conspiracies on how MS will be tricked into losing everything because of some future event concerning the GPLv3 at a time when Vista adoption is slower then expected and the OS is radically different enough that a switch to linux would be in the same cost scale as a switch to Vista.

Wow, what a run on sentence. Anyways, why people are frothing over the aspect of tricking MS into losing it's patent rights because of the GPL license, MS is sitting back going "Well, if you switch to linux, you have to put up with this possibilities. It is already costing us a fortune in legal fees". The results? A lot of companies who might be looking to move to a Non MS platform stop looking.

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[Aim Here]

"You are wrong in both cases, IMO, about the leverage."

Moglen disagrees, particularly in the case of the vouchers, and he does have actual legal qualifications.

"They can wait and hope that Novell releases SUSE under the GPLv12, but there is nothing in the agreement that permits Novell to release SUSE under terms incompatible with Microsoft's patent pledge."

The pledge was a mutual agreement not to sue each other's customers for patent infringement. What makes you think that there was any restrictions on what license the software could be sold under? The SFLC (Eben again) saw the contract and then drafted the GPLv3 drafts with that document in mind. What gives you the impression that they made a mistake?

"There is no "helping you get it" provision of the GPL, and no legal basis for it being enforceable even if there was."

There are plenty of 'helping you get it' provisions in contract and criminal law. Estoppel. Unclean Hands. Waiver. Entrapment. Taking someone over something you helped them do, no matter what that is, is a bad plan since there's 69 varieties of law that deals with every eventuality regarding it. If Microsoft gives you a voucher for one copy of SuSE, then sues people who take the permissions therein at face value, do you really think that they're 100% in the clear?

"What is FUD is the suggestion by Moglen than Microsoft's patent pledge magically becomes universal if Novell chooses to violate the GPLv3 by distributing software for which it has received a limited patent pledge for its customers from Microsoft under the GPLv3 which prohibits distribution with such a limited pledge."

Again, what makes you think the pledge is limited? If this really is a case of 'We'll help you spread SuSE, and we promise not to sue your customers' then Novell's customers are safe, because of the patent pledge, and the downstream users of Novell's customers are safe, because of the estoppel-type clauses in law. What gives you the impression that Microsoft said 'We'll only distribute vouchers for GPLv2 software?' or 'We'll not distribute vouchers for software with patent pledges'. There's a multitude of licenses in the software that comes with SuSE, why is the GPLv3 software in there somehow exceptional?

Oh, and what you're talking about is surely the OPPOSITE of FUD. FUD is to spread Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt over someone else's product. Here, the FSF is spreading the word, true or not, that GPLed software is safe and sure and whatnot...

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[Rogerborg]

Earth to Citizen of Earth; the license applies to distributors, not recipients.

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[sumdumass]

There is something that can still foil this position that I am not seing talked about. I hate to be the one to take the wind out of some people's sails but,

What happens when Novell distributed the GPLv3 covered works under a different product name? The vouchers cover SUSE Linux Enterprise Server maintenance and support,. So they could call anything with GPLv3 covered software SUSE Linux Enhanced Enterprise Server maintenance and support, and update the standard versions the vouchers cover until it becomes too difficult to do so and then just "end of life" it. The GPLv19 could be out when you cash a voucher in, but you would only get the standard GPLv2 covered works that are packaged under the name SUSE Linux Enterprise Server maintenance and support,

It is too early to tell exactly what it going on here. I think it is premature to think something is settled when it hasn't even happened yet. Novell might have to change the name a little more then what I suggested but it isn't out of the question. And the lawsuit protection can be claimed to only go to the GPLv2 users and developers because it was not only the license in effect when the deal was made, but because Novell didn't distribute GPLv3 covered works under the terms of the deal (SUSE Linux Enterprise Server maintenance and support). Novell stated it as Microsoft will not assert its patents against individual noncommercial open source developers Which it has already stated with their own open source efforts and Microsoft is promising not to assert its patents against individual contributors to OpenSUSE.org whose code is included in the SUSE Linux Enterprise platform, including SUSE Linux Enterprise Server and SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop. It should be noted that the specific products are mentioned. If SUSE Enhanced Linux could be a separate product, it wouldn't be subject to the terms.

I haven't seen the voucher itself but all the official sites talking about them say it is for SUSE Linux Enterprise Server maintenance and support only.This would indicate that Novell certainly could offer other products that aren't effected by the deals. For some reason, I though the FSF was supposed to be smarter then this. Maybe I am missing something.

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[Vintermann]

They're spreading BCF. Bravery, certainty and faith.

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[Bruce Perens]

Once the Recipient has received the software from Microsoft, anything the Recipient does with it is between him and the copyright holder.

Your analysis doesn't seem to match the facts as Microsoft states them. Although Microsoft has stated that they do not accept GPL3, they have not stated affirmatively that they accept GPL2 on the software set that comes with SuSE. Their stance seems to be that they are not distributing at all.

Microsoft can not offer the availability of GPL2 as a shield from GPL3, because if Microsoft accepted GPL2 and thus admitted that they were distributing, the GPL2 patent terms would apply. The effect would not be particularly different from that of the GPL3 patent terms.

Thanks

Bruce

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[Bruce Perens]

if you legally obtain a copy of a copyrighted work, you can pass that on to someone else, via sale, rental, gift, etc., without needing the permission of the copyright holder.

I can't see why this is germane, since both parties are still bound by all terms of the license except any terms that might otherwise have prohibited sale.

Regarding the concept of vouchers being strange, you can view it a different way: Suppose I contract with a fulfillment house to sell copies of CDs for me. I give the fulfillment house a list of people to ship to instead of vouchers. The copyright holder of the CDs asserts that I am not licensed to distribute them. I then attempt to convince a judge that I am not a party to the distribution at all, and that I only transmitted some information about the address where the material was to be sent.

I don't think this has to be in copyright law to be valid in a case, because it's just a circumstance of the distribution.

Bruce

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[professionalfurryele]

Unless Microsoft distribute GPL 3 software they are not. Under the Novell deal they now have to, but since the deal is now very unfair to Microsoft the smart thing to do would be to try to renegotiate it with Novell. They are entitled to do this because of these unforeseen circumstances. This is what Microsoft should be doing, but they aren't. I've no idea why. Maybe they want to provoke a court case. Maybe they don't care about GPL 3 because they just want their patents for FUD and don't actually intend to drop the patent bomb. Maybe Novell is being belligerent. Maybe there is something Microsoft knows that I don't that would prevent them renegotiating the deal. Point is at the moment I've not heard anything from Microsoft suggesting they plan to revisit the deal with a mind to avoiding distributing GPL 3.

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[Aim Here]

"There's really only two interpretations here:"

You missed my point entirely. I don't claim Microsoft is distributing GPLv3ed software at all. I'm pointing out that they are consciously aiding and abetting the distribution of GPLv3 software with the vouchers. That doesn't mean they're subject to copyright law or the GPL, but it does have other legal consequences, which I'm trying to discover and/or explain.

If anything, the first case is true, but that doesn't mean Microsoft escapes entirely from the consequences of what's in the GPL.

'First Sale' doesn't apply to Novell either, because Novell is modifying and copying SuSE, not just passing on copies they happen to have.

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[anandsr]

You mean that I have a MS Windows copy, which I bought with my PC, now I can sell it on eBay and say that I don't agree with the license which prohibits from selling it.

I know in this case the EULA may be suspect, but still I cannot just disagree with the license and break it. The license must be invalid to be clear of any wrong doing.

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[Aim Here]

If they'd chosen the BSD route, Microsoft would already be selling a shinier version of it that beat it in every way and there would be no Novell to be in this mess at all.

Paradoxically, the GPL is GOOD for big tech business, in that it stops other companies taking your work and selling the embraced, extended and EULA-locked version. You're never likely to get more than one major corporate contributor for a major BSD project, for the simple reason that when there's two corporations using the same body of permissive-licensed code, the prisoner's dilemma kicks in, and the payoff from contributing code to the project is always less than the payoff from keeping your code proprietary and in-house, while using the free stuff donated by your competitor.

Why else do you think the likes of Novell and IBM and RedHat are all in the Linux game and not the BSD game?
You've already disclaimed technical reasons, and the usual BSDer excuse is the USL/BSDi lawsuit, which has surely been eclipsed by the much more prominent SCO vs World kerfuffle. I reckon by a process of elimination, that leaves the GPL...

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[mahlerfan999]

This actually seems pretty clear cut. If Novell package gplv3 software, and MS distributes it, then MS is bound by gplv3. However, as long as Novell only packages gplv2 software, no problem. And I don't see why there would be a problem anyway-- MS is not trying to tivo linux with those vouchers. And you can't simply say that if they distribute gplv3 software, it automatically makes all of their own software gplv3, it doesn't. So who cares?? Really who cares? Do you really think that MS was planning on using those silly vouchers to try to do something mischievous with linux? It was simply a business deal to make money for both companies, that's all.

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[udippel]

Interesting. Still, I don't get it. Looks like a circular problem to me.

Firstly, one does not 'opt for v3', how would or could one ? Whatever, let's say you redistribute software XYZ, v1.0, under GPLv3. Next, the author changes the license. He can't for v1.0 [No, he can't change for a software already distributed, retroactively]. So he moves his XYZ to v1.1, under GPLv2 only.

Until here I can follow So you have a GPLv3 license agreement with Microsoft for my software. Microsoft is not permitted under the terms of GPLv2 to redistribute the software under GPLv3.

But what does it mean ? And then I am lost: What would be the link between XYZ, v1.0, GPLv3; and XYZ, v1.1, GPLv2 ? I see none. Of course, neither Microsoft nor you may distribute XYZ v1.1 under GPLv3. But the change of licence does not affect the earlier XYZ, v1.0 under GPLv3.

So, if you wanted to distribute XYZ, v1.1 under GPLv2, you'd have to do exactly that. You'd have two legal products, two versions of XYZ. One under GPLv3 (v1.0) and one under GPLv2 (v1.1).

Now The only way Microsoft can legally do this is to obtain a GPLv3 license from [the author] does not make any sense. Since the author did explicitly not want that, why should he licence it to Microsoft, which would imply to the world ?
Thus, they are bound by the terms of GPLv3. Yes, for the first version.
Sorry, what was it you wanted to point out ?

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[morgan_greywolf]

Well, the fact that they still offer it for download would seem to contradict that statement.

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[Eponymous Bastard]

And it's up to you whether to assign copyright or fork the software.

The only place I've heard that do that is the FSF, and I'd happily assign my copyrights to them as I know they are going to do the right thing. On the other hand, assigning copyrights to a private company? Forget it. They can't be trusted to put morals before profit.

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[udippel]

As much as I appreciate your post, I don't think you hit the target. FSF is not interested in the copyright aspect of it; nor in the contractual side.
In principle, they (Microsoft-Suse) have given out vouchers. Vouchers that claim indemnity of patent infringement. Right ?
These vouchers have no expiration date. Right ?
When Suse gives out Suse GPLv3 to user X, GPLv3 applies. Right ?
When Suse gave out Suse GPLv3 for a voucher, the terms on the voucher apply. Right ?
The terms on then voucher state: 'No patent infringement here !'. Right ?
GPLv3 states something like: If no infringement in one case, then no infringement for all cases. Right ?
(This also makes some sense without vouchers.)
Question: If I get Suse GPLv3 without a voucher, can I be sued for patent infringement ? Probably not.

Question of the day is: Since GPLv3 entered into force after the voucher was issued, does it apply retroactively ? This, actually, is a question.
Some might say no, some might say yes. As much as I adore FSF, I am undecided. Let's stick to the burger:
If I issue a voucher for a burger, without expiration date, and the burger gets slapped with a price increase because of 50% more meat, do I have to honour it ? I'd say of course, my mistake.
On the other hand, we have 'nulla poena sine lege', and the collective exoneration of patent infringement had simply not been on the table at the date of issue of those vouchers. Still, the oversight is on Microsoft's side; and this is why I tend to be 70:30 for FSF here; and this is also why I think Microsoft is slightly nervous.

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[Phisbut]

The copyright notice is presented to the end user. The GPL version is the end-user's option.

Nope. The GPL is not a EULA. It's not a "use license", it's a "distribution license". Read up on the law. The GPL version is the distributor's choice. The copyright notice is there for whoever chooses to use the copy rights, not for whoever uses the copyrighted materials.

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[arth1]

It's worth noting that Novell already have their own POSIX based libc implementation.
(Or, I should say one and a half implementations, as they also have the standard C framework from sysv, now that the judges have decided who owns it).

Would it be possible to adapt their libc for use with SuSE linux? Of course, but it would likely take a lot of effort. But still, Novell is one of the few who could possibly do that, and not have to start from scratch. If GPLv3 makes it impossible for them to distribute SLES as they want to, I wouldn't completely discount it as a future possibility, even if it looks unlikely today.

Regards,
--
*Art

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[sgtrock]

This type of agreement is not a contract it's a conspiracy.

Thus why Microsoft is sweating. :)

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[harlows_monkeys]

I can't see why this is germane, since both parties are still bound by all terms of the license except any terms that might otherwise have prohibited sale.

There are more than two parties here. For example, suppose author A write a book, and owns the copyright on that book. He contracts with a local print shop, P, to print copies and sell them from the print shop. There will be a license involved between A and P. If P were to sell these copies without A's permission, P would be in violation of copyright.

Consumer C walks into the print shop, and buys a copy of the book. There's no license between A and C involved in this. All C has to be concerned about is obeying copyright law, so he can't make copies of the book, prepare derivative works, and things like that. Because of the first sale doctrine, though, C can resell that copy of the book. C does not need A's permission to do so.

In your CD fulfillment house example, the key question is who is pressing the CDs? If the fulfillment house buys the pressed CDs from the copyright holder (or someone authorized by the copyright holder to press them), or on the open market, and is just providing to you the service of shipping them, then no one in your example is doing anything against copyright law. You are inducing the fulfillment house to distribute copies, but that is a distribution covered by first sale. As long as you don't have an actual contract with the copyright holder saying that you won't do this, you are fine.

If, on the other hand, the fulfillment house actually presses the CDs, then they aren't merely distributing copies that were lawfully made under copyright law. They are producing new copies (which requires permission of the copyright holder), and they are distributing those copies for the first time, which also requires permission. You would be likely liable for this, either because the fulfillment house is acting as your agent in this, or because you are inducing them to violate copyright...there are a couple of different legal theories that could be used.

First sale is a major area of copyright law, but it is almost never discussed when copyright issues relating to free software are under discussion. I think that this is because mostly we think of free software in terms of copying and modifying, so the notion of someone taking a particular copy and passing that particular copy around, instead of making new copies, is just something that doesn't come up. This needs to change. If Microsoft and Novell structured the voucher arrangement correctly, they will be able to use first sale to keep Microsoft safe. But it goes beyond that, because as free software becomes more and more common in commodity items, more situations will arise where first sale will lead to results that some may not like. Let me give an example of that, which, as far as I know, has not happened yet.

Suppose I were to make a small generic single-board system running Linux out of some built-in flash memory, with ethernet, wireless, USB, and a slot for flash memory. The modified Linux system I put in the built-in flash memory is set up to boot, look for a filesystem on the flash card in the slot, mount it, and look for and run a shell script in the root of that, named init.sh.

The idea here is that if you want to make, say, home routers, you can buy my boards, put them in a nice looking case with a power supply, and put whatever software you need for your router (scripts to set up iptables, a web server to provide a UI, and so on) on a flash card. You ship your box with my board in it, and your flash card preinserted. To the user, it's just a router. And others might be my board, attach a hard disk and a video capture device via USB, put all that in a nice box, add some application software, and sell it as a DVR, and so on.

To obey the GPL, every board I ship is accompanied by a CD-ROM containing the complete source code. So, when you order 5000 of my

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[freakxx]

1. Vouchers what M$ distributed doesn't have any expiration date. 2. If the Novel includes something GPLv3 and the fellow (who received the voucher) updates his system, he will be having a GPLv3 software. Put the above two points together and you will see how M$haft is bounded by GPLv3 :-)

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[DragonWriter]

Moglen disagrees, particularly in the case of the vouchers, and he does have actual legal qualifications.

The public statements of lawyers for parties involved in a disagreement are not generally the best places to go for fair, balanced, impartial, and accurate analysis of the legal issues. Notiwithstanding that those lawyers invariably have "actual legal qualifications".

The pledge was a mutual agreement not to sue each other's customers for patent infringement.

Very good.

What makes you think that there was any restrictions on what license the software could be sold under?

I'm not the one claiming that Microsoft positively anticipated and implicitly agreed to Novell licensing the software under the (not yet existent at the time of the agreement) GPLv3, whose terms themselves expressly forbid distribution of software covered by an agreemnent like the Microsoft-Novell one.

That's a pretty hard case to make.

There are plenty of 'helping you get it' provisions in contract and criminal law. Estoppel. Unclean Hands. Waiver. Entrapment.

None of which apply to the kind of "helping you get it" that might arguably be at issue here. Estoppel, specifically promissory estoppel, is the closest one, but even it isn't very close.

If Microsoft gives you a voucher for one copy of SuSE, then sues people who take the permissions therein at face value, do you really think that they're 100% in the clear?

The issue isn't about people who use the vouchers, its about the FSF's claims that the Microsoft pledge to Novell's paying customers is magically extended to the public at large because the GPLv3, which didn't exist at the time of the pledge, makes it illegal for Novell to distribute software under that license with only that pledge. There is no legal theory on which that argument even makes sense, not under promissory estoppel (since the people involved are not reasonably relying on a promise made to them), not under contract theory (since Microsoft has no contract with anyone that might be enforced by restraining them in this way), not under license theory with the GPL as the controlling license (that might provide a ground for copyright action against Novell in distributing GPLv3-licensed works in violation of the terms of the license, but can't expand the scope of Microsoft's promise.)

Again, what makes you think the pledge is limited?

As even you've claimed, the pledge is limited in who it applies to, and does not include the people whom Moglen claims it does, who are not Novell's customers.

If this really is a case of 'We'll help you spread SuSE, and we promise not to sue your customers' then Novell's customers are safe, because of the patent pledge, and the downstream users of Novell's customers are safe, because of the estoppel-type clauses in law.

What "estoppel-type clauses"? Promissory estoppel, the only theory that appears even remotely related to the scenario, doesn't seem likely to protect downstream users. It requires that the promise was known to the person relying on it, that that reliance by that person was intended by the person making the promise, and that reliance on the promise was reasonable for the person relying on the promise. And, even then, it doesn't necessarily provide an absolute bar to legal action, only a discretionary bar that is applied to the extent necessary to avoid "injustice" in the eyes of the court.

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[Kalriath]

And thank whatever deity the readers believe in that YOU are not a lawyer.

It is 100% legal for you to distribute MS Windows without agreeing to the EULA, provided that you did not need to make copies to do so (so therefore you simply transferred the physical product - remember, the physical media does not need a license, the license only becomes valid when you attempt to use the software within)

Where did I get a copy of Linux without agreeing to the GPL? Simple. I walked to my local computer store and bought a copy (around here you can get a Linux CD for $6 in the countries largest chain of computer stores) and/or bought a copy of PC World with Linux on the CD. In both cases, I did not need to agree to the GPL because the GPL expressly disclaims any binding for pure usage. And because I did not need to make copies, the GPL explicitly states that I am not bound by it.

Please do note that also means that I may choose to sell those copies onward, still without agreeing to the GPL!

Don't throw me that bullshit about conveyance. In a real court, those particular sections aren't valid anyway - the FSF does not have delegated authority to alter definitions created by common law, or to bind parties to a license when they do not take any action to invoke the requirement for a license under copyright law. Microsoft does not require a license under copyright law, because they are not distributing GNU+Linux. They are merely paying Novell for access to the software on your behalf so that you do not have to. Your argument is akin to binding a finance company to the GPL because they allowed you to get a machine with GNU+Linux on hire purchase - it doesn't happen.

You say that you cannot acquire GPL software without agreeing to the GPL, which is completely false. As well, the first paragraph of the GPL says that as long as I do not redistribute it it does not apply to me anyway!

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[harlows_monkeys]

You've overlooked the key point: flash card provider is just passing along, unmodified, one-to-one, the copies he received from his upstream provider. This does NOT require permission of the copyright owner. But if you aren't doing anything with software that requires permission, you have no obligation to obey GPL.

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[Kalriath]

The FSF nor the GPL do not define how copyright law applies, nor how it does not apply. Copyright law itself defines this. Copyright law is quite strong and far-reaching.

The FSF are copyright holders in GNU software. Under copyright law, this fact gives the FSF strong rights to control how their software may be copied. Note that the rights pertain to "copying", not just "distributing". This is copyright law, not the GPL. Half right. Actually, it gives them rights to control "copying" but absolutely none to control "distribution".

OK, copyright law says that in order to give out vouchers for a copyrighted work that enable someone to get a copy of the work, you need to have permission of the copyright holder. This is the law, it is not something invoked by the GPL or by the FSF. I see it's not just the FSF that know how to make shit up to prove an imaginary point. You most certainly do NOT need the permission of the copyright holder for such an act, it's an agreement between the distributor (who also doesn't need the permission of the copyright holder so long as the product was legally acquired, i.e. not copied) and the person printing vouchers.

OK, the FSF do give such permission via the GPL. Anyone abiding by the GPL has permission from the copyright holders to give out vouchers for GNU software. Anyone not abiding by the GPL has no such permission. It is as simple as that. Right, so it gives you permission to do something the copyright holder has no ability to prohibit. Therefore, even if the FSF tells you that you don't have permission to, you can still provide said vouchers.

The FSF press release is a statement of these facts. Actually, it's a statement of that bullshit, but OK.

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[VGPowerlord]

You mean that I have a MS Windows copy, which I bought with my PC, now I can sell it on eBay and say that I don't agree with the license which prohibits from selling it.

I know in this case the EULA may be suspect, but still I cannot just disagree with the license and break it. The license must be invalid to be clear of any wrong doing.

IANAL, but in legal terms, you are free to turn around and sell the copy of Windows that came with your computer whether Microsoft likes it or not (again, under the doctrine of first sale).

Then again, I think that EULAs themselves are illegal, but I'm not a judge (or lawyer).

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

[harlows_monkeys]

Reselling an item does not release you from your obligation to obey copyright. So, you can't buy a used book and start copying it. What first sale does, basically, is remove distribution of that particular copy from the list of things that require permission from the copyright holder.

Flash card provider in the hypothetical is not doing anything that requires permission of the copyright holder, and so GPL is not relevant to them. All they are doing is distributing particular copies, which is covered under first sale. If they want to do any of the other things covered by copyright, such as make copies, then the have to obey GPL.

Clarification

[DimGeo]

Microsoft said they are not distributing any GPLv3 software or code, so they are not bound by said code's license, namely the GPLv3. They never said they will not abide by the GPLv3 if they are bound by it by distributing any GPLv3 stuff.

Re:Clarification

[ScaredOfTheMan]

So does this mean MS is hoping to splinter FS development, into GPL 2 and 3? isn't it a forgone conclusion that everything will (some day) be GPL v3? I am confused what this means for all those that signed on with MS?

Re:Clarification

[DimGeo]

I think it means that MS is not using or distributing any GPLv3 code and therefore is not bound by the license. Yet. I can't read anything more in what they're saying.

Re:Clarification

[DimGeo]

I found what I was looking for. Here. Please, disregard my previous posts on this thread :D .

Re:Clarification

[plague3106]

Heh... if by everything you mean everything under gpl2 now except the linux kernel, then yes.

Re:Clarification

[Otter]

So does this mean MS is hoping to splinter FS development, into GPL 2 and 3?

No, Microsoft issued the vouchers as part of their deal with Novell, the FSF read the voucher text and then worded GPL 3 with the goal of trapping Microsoft into weakening their patent position. For better or worse, it's the FSF playing legal games here and Microsoft just trying to do business.

Re:Clarification

[Bruce Perens]

Oh, you think Microsoft was not playing games when it cross licensed Novell's customers instead of Novell to avoid the patent terms of the GPL? They were just doing business, right? Well, this is payback.

Bruce

Re:Clarification

[644bd346996]

I'd take the FSF's legal shenanigans over Microsoft's protection rackets any day.

Re:Clarification

[samkass]

So does this mean MS is hoping to splinter FS development, into GPL 2 and 3?

The FOSS community doesn't need Microsoft for that one. The FSF managed it all on their own.

isn't it a forgone conclusion that everything will (some day) be GPL v3?

Definitely not. There are a lot of people, including Linus Torvalds, who consider GPLv2 a much preferable license to GPLv3. In addition, some of these developer did not sign away all their rights to FSF by putting "or later" into their license. So no, all that happened with GPLv3 is that there's now yet another FOSS license that will co-exist with GPLv2, BSD, Apache, and others indefinitely.

I am confused what this means for all those that signed on with MS?

It means nothing. I'm no fan of MS, but the FSF is blowing hot air here. There's no way any judge is going to make anything of the voucher situation with regards to a license that was released after the deal was made... and the FSF has a very good chance of weakening the GPL legally by trying these tricks of legal technicality.

So all in all, the FSF seems to be playing right into Microsoft's hands lately.

Re:Clarification

[Otter]

Perhaps, but the original goals of the GPL included simplicity and universality, not convoluted legal trix0ry to trap one specific competitor over a specific document.

Re:Clarification

[coryking]

Payback? Games? You would be a fool *not* to try to wiggle out of all the GPLv3 crap. I wouldn't want to get bound to that license either.

There is a market for vendors like Microsoft, Sun or IBM. IBM wants to make their money when the Linux user grows out of Linux and wants something more "Enterprisy" with better support. Sun wants you to buy their hardware and run Solaris, IBM wants you to run AIX and IBM hardware. Microsoft wants part of that pie too.

The thing of it is, Microsoft, IBM and Sun can all afford to play "games" to route around the GPLv3. Smaller fish just look at the GPLv3 and decide not to play at all.

Re:Clarification

[Thomas Charron]

Why in gods name would everyone and everything go to the newest version of the GPL? For some things, it may make sense. For others, it certainly doesn't.

Re:Clarification

[644bd346996]

I see the GPLv3 changes as existing mostly to put a stop to various actions that are contrary to the spirit of the license, but not the letter of the license. Note that the goals spelled out in the preamble are intact and are being actively pursued.

Re:Clarification

[DavidTC]

s/Microsoft just doing business/Microsoft attempting to continue to threaten free software with accusations of patent violation/

Fixed that for you.

Re:Clarification

[Jherek Carnelian]

You would be a fool *not* to try to wiggle out of all the GPLv3 crap. And the FSF would be a fool *not* to try to have MS hoist themselves by their own petard in response.

Re:Clarification

[goldspider]

In other words: "They started it!!"

I thought FSF was about promoting and spreading free software, not Sticking It To The Man.

FSF needs a new front man. Every time RMS opens his mouth, it's obvious that he is more interested in stoking his own ego.

Re:Clarification

[Bert64]

Smaller fish are less likely to hold patents, and thus aren't concerned by the new provisions...
Sun and IBM have already granted open-ended patent licenses to users of open source software, so the gplv3 is of little concern to them. They hold patents mostly for defensive purposes, to fight back incase they get sued.

Re:Clarification

[cching]

You would be a fool *not* to try to wiggle out of all the GPLv3 crap. It's quite simple, really. If you don't like the GPL, then *don't* redistribute GPL software. That wasn't so hard was it? If MS wants to continue to try and enforce their patents against GPL code, then it is probably in their best interest to *stop playing games with the GPL*. You see? It's not so hard. There is so obviously more going on here than poor ol' Microsoft not wanting to get caught up in the "GPLv3 crap" as you put it. They stuck their foot in, now they have to live with the consequences. Talk about gaming the system!

Re:Clarification

[coryking]

If you don't like the GPL, then *don't* redistribute GPL software. Good. So we agree than, right?

Re:Clarification

[cching]

Good. So we agree than, right? Strictly speaking with what you quoted, I guess we are if you say you agree with that quote. Though I'm not sure how that proves your point.

Re:Clarification

[coryking]

...and thus aren't concerned by the new provisions... Unless by "new provisions" you mean the "Tivo Clause" or the exciting new "DRM clause". If I was actiontec, the guys who make my DSL modem that happens to be running Linux, I'd be concerned. If I was Hauppauge, the guys who make the Media MVP that hangs off my bedroom TV and runs Linux, I'd be concerned. If I was SageTV, who ports their excellent PVR software to Linux, I'd be concerned. I bet that even the set top box from Comcast is running Linux (via Motorola) - I bet some product manager for one of those two is concerned. If my embedded system used the now GPLv3'd samba, I'd be terrified.

It seems to me the only people who aren't concerned by the "new provisions" are the religious zealots. They should be concerned for a different reason though... soon enough nobody will want to play with them anymore.

Re:Clarification

[Otter]

It's quite simple, really. If you don't like the GPL, then *don't* redistribute GPL software. That wasn't so hard was it?

And if you think you might not like future versions of the GPL, don't redistribute any "v.x or later" or later software. And if you don't like the GPL, don't engage in any transaction with any party that the legal sages at Groklaw might construe as "redistribution".

The question is, is some small chance of successfully sticking it to Microsoft worth all the FUD that remains for any other company interested in providing Linux support?

Re:Clarification

[coryking]

Though I'm not sure how that proves your point. I'd like to help our world be a better place by bringing people together; if I can do that by creating friendly places on the internet than I've done my work.

My statement, or mission if you will, presents you with both a problem and a constraint. The path to "getting my point" is to know why what I just said is important.

Re:Clarification

[coryking]

Actually, I want to refine my mission a bit more:

I'd like to help our world be a better place by bringing people together; if I can do that by creating friendly places on the internet while feeding my family and those of any future employees, than I've done my work.

Re:Clarification

[GPL Apostate]

The foolish thing the FSF is doing is hopping over the rope and joining in the mud wrestling match. It's almost like they figure they have reached a 'critical mass' now that a sizable number of people are actually using software released under the GPL and they can leap in and play on the 'dirty' level too.

Stallmans original manifesto and a lot of the early GNU message seems naive on a certain level, but it also sounded sincere at the time.

Re:Clarification

[cooldev]

To me the question is this:

Is the OSS community trying to trap Microsoft with GPL V3 with some kind of retroactive obligations? If so, this is an underhanded legal technique and should not be tolerated by the community any more than they tolerate potentially shady behavior by Microsoft.

The fastest way to the bottom is to lower yourselves to the worst that you perceive your competitors to be.

(Disclaimer: This is my personal opinion, and although some may perceive that I am biased, I'm a fan of both commercial and open source software. I'm a software developer who detests any kind of immoral politics or legal tricks and a believer that taking the higher ground is always the best approach.

Re:Clarification

[Bruce Perens]

First, they are not retroactive. The coupons are still out there waiting to be redeemed, Microsoft could withdraw them but does not care to do so.

Second, this is at worst a tit-for-tat defense after Microsoft and Novell engineered a pernicious loophole avoiding the stated intent of the GPL. After that, a tactic that has the effect of closing the loophole is fair game.

Bruce

Re:Clarification

[Jherek Carnelian]

Lol, how can you be an apostate when you don't even understand what you are renouncing?

Cool

[chuckymonkey]

I think this is great news. Honestly if M$ will not follow other software copyrights does that mean that I don't have to follow M$ copyrights? Oh yeah I forgot it's one of the Golden Rules. Yet again he who has the gold makes the rules.

Re:Cool

[Toonol]

What GPL copyrights is MS impinging upon? MS made a deal with a company that was distributing software with a GPL license, and then the FSF changed the license in an attempt to force MS to give away it's patents. It was a sleazy move by the FSF, and will fail in court, and is harmful to the whole open source movement.

Re:Cool

[DimGeo]

I think this is great news. Honestly if M$ will not follow other software copyrights does that mean that I don't have to follow M$ copyrights?

That's right, you don't have to. As long as you don't touch that software.

Re:Cool

[Toonol]

And I'm sorry for adding the apostrophe in "it's".

Re:Cool

[Pojut]

Two wrongs don't make a right (even if three lefts do...but that's not the issue at hand here.)

Re:Cool

[janrinok]

Not quite right there. The FSF have not changed the license under which Novell distributes its software. It was issued under the GPL2 and remains under that license. Microsoft have not infringed upon GPL2. However, if a significant number of developers move to the new GPL3 license then Novell have to make a choice. Either accept the new license conditions or do not accept the new software that is being developed under GPL3. If they do the former then Microsoft could well be accused of infringing GPL3 because their vouchers are a form of distribution - that might not be the correct legal term but I believe that you understand what I'm claiming. If Novell don't accept the new license conditions with the new software then they cannot include it in whatever they are offering. If sufficient elements of the new software are changed by their developers to GPL3 then Novell could find themselves stuck with an out-of-date distribution, or be forced to fork and update many elements of Gnu/Linux themselves in order to keep it under GPL2.

It is by no means certain that your claim that it 'will fail in court' is correct. Many people who know far better than I seem to think that it will succeed.

Re:Cool

[cp.tar]

What GPL copyrights is MS impinging upon? MS made a deal with a company that was distributing software with a GPL license, and then the FSF changed the license in an attempt to force MS to give away it's patents. It was a sleazy move by the FSF, and will fail in court, and is harmful to the whole open source movement.

Well, the FSF didn't change the license radically - and it only affects two kinds of software: the software initially written under GPL 3 and the software including the GPL version x or any later.

The software which was licensed under GPL x or later was so licensed even before the GPL 3. And the possibility of license change was plainly stated.

Compare that to companies that reserve the right to drastically change their licensing at any time. Microsoft included.

Re:Cool

[stinerman]

Good thing that the FSF and the GPL has nothing to do with the open source movement, otherwise that might have been a problem.

Re:Cool

[boa]

>Well, the FSF didn't change the license radically - and it only affects two kinds of software: the software initially written under GPL 3 and the software including the GPL version x or any later.

>The software which was licensed under GPL x or later was so licensed even before the GPL 3. And the possibility of license change was plainly stated.

Wrong. The GPL v2 text says: "either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version."

It is up to the user of the software to choose between GPL v2 or a later version, not up to the author. The author may of course change the license for other versions, but that's another matter.

HTH & HAND

Re:Cool

[cp.tar]

Wrong. The GPL v2 text says: "either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version."

It is up to the user of the software to choose between GPL v2 or a later version, not up to the author. The author may of course change the license for other versions, but that's another matter.

HTH & HAND

I'm sorry, I don't see either where I said the author chooses nor how it is relevant: if the user chooses so, the software is GPL 3 and MS distributed GPL 3 software.

Or am I getting something wrong?

Re:Cool

[mweather]

Users don't need a license, only distributors.

Re:Cool

[plague3106]

So if I give you $5, and you buy a whopper, am I now distributing whoppers?

Re:Cool

[MMC Monster]

Actually, all it takes is for one of the main package maintainers to change licenses for their packages. For instance, Samba (which is used for networking and file sharing with MSwindows systems) will have future versions released under GPL v3. Either Novell uses the newer Samba (which will trap Microsoft), or it does not use the newer Samba (and gets left behind).

This, of course, is based on the assumption that Microsoft distributing coupons for SuSE is akin to distributing the software.

Re:Cool

[cp.tar]

OK. So does that mean that Novell will be forced to distribute the software under GPL 2 (if possible)?

Re:Cool

[Experiment 626]

I'm sorry, I don't see either where I said the author chooses nor how it is relevant: if the user chooses so, the software is GPL 3 and MS distributed GPL 3 software.

If someone wants to distribute a piece of GPL software with the "either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version" wording, they can comply with the terms of the GPL v2 and distribute it, comply with the terms of the GPL v3 and distribute it, or even comply with the terms of GPL v17 whenever it comes out and distribute it. It's their choice.

This is completely different than what you see in EULAs, where the author says, if you use (not just distribute) this software, you have to agree to such-and-such terms, which the author reserves the right to unilaterally change down the road, taking away whatever freedom you had under the old version.

Re:Cool

[janrinok]

No. But the courts will decide whether Microsoft's vouchers for Linux software to be supplied by Novell do equate to distributing software licensed under the GPL. IANAL, but many lawyers seem convinced that it does equate to one and the same thing. Of course, FSF have not decided to sue Microsoft - they have simply said that Microsoft cannot get around the GPL3 simply by saying that they (Microsoft) don't like it as a license. AFIAK, no software covered by GPL3 has yet been issued under the voucher scheme.

Re:Cool

[sveard]

Money can be used to buy anything, including a whopper. This voucher can not be used to buy a whopper, it can only be used to obtain Suse. So your analogy is wrong.

Re:Cool

[janrinok]

It could mean just that - although that is not seen as a likely option. Novell has already stated that it intends to include GPL3 software in future releases. But, if Novell do not want to be bound by GPL3 then they must only distribute software that is GPL2 or earlier. Which might mean that they have a lot more work maintaining software for which they previously relied upon other contributors to provide. Still early days......

Re:Cool

[plague3106]

What is this group of "many lawyers" which you speak?

I don't think anyone sensible person (laywer or not) would consider handing out coupons for whoppers equivolent to distributing whoppers.

Re:Cool

[plague3106]

Fine, replace $5 with a whopper coupon. Do you still want to argue that i'm distributing whoppers? Is the printer of the coupon? The paper supplier? If you think coupons = distributing, where do you draw the line?

Re:Cool

[janrinok]

There has been good coverage in the relevant media around the world regarding GPL3. Certainly in Europe it has been the subject of TV programs, newspaper articles and, of course, received its fair share of publicity in the computer, IT and business journals. Many of these have been rather lightweight but some have taken a serious look at the license and its implications. The license has been published (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt) and its contents dissected in various fora. Groklaw produces some excellent analysis and comments but I have preferred the legal assessments which I have read in professional journals for the best advice on its implications to me and to businesses.

The point about 'conveying' is covered here (http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070518 124020691) and elsewhere. I am not permitted to provide an extract from an article that discusses it further because it is part of a professional report which is covered by its own legal restrictions. However, my reading of it suggests that it agrees quite closely with the Groklaw assessment and it believes that it could be upheld in a European court.

Of course this is all informed speculation, but speculation nevertheless, until it actually reaches a courtroom.

Re:Cool

[SL Baur]

The only patents Microsoft would be giving away are among the mythical 235 patents they say Linux plus distro cover. Microsoft's patent portfolio is not threatened, only their ability to sling FUD at the open source community over alleged patent infringements. (And if some of those mythical 235 patents only apply to the Linux kernel, whether Microsoft is bound by the GPL v3 or not, they are not affected because the Linux kernel is GPL v2).

Clear now?

Re:Cool

[Bert64]

This does highlight an interesting issue tho...
Microsoft could screw millions of companies over, by changing the terms of their EULA... They can change it to include any new terms, and if you agreed to the original then your now bound by the new one (and must stop using the software if you disagree)... It seems microsoft are worried about a risk that they themselves impose on their customers.

Re:Cool

[RightSaidFred99]

Except fortunately in this country you are not guilty when someone else makes a choice to do something. What Novell chooses to do is up to Novell, not MS. No court in its right mind would say otherwise.

Re:Cool

[janrinok]

I thought Novell agreed, as part of their deal with Microsoft, to distribute Suse on behalf of Microsoft in return for each voucher? Microsoft entered into this agreement so that Novell could offer Linux (Suse) and yet indemnify its users against future patent threats from Microsoft. Microsoft issued the vouchers that could only be redeemed for Suse. I would argue that this is both Microsoft and Novell agreeing to do something, hence the reason that there was so much coverage when Microsoft decided to try to back out of the deal. The deal would not adversely affect Novell but I believe that Microsoft's own legal team could see the problem with continuing. Nevertheless, and as another poster has pointed out, their options seem to be to withdraw from the deal and provide financial recompense to anyone who has a voucher, or to continue and face the legal implications of their actions. If they do continue but never accuse linux of patent infringement then it might never reach a court. What the GPL3 would achieve in this instance would be to effectively neuter Microsoft's claim that linux infringes on more than 200 patents. I am not going to argue what the result would be in a US court, but there are some who believe that the outcome might not be as clear cut as you suggest elsewhere.

Re:Cool

[RightSaidFred99]

It's very clear cut. Microsoft is less "distributing" Linux than Cox or Verizon (carriers) are. They are giving no physical access to media, nor are they providing download for said Media. The entity distributing Linux (and Gplv3 stuff) is Novell. It's very, very simple.

This is just harebrained scheming, and all the nutjobs thinking they got one over on Microsoft. They didn't get shit over on Microsoft. And we'll never really get to laugh at them because Microsoft has no intention of ever suing endusers. Hopefully some idiot business tries to commandeer MS patents based on this nonsense and gets an unholy beat down they deserve. Not because I think patents are a good idea most of the time, but because I hate harebrained schemes.

Re:Cool

[Bert64]

This does highlight an interesting issue tho...
Microsoft could screw millions of companies over, by changing the terms of their EULA... They can change it to include any new terms, and if you agreed to the original then your now bound by the new one (and must stop using the software if you disagree)... It seems microsoft are worried about a risk that they themselves impose on their customers.
So the thing is, if microsoft are unwilling to accept a risk like this, why should any of their customers?

Re:Cool

[janrinok]

It's very clear cut

And you are a specialist in this field within the legal profession? I provided a link that outlined my case, can you please provide the same courtesy to me? I assume also that you did read the contents of the link that I provided?

because Microsoft has no intention of ever suing endusers

In which case everyone will be happy and Microsoft can stop spreading FUD which is affecting businesses around the world. Yet despite Microsoft's claim that they have no intention to sue anyone, they have felt it necessary to indemnify the users of Novell, Linspire etc against such legal action. Whatever for? They are not going to do it if you believe what the right hand is saying, but they are threatening to do just that if you listen to the left hand. You might be correct in your assessment but there is a disconnect between the various statements being issued by Microsoft. I can understand some businesses wanting to make sure of their legal position before continuing with their own plans.

Re:Cool

[plague3106]

All that is well and good, except the FSF and Microsoft are American companies, so I don't think it matters what Europe thinks of the matter.

Also, you can do all the analysis you want, until its actually in court, you don't know how the license will be interpreated.

Re:Cool

[janrinok]

That, if I may say so, is an incomprehensible response.

The GPL is used worldwide. It can be enforced by law worldwide. Microsoft trades worldwide. Their threat wasn't just against US Linux users, it was a simple statement, albeit unsubstantiated, that Linux (everywhere) infringes upon Microsoft patents and its users (everywhere) could easily be subjected to legal action. This isn't just a US matter, although the rest of the world would be very pleased to hear that it was.

I concur that we will not know the outcome for certain until this reaches the courtroom - which is precisely why I said "Of course this is all informed speculation, but speculation nevertheless, until it actually reaches a courtroom." I think that pretty much covered it.

Confused

[jshriverWVU]

Wouldn't MS actually be using and distributing software using GPL'd code in order to be bound to it? If this is the case I hope the FSF goes after them, but if MS isn't using any code and says "we dont like it we wont use it" then I dont see the point of the case.

Re:Confused

[hasbeard]

I am not a lawyer but the issue seems to be the language in GPL3 regarding the term "conveyance," and what it means to "convey a work" or "cause it to be conveyed." Read it and see what you think.

Re:Confused

[Keeper]

What's interesting is that if Microsoft is in violation of the GPL3, it means that they don't have a license to distribute GPL3 software. Which means that they can't distribute GPL3 software without violating copyright.

The kicker is that they aren't distributing GPL3 software, so even if they are "conveying" GPL3 software via a voucher, they still aren't distributing it (in terms of copyright), which means they can't be touched on the grounds of a copyright violation.

Re:Confused

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I am not a lawyer but the issue seems to be the language in GPL3 regarding the term "conveyance," and what it means to "convey a work" or "cause it to be conveyed." Read it and see what you think. When it comes to copyright law it seems like the law means whatever the lawyers involved can convince a judge to think it means. After all, if there is such a thing as "contributory infringement" where merely telling someone where to find pirated content counts as a copyright violation, then it sure seems like the MS/Suse voucher scheme should count too.

Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Re:Confused

[Aim Here]

I don't think this is a threat of a copyright violation suit. The FSF is setting themselves up for a defence of a patent infringement suit. If Microsoft tries to sue over a patent that's implemented in FSF software, the FSF can say that Microsoft actively aided and abetted the distribution of that software under GPLv3. It's basically a means of boostrapping a patent license out of the Novell-MS deal...

And in the red corner, weighing in at

[TheDarkener]

275lbs, wielding his "chair of Google", the solar-panel-for-a-sex-machine, Steve BAAAALLLMMEEERR!

And in the BLUE corner, weighing in at 65lbs, with his slippery-slope of a stomach, sliding down icy hilltops, the racer himself, TUX!

*ding ding*

Re:And in the red corner, weighing in at

[Eevee1]

The Slashdot version of Super Smash Bros Brawl. I'd totally buy that.

I misread with some irony ...

[cablepokerface]

I misread "GPL Version 3 (press release here)" as "GPL Version 3 (please release here)".

I know v3 had some unhappy campers but shees ...

Followup

[stinerman]

As a followup to my own post, this seems to be the issue of contention:

If Microsoft distributes our [the FSF] works licensed under GPLv3, or pays others to distribute them on its behalf, it is bound to do so under the terms of that license. (my emphasis added)

I'm not so sure paying others to distribute works in this manner is an infringement of copyright. Again, I hope a lawyer will clear this up.

Re:Followup

[DragonWriter]

I'm not so sure paying others to distribute works in this manner is an infringement of copyright.

AFAIK, it would only be if it was an infringement of copyright for the person paid to distribute the works in the first place, and even then it might not be without some other knowledge on the part of the person paying.

If Novell is following the terms of the GPL and is somehow getting paid by Microsoft to distribute software, Microsoft is neither bound by the license (which they never agreed to, which is the only way they could be "bound" by it), nor are they covered by the license (a gratuitous license, as the FSF claims the GPL is, doesn't "bind" anyone, it only conditionally allows you to do things), nor are they violating the license, nor are they violating copyright law. At least as I see it.

If Novell is not following the terms of the GPL, it would be very hard to make anything stick against Microsoft, anyway, though Novell would be vulnerable. The GPL doesn't somehow create obligations for third parties engaged in business with people who are directly distributing GPL software, and, really, that's the kind of anti-GPL FUD that is usually spread by GPL opponents trying to create fear legal risk to discourage GPL adoption, so its kind of weird if the FSF is now embracing that idea.

Re:Followup

[UncleTogie]

Again, I hope a lawyer will clear this up. {In your best Daffy Duck "youcallthisacloseup?!?" voice:}

"Lawyers make things clearer?!?"

Re:Followup

[bzipitidoo]

No need for a lawyer, just use common sense. Yeah, sense still works-- our legal system isn't yet that messed up. So let's run through the facts:

1. MS claims GNU/Linux violates 235 of their patents. MS refuses to reveal anything to substantiate these claims, knowing that every last one of their claims will probably be worked around or invalidated. (In any case, should never have allowed the patenting of software.) MS is also not saying whether they will sue.
2. MS cuts a deal with Novell about their Linux distribution. The main item of this deal is that MS promises not to sue Novell customers for any alleged violations of MS's patents. Complete details of this deal remain unknown to the public.
3. The FSF, which happened to be in the process of revising the GPL to deal with "Tivoization" and was therefore luckily in a good position to respond swiftly to this threat, does respond. They add language saying you can't promise not to sue some users of GPL software over patent violations. You can't discriminate among recipients. All or none get the protection.

It's pretty clear what MS could do had things gone according to their plan, but I'll spell it out. MS would be in position to collect protection money from every GNU/Linux user in the world. And it wouldn't be a one time payment either. Same thing SCO tried. Just like that, the entire free software world would no longer be free. Have to pay for MS's blessing to do anything. And you know, given that cost maybe Windows would be (or look like) a better deal. Plus, Windows would have a big advantage if development on GNU/Linux software slowed way down because developers constantly have to work out deals with MS, and check whether any changes have newly violated any of the MS patents that were blessed. Not saying MS would do such despicable things, but if you believe that, I've got this bridge in Brooklyn....

But we're safe. The FSF has defused this threat. The bullies are afraid to take these issues to court. No need to be worried about technical violations. The spirit of the GPL is most certainly violated by such schemes. Yes, even the spirit of GPL 2. Courts do look at intent when considering cases. But good to have it spelled out in GPL 3, to avoid confusion.

Re:Followup

[notamisfit]

In other words, the logic of Microsoft's argument falls apart because Microsoft is "evil".

Re:Followup

[HermMunster]

These questions are the very reason I would expect the issue to make it to the courts. If it wasn't so unclear we'd not be discussing all the possibilities.

It is my opinion that by continuing to sell the vouchers and by continuing to honor the vouchers and by including GPL v3 products in the distro it binds anyone selling it regardless of whether it is a coupon or not. Selling the coupon is like selling on consignment.

One could argue (if you use the logic of some) that if Microsoft isn't bound by the GPL then neither is any one who simply distributes it. So, Novell would not be bound either because they aren't technically manufacturing it. Microsoft is technically becoming a re-distributor of something Novell distributes that Novell doesn't technically make since the code is written by many different parties to whom Novell has no relationship.

So, if Novell is bound by the GPL then so is Microsoft. Simply distributing one copy makes them a distributor. If one piece of GPL v3 code is redeemed then Microsoft is bound by the GPL v3. But Microsoft would simply ignore the GPL. And then it would be up to the FSF to sue Microsoft.

Re:Followup

[budgenator]

Another concept, and I'm probably explaining it inadequately is that because Novell is a major distributer of GPLed software, Microsoft (who is a very minor distributer) is able to assume that Novell knows how to do so in a legal manner, so if Microsoft is damaged by Novell's distribution, they may have significant liabilities.

Re:Followup

[Eponymous Bastard]

But we're safe. The FSF has defused this threat. The bullies are afraid to take these issues to court. No need to be worried about technical violations. The spirit of the GPL is most certainly violated by such schemes. Yes, even the spirit of GPL 2. Courts do look at intent when considering cases. But good to have it spelled out in GPL 3, to avoid confusion. Err. Wrong.

A patent license is "discriminatory" if it does not include within the scope of its coverage, prohibits the exercise of, or is conditioned on the non-exercise of one or more of the rights that are specifically granted under this License. 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.

That specific case was considered during the drafting process and questions went out to the community asking whether the new clause should apply retroactively to the Novell deal. The consensus was to exclude previous agreements, including MS/Novell's.

Sandros and Linspire on the other hand, are screwed.

Re:Followup

[DragonWriter]

If it wasn't so unclear we'd not be discussing all the possibilities.

It is not valid to conclude that the law in a particular area is murky from the fact that people on Slashdot discuss widely divergent "possibilities" (using the term "possibilities" loosely to refer to things individual Slashdotters perceive, reasonably or not, to be possible.)

Re:Followup

[w000t]

Maybe, but it's probably valid to conclude it based on the FSF position (they do have lawyers, you know) and Microsoft going into damage control mode (and they have a lot more than just lawyers).

I wanna distance myself from GPL 3 too...

[jellomizer]

Is FSF going to sue me, or the company I work for... I make software with the following License agreement which is GPL 3 Incompatable.

Here is program, here is the source and here is my bill for the work I have done... After you pay the bill you can do whatever the heck you want with the code, its yours.

I don't see any reason for Microsoft to feel obliged with following GPL 3, They hadn't had any say in the matter, the License was designed in response to Microsoft's control of the market... There are no laws that force them to use it. Any of the patent agreements they did was with code of a different license.

A lot of OpenSource Activist don't like GPL3 I myself dislike it and feel that it is a move in the wrong direction. If FSF going to start suing companies it is just going to hurt FSF more then it will ever help.

Re:I wanna distance myself from GPL 3 too...

[l2718]

To clear up some confusion: this wrangling has nothing to do with Microsoft's own software. This is with regard to Microsoft's possible distribution of other people's software. To cut the long story short, Microsoft entered into a deal with Novell that could be construed as making them distributors of SuSE Linux, a distribution which includes much software created by the FSF. Futures versions of SuSE might include FSF code licensed under the GPLv3, at which point if Microsoft distributes the software they should be bound by that license (till then most of SuSE Linux is goverend by GPLv2). In a press release, Microsoft tried to distance itself from this possibility by claiming that their deal with Novell would not make Microsoft the distributor, but Novell, at which point indeed they won't be bound by the GPL. The FSF is clarifying that, to the extent Microsoft will distribute their code, they will be bound by the GPL. The FSF is also saying that they might disagree with Microsoft about who is the distributor in fact. That last part is where the lawyers take to the field and the sane people stay home to write code.

Re:I wanna distance myself from GPL 3 too...

[RightSaidFred99]

Haha they modded you as a troll. The fact is the FSF will get nowhere. If they're smart they won't even push it. Right now people are somewhat convinced the GPL* licenses can hold water in a court of law. If they start pushing that idea they may be in for a rude awakening.

In particular, it's laughable that anyone would think they will go after Microsoft. Microsoft will simply crush them out of hand in a long, very expensive, protracted legal battle.

Re:I wanna distance myself from GPL 3 too...

[coryking]

In particular, it's laughable that anyone would think they will go after Microsoft. Microsoft will simply crush them out of hand in a long, very expensive, protracted legal battle. Indeed. We are talking about a company that has been sued by entire fucking governments. Like most successful tech companies, Microsoft has DEEP pockets of cash. They could drag this thing out in court for years.

What is ironic though that Microsoft doesn't really want to kill linux. Linux is for start up companies on shoe string budgets who can't afford to buy fancy toys. What do you think Sun or IBM is doing? They give the Linux user just enough tools to make a workable solution on Linux (while getting some warm and fuzzy press at the same time). As the linux startup grows up to a mature corporation, suddenly all those Linux boxes aren't so hot anymore and the organization looks for a more mature platform. Guess what is in the brochure for AIX or Solaris? "Will run native linux binaries" or some such. Migration? Cheap and easy!

Just like Sun wants Java running on Linux, Microsoft too wants .NET and some samba variant to work. Only Sun can truely do Java right, and only Microsoft can do SMB or .NET. If Microsoft backed out of Linux, the only one that is really hurt is Linux.

Re:I wanna distance myself from GPL 3 too...

[cching]

I seriously can't even comprehend you and, honestly, other GPL critics. If you have a project and you don't like the GPL, then *don't release your software under the GPL*. It's pretty simply.

If you like a piece of software and it's GPL, then you may redistribute it *under the provisions of the GPL*. It's not your software, why would you presume to criticize someone who gave their software to you freely as long as you agree to redistribute the software in accordance with the GPL? Because you can't steal their work?

I'm a commercial software developer. I love the GPL. I can't use any GPL work in my products, but I don't find that that is reason to criticize GPL developers. In fact, I quite honestly respect them. Sometimes I wish I could redistribute their software with mine, sometimes the developers understand this and we work something out. Sometimes we don't. At least, though, I had that option. And at least I have quite a library of free software that I can use without hindrance to get my work done (Linux?). The GPL has done way more good than harm. What has Microsoft done for me lately?

Re:I wanna distance myself from GPL 3 too...

[fsmunoz]

Here is program, here is the source and here is my bill for the work I have done... After you pay the bill you can do whatever the heck you want with the code, its yours. I'm not an expert but if you did it the other way around you would be perfectly following the GPL: you make the program - using GPL'ed code - and then sell it to someone. They pay, you give them the program (and the source, and the rights under the GPL, etc). If they don't pay, you don't give them the program, you didn't distribute anything. Now, by giving them the program before it can perhaps be different, but I don't think so: you are selling GPL'ed code, and it's common pratice to send the goods before receiving the money, but if they don't pay then they lose the right to use the code since they didn't fulfil they're part on the deal (hence, the distribution in voided). Selling GPL'ed code is not only allowed under the letter of the GPL, but also under the spirit of the GPL.

Is FSF going to sue me, or the company I work for... I make software with the following License agreement which is GPL 3 Incompatable. The FSF would perhaps sue you if you did something that breached GPL'ed code under the FSF assignment. Not before trying to work things out of course, that's the way 99% of GPL violations are dealt with.

A voucher is just a form of money.

[Colin Smith]

You might as well say that the US government is distributing SuSE.

Re:A voucher is just a form of money.

[budgenator]

Actually they do, I used to download SuSE RPM's from ANL.gov, Argonne National Laboratories, FTP servers. They mirror multiple distributions and have nice fast servers connected to fat pipes that I've paid for via my tax money.

Gross Speculation

[vthokie69]

This isn't really news. It's just gross speculation. It's more the FSF equivalent to the FUD that MS spreads regularly. I sincerely doubt that either MS or the FSF wants to get into a major legal fight. It's extremely expensive and does neither side much benefit. Microsoft is going to go out of its way to avoid distributing any GPL3 code. Likewise, I don't see Microsoft abusing its patent library to extract cash out of anyone. If history is any indication, they primarily use their patent stash as a defensive mechanism much like all the other big companies like Sun, IBM, etc.

All of this speculation is blown way out of proportion. The true threats patent-wise to both free software and Microsoft alike are the patent trolls that produce nothing and only receive revenue from patent royalties and litigation.

Legal Maneuvering

[saterdaies]

The issue is that Microsoft has given indemnities to customers of companies like Novell. Seeing that, the FSF decided "let's make it so that the GPL v3 means those indemnifications mean that M$ can never sue free software users even if they aren't Novell customers".

I guess I'm one of those ends don't justify the means people. M$ shouldn't be suing FOSS, but you can't create a new version of a license and retroactively apply it to M$. We'd all be yelling at the top of our lungs if MS retroactively altered their Windows XP license so that it, say, required to be renewed every year for a fee. And there are loopholes - how many agreements say things like "we can change this agreement without notifying users and continued use is considered agreement with the updated terms."

Let's fight for real progress rather than shady legal maneuvering - because, let's face it, the evil companies will always be better at it!

Re:Legal Maneuvering

[Skiron]

I think you find the MS EULA states it can change the EULA at anytime (and it does change it) and you have to accept [OK].

At least the GPL is for the user[s], not against them.

Re:Legal Maneuvering

[Jim Hall]

I guess I'm one of those ends don't justify the means people. M$ shouldn't be suing FOSS, but you can't create a new version of a license and retroactively apply it to M$.

You can't make a license retroactive. I believe the legal principle here is estoppel. IANAL. Basically, you cannot declare Version 1.0 of your code is distributed under GNU GPL2, then later you say Version 1.0 is now distributed under GNU GPL3. You have to release a Version 1.1 to do that.

If you don't look carefully, that seems to get turned on its head with most applications of the GNU GPL. I'm a big fan of free / open source software, and I release much of my code under the GNU GPL, but I've never been happy with the "or any later version" bit. It's stupid. The default example given in "How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs" says to include this text:

This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.

(Lifted from GNU GPL2, but the same text is there in GNU GPL3.) If you copy/paste that into your program (as many developers do) it creates confusion, and I think this is where some of the conflict over the GNU GPL and "viral" accusations comes from. The effect is that I could release Version 1.0 of my program under GNU GPL2. With that text there, someone else may redistribute Version 1.0 of my program to others with the GNU GPL3 license.

Better would have been to leave out the "or any later version" bit. I really wish the FSF hadn't put that in the default example.

Fortunately, this gets some attention in the GNU GPL, and I hope most developers read and understand the whole of the GNU GPL before they apply it. Here's the text from GNU GPL3:

14. Revised Versions of this License.

The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the GNU General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns.

Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies that a certain numbered version of the GNU General Public License "or any later version" applies to it, you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that numbered version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of the GNU General Public License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.

(You'll find the same text in section 9 of GNU GPL2, btw.) That is the only place "or any later version" shows up, except for the example at the end. So I now encourage developers to not use the "or any later version" text (and specify the version of the GNU GPL) if they want to ensure a particular version of the GNU GPL. Then you don't fall into the trap of worrying about how the FSF will modify later versions of the GNU GPL to do something you're not comfortable with.

My $0.02.

-jh

Re:Legal Maneuvering

[Jim Hall]

You can't make a license retroactive. I believe the legal principle here is estoppel. IANAL. Basically, you cannot declare Version 1.0 of your code is distributed under GNU GPL2, then later you say Version 1.0 is now distributed under GNU GPL3. You have to release a Version 1.1 to do that.

If you don't look carefully, that seems to get turned on its head with most applications of the GNU GPL. I'm a big fan of free / open source software, and I release much of my code under the GNU GPL, but I've never been happy with the "or any later version" bit. It's stupid. The default example given in "How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs" says to include this text:

[...]

I know it's a no-no to post a reply to your own comment, but I thought I'd clarify a little bit, before people pounce on me.

Note the difference between these two cases:

1. You can't make a license retroactive. I believe the legal principle here is estoppel. IANAL. Basically, you cannot declare Version 1.0 of your code is distributed under GNU GPL2, then later you say Version 1.0 is now distributed under GNU GPL3. You have to release a Version 1.1 to do that.

2. If you copy/paste the "or any later version" bit into your program (as many developers do) the effect is that you could release Version 1.0 of your program under GNU GPL2. And someone else may redistribute Version 1.0 of your program to others with the GNU GPL3 license.

See the difference? It's about who distributes.

Re:Legal Maneuvering

[Jherek Carnelian]

M$ shouldn't be suing FOSS, but you can't create a new version of a license and retroactively apply it to M$. There is no 'retroactive' anything going on here. No changes to licenses or code already distributed.

It only applies to NEW releases. If an MS voucher is used to distribute a copy of the NEW software, then and only then does the GPLv3 come into play.

All MS has to do is make sure their vouchers don't get traded in for GPLv3 software and they will have nothing to worry about.

Re:Legal Maneuvering

[RightSaidFred99]

Novell is distributing the product. If they choose to ignore GPLv3's license, then they must deal with the consequences. This whole thing is silly, the FSF and FOSS nut jobs think they've pulled some kind of clever fast one on MS - it's Novell who would be obtaining and distributing software.

Re:Legal Maneuvering

[jesterzog]

M$ shouldn't be suing FOSS, but you can't create a new version of a license and retroactively apply it to M$. We'd all be yelling at the top of our lungs if MS retroactively altered their Windows XP license so that it, say, required to be renewed every year for a fee.

The GPL3 is not a retroactive licence. The issue is that many open source developers are choosing to release new versions of their software under GPL3. Sooner or later, Novell has to decide if it will fork the old GPL2 versions, or if it will start offering the GPL3 versions. Due to the complexities of the Microsoft voucher system, things start getting complicated when Novell distributes GPL3 code.

Commercial companies, especially including Microsoft and Novell, change the licenses on their software all the time, giving end users no realistic right to dispute new terms short of stopping the use of software that to which they've already been locked in. Neither company is in a position to complain about Free Software authors doing the same without looking flat out hypocritical. If Microsoft and Novell want to, they have all the source code and resources to fork a completely new GPL2-only operating system, or simply keep the one they have and issue bug and compatibility fixes as appropriate. Even being able to do this is a lot more freedom than most closed source distributors would offer their paying customers.

Re:Legal Maneuvering

[aliquis]

Imho FSF have managed to become way uglier with their tactics than Microsoft, well done by them ...

This whole shit, story and everything are so lame I couldn't care less. FSF is a joke.

Sure, hate patents if you want to, I do, but don't make up shit like this to affect Microsoft afterward and in some weird way they couldn't predict or handle somehow.

I hope they sue, someone notice how redicilous it is and that they lose a hell of a lot to Microsoft.

Re:Legal Maneuvering

[fwr]

And Microsoft paid them to distribute said software.

Re:Legal Maneuvering

[RightSaidFred99]

Oooh, and Cisco routers are transporting the bits, and Cox Communications is transporting the bits over their cable infrastructure to some people. Let's go after them! Apparently to "distribute" now means anything you want it to mean.

What shoud be a clue to you people is that if this ridiculous idea were true, Novell would right now be able to decide whether to "invalidate" Microsoft's patents. Novell doesn't distribute GPLv3 stuff, MS OK. Novell does, MS in trouble. Now, no judge or legal system in this country would accept that.

Here's another example of how idiotic this is. What if Novell decides to distribute pirated copies of commercial software along with SUSE? Is Microsoft now guilty of copyright infringement and piracy because of a decision Novell made? The idea is preposterous, and you're all completely out of touch with reality.

A tiny flaw

[davmoo]

Before the FSF sues Microsoft, they should probably wait until Microsoft has actually violated the license they are filing that suit over. So far, that I am aware of, Microsoft has yet to distribute anything that is covered under GPL3.

And even if they do distribute something in the future, the FSF would be well advised to make sure they have the best legal representation that money can buy. Because we *know* Microsoft does. And everyone here should be smart enough to know that in a court room, its not necessarily who's right that matters, its who has the best lawyer.

Re:A tiny flaw

[popsicle67]

The FSF already has a stable of well qualified lawyers who would gladly go toe to toe with microsoft for the pure pleasure of watching Ballmer and company get on the stand and squirm as the internal argument between telling the truth and needing to spin everything to make the appearance of propriety rages in their soft little heads. If I was a lawyer I would certainly donate my time to see one or two MS drones flirt with contempt charges. I don't hate Microsoft at all, for those who care I'm using XP right now and have a great time gaming with it. What I hate are the constant attacks on my freedom to choose and being treated like a damn thief every time I let automatic update run.

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

[Aim Here]

Free software supporters are in often in favour of the ethical right to share information.

Through that way of looking at things, copyright law is merely a tool that can be used for good or ill. Copyrights are bad when they're used to stop the sharing of information, but they're good when they're used to protect the right to share information. No hypocrisy there.

Your argument is a bit like accusing someone of hypocrisy on the subject of hammers, because he supports using hammers to build barns, but is against using hammers to bludgeon people to death.

Hello Alice, welcome to Wonderland....

[hitmanWilly1337]

The MAFIAA getting sued for malicious prosecution, now the FSF (potentially) suing MS over GPL violations...I think I just saw a pig fly by the window. But seriously, how can this get any better?

Re:Hello Alice, welcome to Wonderland....

[hitmanWilly1337]

heh, now that's just too good to be true...but then again, gonzalez did resign...

That's a lot of chewing

[maynard]

rms has quite the big mouth, but not even he has one large enough to take a bite out of Microsoft's legal department. I think he just picked a fight he can't win.

Get a chill pill people

[nweaver]

Microsoft will be "exempt" from the GPLv3 simply because they will never distribute or pay others to distribute GPLv3 code: since the FSF foundation has made clear they believe that paying others counts as distribution, the Novell deal will not encompass any GPLv3 stuff.

So for all those who hope that Microsoft will somehow get caught with their hand in the GPL cookie-jar/trap, forget about it. They are already very careful, and GPLv3 makes them even more careful.

Rather, what the GPLv3 does is make a large amount of future open-source development unavailable to Apple. Apple, unlike Microsoft, ships a large amount of GPL based software: GCC, emacs, a lot of random utilities, etc.

And Apple's solution is to buy up the copyright when possible (CUPS), replace (I've heard talk about replacing gcc), and/or fork at the last GPLv2 version.

The GPLv3 is designed to be unpalitable to many companies: TiVo, Apple, Google, etc, and they will sooner forgoe anything released under GPLv3 than deal with the liscence. This is a feature of the GPLv3, not a bug.

But it is a feature that will only be noticed by its absence: large companies avoiding GPLv3 code except for internal use.

-Nicholas Weaver

Re:Get a chill pill people

[644bd346996]

What talk have you heard about Apple replacing GCC? So far, all they've done is use LLVM instead of GCC for their OpenGL implementation. While it does look like they may want to expand their use of LLVM, I haven't seen any indication that they want to throw away GCC. In fact, it looks like the opposite is true: Chris Lattner, Apple-employed LLVM developer, recently proposed merging LLVM into GCC. Furthermore, Apple is permitting him to work towards that goal on company time, with the copyrights of the resulting code being assigned to the FSF.

It really doesn't look like GPLv3 is a show-stopper for them.

Re:Get a chill pill people

[644bd346996]

Correction: Chris Lattner's proposal wasn't recent. But Apple's still working on LLVM/GCC stuff, and will be shipping stuff built with both in Leopard.

Re:Get a chill pill people

[coryking]

But it is a feature that will only be noticed by its absence: large companies
avoiding GPLv3 code except for internal use. "internal use" usually means web applications. RMS already thinks such people violate the "spirit" of his license. Soon enough he'll be bitching about "Googleization" and you'll see something about it in GPLv4 (they already tried to do this in a draft GPLv3).

Sorry. The GPL party is over. Everybody but the zealots are now quietly gutting every drop of GPL from their application stack.

In the next few years I predict (read: hope) you'll see a BSD renaissance as all the companies and contractors who got burnt spend their time building up *BSD. Hopefully they'll discover what I already found - the two big BSD camps crank out a *much* friendlier, far more stable platform to develop on. Hell, both are *complete* operating systems. The userland tools, the manuals and the kernel all come from the same source tree. Good stuff.

So come on over and join the party. The water is nice and the people are friendly. Just don't invite any zealot losers. The day RMS starts trying to politicize FreeBSD is the day I switch professions...

Re:Get a chill pill people

[ricegf]

Microsoft will be "exempt" from the GPLv3 simply because they will never distribute or pay others to distribute GPLv3 code

I understood Microsoft's problem to be that they neglected to specify which version of Suse could be obtained with their vouchers, or even to specify a time limit on their redemption. Did I misunderstand that?

If not, then Microsoft will "distribute" GPLv3 software (should the courts so rule) as soon as the first person redeems one of their vouchers for a future version of Suse containing any GPL3 code.

Of course, since Microsoft took my money for a copy of XP, then refused to honor it because their servers decided I was a pirate (like it's my fault their crappy software keeps dying and needing to be re-installed over and over and over...), they'll get no sympathy from me should the courts hoist them on their own petard.

Deals like this are bad and must be attacked

[wikinerd]

The problem with deals like the MS-Novell deal is that they have the potential to partition our community. Such deals are also bad from a purely economic point of view, as they give an unfair advantage to a single distributor. I don't think we want any future deals like this, so the GPLv3 included provisions designed to ensure that you can't just choose who will get patent protection - you must extend the protection to everyone if you do offer such protection at all.

Remember that the GPL is designed to protect the users of computer software, and I think GPLv3's provisions against patent protection deals is a good thing. We must attack such deals as a community. The Slashdot headline is a bit too speculative, but I think FSF would have a valid case if this reached the court one day, but IANAL (I'm not a lawyer).

Full disclosure: I'm a Contributing Member of the FSF.

I copy from the GPLv3 FAQ written by brett:

Section 11 How do the new terms of section 11 affect the Microsoft-Novell deal? We attack the Microsoft-Novell deal from two angles. First, in the sixth paragraph of section 11, the draft says that if you arrange to provide patent protection to some of the people who get the software from you, that protection is automatically extended to everyone who receives the software, no matter how they get it. This means that the patent protection Microsoft has extended to Novell's customers would be extended to everyone who uses any software Novell distributes under GPLv3. Second, in the seventh paragraph, the draft says that you are prohibited from distributing software under GPLv3 if you make an agreement like the Microsoft-Novell deal in the future. This will prevent other distributors from trying to make other deals like it.

Re:Deals like this are bad and must be attacked

[krgallagher]

"Section 11 How do the new terms of section 11 affect the Microsoft-Novell deal? We attack the Microsoft-Novell deal from two angles. First, in the sixth paragraph of section 11, the draft says that if you arrange to provide patent protection to some of the people who get the software from you, that protection is automatically extended to everyone who receives the software, no matter how they get it. This means that the patent protection Microsoft has extended to Novell's customers would be extended to everyone who uses any software Novell distributes under GPLv3. Second, in the seventh paragraph, the draft says that you are prohibited from distributing software under GPLv3 if you make an agreement like the Microsoft-Novell deal in the future. This will prevent other distributors from trying to make other deals like it."

How is using copyrights to attack a competitor any different from using patents to do the same thing?

Re:Deals like this are bad and must be attacked

[petrus4]

Fine. I'd dearly love to see the FSF sue Microsoft. As I've already written, predicting the result is a fairly safe bet. It would be disastrous for both organisations, and it would be a Godsend for those of us who want open source to survive, but who see the FSF itself as potentially being institutionally just as tyrannical and harmful an influence ultimately as Microsoft themselves.

I quite passionately want to see both organisations entirely cease to exist, and a scenario where they could be encouraged to mutually destroy each other would be by far the most expedient means for bringing that end about.

Re:Deals like this are bad and must be attacked

[fsmunoz]

Fine. I'd dearly love to see the FSF sue Microsoft. Don't hold your breath, it's highly unlikely that Microsoft will use thir vouchers.

As I've already written, predicting the result is a fairly safe bet. It would be disastrous for both organisations, and it would be a Godsend for those of us who want open source to survive, but who see the FSF itself as potentially being institutionally just as tyrannical and harmful an influence ultimately as Microsoft themselves. Well, that's because you'r a Microsoft-hater and have a, er, "very personal" view on what "open source" is, to the point were anything that is vaguely unsavory for the FSF is a good idea to you even if it's something that would be detrimental to every free software developer out there. You're not an "open source" advocate, you're not even a BSD zealot on meth: you're simply a FSF hater with a weird fixation on RMS.

I quite passionately want to see both organisations entirely cease to exist, and a scenario where they could be encouraged to mutually destroy each other would be by far the most expedient means for bringing that end about. Cue the evil laughter.

Re:Deals like this are bad and must be attacked

[CDarklock]

The GPLv3 is a steaming pile.

Nobody who writes anything worthwhile likes it.

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.

But when you look around and see a vast teeming community of ignorant retards who can't write decent software to save their lives, this deal sucks.

The internet isn't the elite anymore. It's a vast teeming community of ignorant retards. That may do wonders toward making RMS feel like some sort of deity, but it sure as hell doesn't do much for producing high-quality code. What ought to scare the FSF is not that people are mad about the GPLv3 - if nobody's mad about it, you're probably not accomplishing anything - but that an awful lot of the people who are mad about it are highly competent and productive developers. These are exactly the kind of people you want to keep in your community. If what you're doing is driving them away, you really need to step back and think about whether this crusade against Microsoft is worth it.

Of course, I work for the enemy, so don't listen to me. But you probably ought to listen to your most competent and productive developers.

Re:Deals like this are bad and must be attacked

[CDarklock]

> Quite a vast generalization don't you think?

Yes. You should be smart enough to infer the associated disclaimer. If you're not, you're undoubtedly not smart enough to understand my argument anyway.

> So, you're objections are not only against the GPLv3, but to the GPL as a whole.

Not precisely. The GPLv2 was a bad license, but it could be avoided. It was easy to tell whether you fell under the terms of the GPLv2.

My primary objection to the GPLv3 is that it is actively attempts to trick companies into falling under its restrictions, by extending its reach across things people are currently doing to stay out from under the GPLv2.

The clear intent is to provide an avenue where a company can be forced under GPLv3 without their knowledge. This is the most obscenely unacceptable business practice I have ever seen, and I'm an ex-defense contractor who now works at Microsoft. If I can smile about that, just think how bad it has to get before I start shaking my head and muttering about ethics.

Re:Deals like this are bad and must be attacked

[fsmunoz]

> Quite a vast generalization don't you think?
Yes. You should be smart enough to infer the associated disclaimer. If you're not, you're undoubtedly not smart enough to understand my argument anyway. Oh, witty. You should be smart enough to infer that by that I meant that I think your blanket statement is wishful thinking.

Not precisely. The GPLv2 was a bad license, but it could be avoided. It was easy to tell whether you fell under the terms of the GPLv2.

My primary objection to the GPLv3 is that it is actively attempts to trick companies into falling under its restrictions, by extending its reach across things people are currently doing to stay out from under the GPLv2. I see, and can actually understand your reasoning. I view it as a good reason why the GPLv3 was created and was needed.

The clear intent is to provide an avenue where a company can be forced under GPLv3 without their knowledge. I don't think so... the clear intent is, as per your previous analysis, to close the loopholes that allowed some to stay out from under the GPLv2, while using GPL'ed code. I do not see how the GPLv3 changes anything in what regards forcing anyone.

Re:Deals like this are bad and must be attacked

[CDarklock]

> You should be smart enough to infer that by that I meant
> that I think your blanket statement is wishful thinking.

And, clearly, I disagree. The GPL primarily benefits people who TAKE more code than they GIVE. Those with more to give rapidly start to get the short end of the stick, and with the exception of a few truly altruistic folks, they begin to migrate away from the GPL. This defeats the entire purpose of open source development: to attract high-quality volunteer coders who can meet or exceed the quality of commercial offerings.

> I do not see how the GPLv3 changes anything in what regards forcing anyone.

By altering the license in your next release, you can bring a company distributing your code under the GPLv3 for doing what was perfectly legitimate and permissible under the GPLv2.

I do not believe this is an oversight. I believe this is exactly what RMS and the FSF want. And I believe it is a scummy thing to do.

I also believe it won't stand up in court, and will be primarily used as an extortion technique against companies who can't afford to fight it. And I believe RMS knows that, too.

Re:Deals like this are bad and must be attacked

[fsmunoz]

And, clearly, I disagree. The GPL primarily benefits people who TAKE more code than they GIVE. Those with more to give rapidly start to get the short end of the stick, and with the exception of a few truly altruistic folks, they begin to migrate away from the GPL. This defeats the entire purpose of open source development: to attract high-quality volunteer coders who can meet or exceed the quality of commercial offerings. It's your right to view the body of work under the GPL today - including GNU/Linux, but not limited by it - as bad code made by mediocre developers. I personally think that it has worked quite nicely, even considering that the sheer quality of code never was the main purpose of the GPL. As everything the quality varies - I have code under the GPL that is awful,but that's because I'm not really a good programmer - but plenty of it seems to be good enough to apparently make some companies want to use it (and of these, some want to use it and not follow the license).

By altering the license in your next release, you can bring a company distributing your code under the GPLv3 for doing what was perfectly legitimate and permissible under the GPLv2. But that was always an integral part of the GPL - and of any license. They get updated... the code is only covered if the copyright owners wished for that to happen by placing their code under the GPLv3 (either explicitly or using the "...at your option, any latter version". This aso happened with the GPLv1->GPLv2 transition.

I do not believe this is an oversight. I believe this is exactly what RMS and the FSF want. And I believe it is a scummy thing to do. No, it isn't an oversight...it's IMO hindsight, by allowing the programs to update the license.

I also believe it won't stand up in court, and will be primarily used as an extortion technique against companies who can't afford to fight it. And I believe RMS knows that, too. I disagree, I see no reason for the GPL to be viewed as invalid.

Re:Deals like this are bad and must be attacked

[CDarklock]

> It's your right to view the body of work under the GPL
> today - including GNU/Linux, but not limited by it - as
> bad code made by mediocre developers

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying the average code WRITTEN today (GPL or not) is bad code written by mediocre developers, and the GPL reduces the value of that code to experienced developers.

> But that was always an integral part of the GPL - and of
> any license.

As was the bond of trust that what was permissible under the license today would not expose one to legal liability tomorrow. GPLv3 violates that trust.

> I see no reason for the GPL to be viewed as invalid

You can't change the license behind someone's back. I can't say "I reserve the right to alter my license", get your signature, and then post a new license that says "all licensees must pay $500 a month". No court in the world would uphold that. The GPLv3, however, expects to sneak in and demand distributors' interest in related source code - as if intellectual property rights are somehow different. It's theft, pure and simple, and all nobility aside Robin Hood was still just a thief.

Re:Deals like this are bad and must be attacked

[fsmunoz]

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying the average code WRITTEN today (GPL or not) is bad code written by mediocre developers, and the GPL reduces the value of that code to experienced developers. That's in no small part due to the fact that much more people program nowadays... I don't see how the GPL reduces the value of that code to experienced developers (who shouldn't be using it, being mediocre code in the first place). Better yet, it reduces the "value" of the code - good or bad - to anyone who doesn't want to follow the GPL, but that's strictly by design and *the* main objective of the GPL.

As was the bond of trust that what was permissible under the license today would not expose one to legal liability tomorrow. GPLv3 violates that trust. As I said, the GPLv3 is only applied if the authors change the code to it or the user specifically choses to use it in situations were "at your option, any latter version" is stated. And that part of the text would have to be there from the beginning, so it's not like nobody ever expected than a new version of the GPL would eventually be released.

You can't change the license behind someone's back. I can't say "I reserve the right to alter my license", get your signature, and then post a new license that says "all licensees must pay $500 (370) a month". No court in the world would uphold that. The GPLv3, however, expects to sneak in and demand distributors' interest in related source code - as if intellectual property rights are somehow different. It's theft, pure and simple, and all nobility aside Robin Hood was still just a thief. Again, the "licensee" (the final user) is the one that can chose which version of the GPL applies in the "at your option" situations. Your example is flawed since the GPLv3 only applies if one distributes the code, fully knowing that there is GPLv3 code in there. Don't distribute the code, no problem, exactly like the GPLv2. The anti-patent clause aimed at the MS/Novell deal only applies if something is distributed containing GPLv3 code, and distributors should take that into account. Your example is substantially different in that the licensee was a passive player, in this situation there must be an active move by some distributor.

Re:Deals like this are bad and must be attacked

[CDarklock]

> I don't see how the GPL reduces the value of that code to
> experienced developers (who shouldn't be using it, being
> mediocre code in the first place).

Mediocre code itself is better than nothing.

Mediocre code with onerous restrictions may be worse than nothing.

Thus, reduced value. ECON 101.

> As I said, the GPLv3 is only applied if the authors change
> the code to it

Are they guaranteed to notify all of their distributors and distributor partners when they do so?

No. And RMS knows it. And the GPLv3 attempts to saddle them with liabilities and obligations without their consent or knowledge. And that's unethical.

> Your example is flawed since the GPLv3 only applies if one
> distributes the code, fully knowing that there is GPLv3 code
> in there.

Show me where in the GPLv3 it says the license doesn't apply if you don't know about it.

See, that's a loophole that could be easily exploited. So which is it? Unethical, or irrelevant?

Re:Deals like this are bad and must be attacked

[wikinerd]

Copyright protects a specific piece of software. If you don't want to be attacked with copyright, you just write your own software. Patents, especially when combined with an overworked or incompetent patent office (or a fascist state), have the potential to cover ideas and discourage technological development, as well as economic development (especially for business method patents). They are powerful and dangerous, and that's why they have a 20-year maximum life (this means that even the governments are afraid of patents). It isn't easy to circumvent a cleverly written patent, and just the threat of a lawsuit can shut down an entire startup business or even a free software project.

Re:Deals like this are bad and must be attacked

[Ash-Fox]

but it sure as hell doesn't do much for producing high-quality code.

I am interested to see you point out what you consider high-quality code.

Re:Deals like this are bad and must be attacked

[Ash-Fox]

It is extremely fortunate then that GNU/Linux is based on the enormous body of prior art in ideas, methods, concepts and technology from POSIX, ancient Unix and the BSDs, all of which are liberally licensed and well over 20 years old, all of which are described in detail in many hundreds of textbooks and all of which pre-date by a long period any patents that Microsoft may have dreamed up since.

That's only useful if GNU/Linux wants to stop developing new technologies and features in the OS.

Re:Deals like this are bad and must be attacked

[CDarklock]

> I am interested to see you point out what you consider high-quality code.

Apache is a good example. It just works. Millions of people use it every day with little to no idea how it works; they just type "make install" and "apachectl start" and there it is. It's like magic. Beyond that, it's just a few lines in a config file and "apachectl restart" and hey presto. Look at all the people asking excessively basic questions on the local LUG Apache forum who say they've been running it for years; sure, on the one hand it's pretty sad when someone doesn't know how to make rewrite rules, but on the other - isn't it amazing that they've been running this software for years and never needed to know that? That may not be the world's best user, but it sure as hell is some great software.

PHP is a little iffy. Most of it isn't that great, and the installation is certainly rather precarious, but the genius of it is in the way Zend made it so easy to extend the language and attach external libraries. That core is massively high-quality. The peripherals, often contributed by less-than-expert developers, maybe not so much. But you have to admit it's gotten more people to write "real" programs than anything else.

But let's find something GPL, shall we? You know what really rules? GNU make. It's fucking amazing. Come on, we ALL use it. You can't get away from it. The only thing that even comes close is autoconfigure. That's the build dance - ./configure, ./make, done. It's the closest thing to setup.exe the UNIX world has ever had, and it's ever so much more powerful.

The lack of Microsoft products in this list is a consideration of the audience. I see a lot of high-quality products coming out of Microsoft, but if I named them, we'd just argue forever about what "quality" means. I think we can all agree that the things I HAVE named meet just about every rational definition of quality. (MySQL almost made the list, but it has too many detractors who claim it's not a "real" database server. I don't agree, but they have some valid points.)

Re:Deals like this are bad and must be attacked

[fsmunoz]

Mediocre code itself is better than nothing.
Mediocre code with onerous restrictions may be worse than nothing.
Thus, reduced value. ECON 101. Uh... again, you are complaining about the very reason the GPL exists at all. It isn't there to maximize the available pool of code for anyone to pick and use as they wish. Developers that don't feel like abiding by the GPL are free to not use the code, and that's it. The fact that in your estimate most GPL'ed code is mediocre should make it even more simple to disregard it.

Are they guaranteed to notify all of their distributors and distributor partners when they do so?
No. And RMS knows it. And the GPLv3 attempts to saddle them with liabilities and obligations without their consent or knowledge. And that's unethical. The GPL isn't primarily concerned with distributors, but with end users. You are not complaining about the GPLv3 but about the "and, at your option, any latter version" clause that has always existed in some GPL'ed code. Distributors should know that this clause exists and that it was likely that another version of the GPL would be released (as it's likely that a GPLv4 will be released, etc.) Distributors have as part of their duties to follow the licenses of the software they distribute, in this case GPLv3 software. If they can't, or are unnable to, they should stop distributing it. The vast majority of distributors are actually unaffected by the GPLv3 in any case, and those who are are generally inconvenienced on purpose.

Show me where in the GPLv3 it says the license doesn't apply if you don't know about it. Bad wording on my part, I meant that the distributors know (it's part of their minimum obligations and duties as distributors to know) the licenses of the software that they distribute, and so can either stop distributing the software or be covered by the obligations puth forth in the license.

Re:Deals like this are bad and must be attacked

[CDarklock]

> Uh... again, you are complaining about the very reason the GPL exists at all.

Actually, I'm complaining about the very reason open source software exists at all.

The purpose of open source software is to avoid the constant grind of developers writing the same code over and over. There is no reason for me to write a customisable and extensible menu system once someone else has already done it; I should be able to take that system, configure it to my tastes, and worry about larger problems like the functionality behind it.

The GPL attaches onerous restrictions to this idea. Most damnably, it insists that whatever changes I make to the code must be made ready for distribution. It requires that I don't use patent-encumbered code when I may have a perfect right to do so. It requires that I don't use copyrighted code when I may have a perfect right to do so. It demands, in fact, that I don't write or use any code unless I am prepared to give it to everyone.

I'm not always in charge of that. When my project manager says "I need this feature in a week", and that feature demands that I interface with proprietary hardware using a patented protocol, there is no GPL software on the planet that can help me. Even though a package may provide 90% of the functionality I need, and the rest is just implementing the patented protocol, the GPL says I can't use it. I could be done in two normal days using the GPL code, but instead I have to start from scratch. By the end of the week, I'll have spent eighty hours building a half-assed piece of crap that some poor intern will have to support for years.

And you can whine all you want about how the protocol shouldn't be patented, and the feature can't be done well in a week, and all the things that are wrong with this scenario. But I'm not in charge of that. I don't get to stand there and say "I refuse to interface with our company's primary product using a patent-encumbered protocol on the grounds that software patents are bad!" - I have to do what I'm told to do. That's the price I pay for job security, and no matter what I personally think about software patents, I rather prefer that my kids have good health insurance.

The BSD and MIT and Apache and PHP licenses recognise that. They understand that these decisions are largely not mine to make. Even when they are mine to make, the ideals of free software with no patents and worldwide distribution simply aren't always compatible with the demands of real business.

From my perspective, the GPL says I don't get to use code that would make my job easier, because RMS doesn't like how my employer does business. I think that's petty and selfish. It's a political issue tacked onto a technical question for no good purpose.

> The GPL isn't primarily concerned with distributors, but with end users.

If you really think about it, the GPLv2 treats them as the same thing.

> either stop distributing the software or be covered
> by the obligations puth forth in the license.

This amounts to blackmail. RMS is saying "meet these obligations or stop distributing GPL software" to everyone currently distributing it, and banking on the fact that many people can't stop distribution unless they close their business. I think that's really shitty.

Re:Deals like this are bad and must be attacked

[fsmunoz]

The scope of the debate has widden a bit, and with the topic buried we're talking to each other, but debating is always good.

The purpose of open source software is to avoid the constant grind of developers writing the same code over and over.

You see, this is where I think we diverge, and it's fundamental to understand the rest of the points... the GPL isn't about "open source" software nor is it destined to avoid reinventing the wheel, nor actually any kind of software methodology. While the Open Source movement has placed a great emphasis on those points the trith of the matter is that the GPL - and the FSF - have never considered those to be the main objectives... they are good side effects, but not the main goal, and since 1982 that it has been stated many times (more recently the FSF has distanced itself from the term "Open Source" exactely because of this points).

The GPL attaches onerous restrictions to this idea. Most damnably, it insists that whatever changes I make to the code must be made ready for distribution. It requires that I don't use patent-encumbered code when I may have a perfect right to do so. It requires that I don't use copyrighted code when I may have a perfect right to do so. It demands, in fact, that I don't write or use any code unless I am prepared to give it to everyone.

The restrictions of the GPL are the only reason for its existence. You have a perfect right to use whatever you want or need, but others also have the right to restrict your usage of their code according to their wishes as expressed by the licence they chose. It doesn't demand anything from you as a developer: you can write any code you want, and release it under any licence you like, if it's your code. If I want to use BSD/X11/ISC licenced code I should abid by their requirements, so if maintaining the copyright notices on the code I use is something I found unsavory and excessive I can always *not* use the code. If I'm not prepared to abid by the terms of *any* software licence I shouldn't really use the code. Simply imagine that the code wasn't there to begin with.

I'm not always in charge of that. When my project manager says "I need this feature in a week", and that feature demands that I interface with proprietary hardware using a patented protocol, there is no GPL software on the planet that can help me. Even though a package may provide 90% of the functionality I need, and the rest is just implementing the patented protocol, the GPL says I can't use it. I could be done in two normal days using the GPL code, but instead I have to start from scratch. By the end of the week, I'll have spent eighty hours building a half-assed piece of crap that some poor intern will have to support for years.

Why that relience on GPL'ed code? I mean, I wouldn't dream of using stolen proprietary code in an application I've been ordered to deliver just because it speeds up the development. GPL'ed code isn't there for the taking, and when developing software - especially proprietary software - that should be simply acknowledged, using it shouldn't be part of the equation in the first place. I can understand the apparent frustration in having code that you can look at but not use, but that's a choice made by the developer (or, more often than not, the company) when they choose a proprietary license.

The BSD and MIT and Apache and PHP licenses recognise that. They understand that these decisions are largely not mine to make. Even when they are mine to make, the ideals of free software with no patents and worldwide distribution simply aren't always compatible with the demands of real business.

That's true, they aren't always compatible, and in those situations just abstain from using it. Again, that's one of the main objectives of the GPL, and not an unfortunate side effect. Violating a licence because it's "easier" to do it isn't an option with *any* licence.

From my perspective, the GPL says I don't get to use cod

Re:Deals like this are bad and must be attacked

[CDarklock]

> with the topic buried we're talking to each other, but debating is always good

The lack of invective is certainly refreshing.

> You see, this is where I think we diverge

I agree. In my opinion, the GPL's flaw is that it tries to tell developers what is right and proper to do with their own code. It seems like you consider this a benefit, rather than a flaw.

From my perspective, the GPL is well-suited to a world that adheres to the UNIX philosophy: many small utilities that do one thing and do it well. We don't really do things that way anymore. The divisions of labor are not process boundaries, but object boundaries; sometimes those boundaries are also process boundaries, but more and more frequently those boundaries are purely theoretical. The menu manager and the window manager are separate objects with separate APIs written by separate teams and tested separately, but fundamentally they're designed to be linked together in the compilation phase.

When you try to apply the GPL restrictions to the window manager because the menu manager is under GPL, I think that violates the spirit of the GPL that appealed to me. What I liked about the GPL was that it encouraged a specific sequence of events.

1. Write a tool that does the job effectively.
2. Toss it out there for other people to use.
3. Let them make it better, knowing that your investment will beget other investment.

Today, people aren't using the GPL that way. They're doing something altogether different.

1. Write a crappy version of a tool you want.
2. Toss it out into the world.
3. Wait for someone else to fix it, knowing that nobody can do that without giving you the new code.

It's similar to the tragedy of the commons. People are no longer investing real work to grow more real work; they're investing a half-assed effort and demanding work to which they feel entitled.

What really raises the flag in my head is that this only works with the GPL. Nothing else lets you do this. You cannot rationally expect that if you release something under the BSD license, you will as a matter of course receive any improvements made to it. There is no other license that secures to the original author a right to access code by later contributors. I suggest that this is at least partially because professional developers have a moral objection to that idea.

Object oriented methodologies change the landscape rather drastically. I tend to think that the unit of code to which one should apply a license is now the object, rather than the application. It is the object - not the process - which is the natural division of labor in modern computing. Modern licenses should begin taking into account this division, so objects can be more readily recombined to solve interesting problems.

> others also have the right to restrict your usage of their code

But they're not restricting my usage of their code. They're restricting my usage of MY code. If I write code that only works when linked to something GPL, I can't distribute the code under anything but the GPL. Traditionally, you get around this by making code that late-binds at runtime to a shim linked to the GPL code - you have to release the shim under GPL, but who cares? The real work is in the library that connects into it.

The GPLv3 is trying to seal up this "loophole" where I can actually do what I want with my code. There are two major loopholes, one of which is that you can just not distribute the code - choosing instead to run the GPL code in a web service that your proprietary code contacts. The other is as I've described, exposing an API for dynamic loading of or by proprietary code. (TiVo's efforts are dubious, and I don't think they really represent a legitimate loophole.)

But these are not efforts to steal code or avoid contributing - they're efforts to meet business requirements. I generally don't own the code I write. It's considered a work made for hire, and my client owns it. If I encumber that code with a

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

[HappySmileMan]

Yeah but who's against the use of hammers for bludgeoning people to death, only music pirates and communists, don't you pay attention to the news?

Re:Ugh

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

*couch*slashdot-editors*cough*

Holy crap! thats one heck of a cough you have there if you're coughing up furniture. You may want to see a doctor or an upholsterer for that.

Silly

[huckamania]

So the FSF thinks that the GPL3 will protect them from patent infringement? Seems like a lost cause. If the FSF is violating a patent or two, chances are it is a violation that predates the GPL3.

Anywhile, once the lawyers get involved it just increases the odds that everyone else will get screwed.

Re:Silly

[Aim Here]

"Seems like a lost cause. If the FSF is violating a patent or two, chances are it is a violation that predates the GPL3."

How? If the supposed patent violation that predates the GPLv3, that makes safer, because there's no way that Microsoft can claim that it didn't know about that supposed infringement. If your hypothetical example is true, then Microsoft signed an agreement, AFTER that supposedly infringing code was placed in GNU, agreeing that Novell could distribute that code under GPL version 2 OR LATER, without Novell's customers (and in the case of GPLv3, anyone at all) being sued for patent infringement, and that Microsoft would help Novell distribute such software.

That takes away one of MS's possible rebuttals - Microsoft can't claim that it was ambushed by the FSF slapping code into GNU, in bad faith, after the Novell-MS deal in order to 'steal' their patented technology.

Re:Silly

[huckamania]

You have a good point. It never occured to me that the real intention of the FSF is to "open source" Microsoft patents. I wasn't aware that there was a big demand to slap patent infringing code into GNU. Now it all makes perfect sense, from the FSF side at least.

Still, I think it would be a bad idea for the FSF to try this in court before Microsoft actually does something with their patents. Publicly they have said they would do nothing, so why go there when Linux has so much momentum.

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

[vthokie69]

I have absolutely no problem with copyright holders enforcing their copyrights regardless of who it is. The problem I have is with the methods that the RIAA and MPAA have used in enforcing copyrights. For starters, the RIAA and the MPAA don't even hold the copyrights, their member organizations do. The actual copyright holders are farming out the dirty work to the RIAA and MPAA. Second, they have been using potentially illegal tactics (Computer Fraud and Abuse Act violations?) to obtain information. Third, they frequently end up suing or bullying people into settling regardless of guilt or innocence. They are effectively attacking regular folks who also happen to be their customers instead of focusing on the large operations that are wholesale distributing their media and profiting from it. For the small time file sharing, a simple cease and desist order would be sufficient to take care of the problem.

Re:More Tripe from Kdawson [sic]

[MollyB]

Hey Cowie, you're pretty short on facts yourself. Not only does the editor spell his nick "kdawson" (No Caps, stinkfinger), I challenge the notion that he doesn't have a better grasp on reality than you. The fair-minded reader can see what s/he thinks about it.

I don't defend kdawson automatically, but this was overboard, imo. May I be modded to hell if I'm just kissing up...

Consequences?

[blurryrunner]

What are the consequences if Microsoft is shown to be a distributor under GPLv3?

Re:Consequences?

[Ash-Fox]

What are the consequences if Microsoft is shown to be a distributor under GPLv3?

They cannot use patents among other things against the GPL3 software they redistribute.

Re:Stickin' IT to the Man

[organgtool]

Wow, slashdot mods never cease to amaze me. I know the parent post wasn't exactly cerebral, but how do you justify modding that post "redundant" when it is the FIRST POST?!

Celebrity deathmatch

[Spy der Mann]

I'd love to see Tux vs. Ballmer on MTV.

FSF is a joke

[DogDude]

This whole "press release" was laughable both in idea, and in specifics (the lack thereof). The FSF is saber rattling over absolutely nothing, and they look ridiculous as a result. I can't imagine that anybody at Microsoft (or any other company) takes the FSF seriously.

Re:FSF is a joke

[fsmunoz]

The press relase was an answer to Microsoft's own public press release. Seems that they apparently take it serously enough to make one...

Re:The Steve Balmer Fan Club

[Spy der Mann]

Innovate people, innovate.

GASP! Mr. Ballmer, he sss-s-said the forbidden word! *faints*

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

[mark99]

Why is this a troll? It is a valid point.

Something for meta-moderation I guess.

Re:Stickin' IT to the Man

[uglydog]

My guess is when it isn't exactly offtopic, and not really flamebait, but you just don't like it.

Re:Stickin' IT to the Man

[Oktober Sunset]

As it says nothing worthwhile at all, and and there were no post before it, it is redundant, as everyone else has said nothing worthwhile before this post.

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

[bealzabobs_youruncle]

More amazing is your ability to compare the efforts of the FSF to the fascist at the RIAA and MPAA...

Jeez

[trifish]

From the press release made by the FSF:
Microsoft has said that it expects respect for its so-called "intellectual property"--a propaganda term designed to confuse patent law with copyright and other unrelated laws

To FSF: "intellectual property" is not a "propaganda term" and the term is not designed "to confuse patent law with copyright and other unrelated laws".

In standard English, the term "intellectual property" term collectively refers to any or all of the following:

- Copyrights
- Trademarks (or service mark)
- Patents

Sometimes also to:
- Trade secrets
- Trade names

I stopped reading the press release after reading that sentence...

Re:Jeez

[trifish]

You said yourself that "IP" confuses patents with copyright.

I did? Where?

Why did you stop reading?

It's not so difficult to guess why.

Because they're right?

Right.

Re:Jeez

[trifish]

For those ACs who didn't understand, the part To FSF: means My response to FSF.

Re:Jeez

[fsmunoz]

You didn't said that it "confuses", but you did say - correctly - that it "refers to any or all of the following" and "sometimes also to". Then you mentioned copyrights, trademarks, patents, trade secrets and trade names. All of which are governed by different laws, different usages and different rules. Which is way using the term "intelectual property" to assert some kind of supernatural right that is above, say, a license is a propaganda term.

Your definition is actually the same as the FSF:

Publishers and lawyers like to describe copyright as "intellectual property"---a term that also includes patents, trademarks, and other more obscure areas of law. These laws have so little in common, and differ so much, that it is ill-advised to generalize about them. It is best to talk specifically about "copyright," or about "patents," or about "trademarks."

The term "intellectual property" carries a hidden assumption---that the way to think about all these disparate issues is based on an analogy with physical objects, and our ideas of physical property. When it comes to copying, this analogy disregards the crucial difference between material objects and information: information can be copied and shared almost effortlessly, while material objects can't be. You're reasonign about its use is different, which is fine. But to me using the word "intelectual property" is indeed many times a way to muddy the waters by refering to something that can encompass many different legal frameworks as a way to pass the impression that nothing can get in the way of it, including software licenses.

Re:Jeez

[PermanentMarker]

who patented the term copycat i just wonder now by reading this above

Re:Jeez

[trifish]

Ok, so let's try a different approach, an analogy:

Does anyone here agree with the FSF that the term "fruit" is "a propaganda term designed to confuse apples with pears?"

And can anyone agree with me, and with people who write the laws, that there indeed are many different kinds of intellectual property and that we need one formal term to refer to them collectively for convenience?

Why is copyright treated as a good thing and trademarks as bad? I could as well go and say copyright is Evil, I want all to be in the public domain (that the GPL sucks, and so forth).

But, really, jeez.

Re:Jeez

[trifish]

who patented the term copycat

You mean trademarked? You can't patent (nor copyright) a term.

Re:Jeez

[trifish]

Ok, let me count the results: one Anonymous Coward doesn't agree with me... That's it? Anyway.

No, I can't agree with you, nor your implication that the FSF is trying to destroy the word fruit.

No, I said that they treat words like "fruit" like "propaganda designed to mislead people". Which to me makes FSF a bunch of crackpots.


You're saying that the term in question refers to a group of things

If you think it doesn't, you are probably stupid.


but you've made no reasonable argument that this grouping is necessary or useful.

I didn't have to, but I will. A journalist may write e.g. this short title: "Novel Sold All Its Intellectual Property" Whereas, your title would have twenty words more and yet you couldn't be sure you haven't omitted some kind of intellectual property.


Copyright in its current form IS bad

FSF uses it, however. GPL wouldn't work without it. But, hey, what prevents you from waiving copyright and all intellectual property rights in your work and going Public Domain and stop using the Bad Thing? Nothing. Except probably the control freaks in you.


It does, as the FSF say, confuse people

I feel like reading something written by the Holy Inquisition in the Middle Ages. Jesus. Yes, you and FSF are true zealots. Let the people figure out what the word fruit means, ok? They're not sheep.

Re:Jeez

[fsmunoz]

Ok, let me count the results: one Anonymous Coward doesn't agree with me... That's it?

This isn't a game in which you win by number of people who agree or disagree. I also disagree with you, just chose not to answer your "fruit" analogy because quite honestly it seems silly to me and fails to adress any of the points raised.

Words are words, they become propaganda terms when used in certain ways. "Terrorism" by itself also as a specific meaning, but can be used as a propaganda word when used in certain ways. "Intelectual property" is the same.

Re:Jeez

[Scarblac]

That's exactly what he means. By making vague threats about "intellectual property" (which could be any of those things you name) without specifying what exactly their problem is (is it copyright infringement? patent infringement? they would be completely different problems with different ramifications) all they're doing is spreading FUD. They have no interest in being specific because then the problems could be fixed; in fact, they can hide the complete absence of any specific problem by being vague.

So in short, it's a propaganda term to confuse patent law with copyright and other unrelated laws.

Re:Jeez

[trifish]

Words are words, they become propaganda terms when used in certain ways.

The only entity I see use propaganda is the FSF.

Re:Jeez

[trifish]

That's exactly what he means. By making vague threats about "intellectual property" (which could be any of those things you name) without specifying what exactly their problem is (is it copyright infringement? patent infringement? they would be completely different problems with different ramifications) all they're doing is spreading FUD.

If you refer to the recent Microsoft vs Linux thing, then they clearly stated that their patents are infringed. (Besides, I don't know how Linux could infringe copyrights or trademarks of Microsoft. Windows is closed source and their marks are certainly not used to identify Linux goods.)

Re:Jeez

[fsmunoz]

The only entity I see use propaganda is the FSF.

No offense, but that pretty much sums up why this debate is unnecessary. You obviously have your own solid opinion on the FSF, so I doubt that any ammount of arguments will change it. Just don't pretend that you were "going to read" the press release but "stopped reading" because you found some specific definition you disagree with. You have your view on the FSF's opinions, language and actions pretty much defined, so it doesn't surprise me that you take issue with their usage of "intelectual property", or everything else in the press release you didn't read.

Re:Jeez

[trifish]

Saying the "fruit" is a "propaganda term designed to confuse apples and oranges" is propaganda itself. People who put things like this in press releases just are not normal. Opinions may differ.

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

[marcosdumay]

No, it is not. FSF is not doing any extorsion (unless you count: "if you violate our copyrights, we'll sue you" as extorsion).

The GP is simply a troll, with the same comment that apears on any conversation around here (not even a creative troll).

The problem is the toolchain, not the kernel...

[nweaver]

Linux vs BSD on liscencing isn't a kernel issue. Linux is GPLv2 only, so it doesn't matter much.

Where it matters is the toolchain and utilities, and (*)BSD is as dependent on the FSF toolchain as anybody else.

Re:The problem is the toolchain, not the kernel...

[coryking]

Where it matters is the toolchain and utilities, and (*)BSD is as dependent on the FSF toolchain as anybody else. The only time you have to play the license dance is with each port. Thankfully the parts that matter - PHP, Perl, Apache, PostgreSQL, Ruby, Python, etc are all *not* GPL. The only GPL-ware in the OS itself is the compiler. Most of the guts of both BSD's were designed for multiple compilers and adhere to the standard C/C++ dialects. All it takes is a tool that makes it easy to swap compilers and you are free.

Actually MS distribute GPL software

[midgley]

SOme of the Unix connectivity stuff, isn't it?

Re:Then don't use it!

[coryking]

Then don't use my software. I'm glad we both agree.

Hell, I'll even make it better! I'm a programmer and I won't even send you patches or contribute to your open source project on my company's time either.

Careful what you wish for my friend.

Re:Feeds Belief GPL is "viral"

[Bruce Perens]

You're welcome to take this position, of course, however be aware it definitely give the impression that the GPL is "viral" in nature, not only in print but the forceful actions of it's proponents.

The proper term is "share and share alike".

Showing business people that we fight back against folks who engineer loopholes in our licenses just says that we're not suckers. Sure, every business person wants us to use BSD licensing on everything and never ask for anything back. But ask them to do that with their own product, and you'll hear a different tune. The ones who last in business have learned to accept the concept of reciprocity.

Bruce

Re:copywrong

[GISGEOLOGYGEEK]

Negative.

Microsoft did not say they would not be bound by a license when redistributing works under that license.

They said they would not enter any agreements, or use any products etc which would require them to be bound by GPLv3.

They've done what every music pirater should be doing ... They've accepted that if they can't accept the conditionso of a license, they won't use the licensed content.

FSF is NOT SUING MICROSOFT.

[majortom1981]

All the fsf stated was that if microsoft distributes a gpl 3 product then they have to follow the gp3.

heck the fsf even praises microsoft at one point

"In its press release dated July 5, 2007, Microsoft announced that it was withdrawing discriminatory promises of patent safety it previously made to certain Novell customers. We regard Microsoft's decision with satisfaction. FSF first requested the withdrawal of those discriminatory promises in a meeting with Microsoft's general counsel, Brad Smith, on November 9, 2006. (We have no opinion on Microsoft's legal obligations to the intended beneficiaries of the repudiated promises, or to Novell.)
"

Why must websites like slashdot and digg completely lie to bash microsoft. if you are going to bash microsoft atleast do it with facts dont make up articles then post an article that does not state anything of what your false article states.

How I wish...

[asm2750]

...RMS would keep dumb ideas to himself and keep his damn mouth shut. GPL is not a bad idea, heck its genius for such a unique license even if a large portion of people hate its viral tendencies, but honestly picking fights with no chance of winning with it makes the entire open source community look bad not just the FSF. And if theres nothing I hate more than a dumb legal idea, its alienating your license users over the idea when all they want to do is business.

Re:How I wish...

[Ash-Fox]

GPL is not a bad idea, heck its genius for such a unique license even if a large portion of people hate its viral tendencies, but honestly picking fights with no chance of winning with it makes the entire open source community look bad not just the FSF.

You should see Windows' viral license, it's so far more restrictive and annoying.

but honestly picking fights with no chance of winning with it makes the entire open source community look bad not just the FSF.

Plenty of people have won court cases against Microsoft in the past. I wouldn't say they have no chance.

...when all they want to do is business.

If the FSF succeeds with this lawsuit, this will invalidate some of Microsoft's attacks methods against FOSS, allowing people to do just business without having to worry about other matters.

Microsoft distributes GPL'ed software

[Per Abrahamsen]

It is besides the point of this article, but Microsoft does distribute GPL'ed software as part of the their Unix services for Windows migration platform. It includes among other things GCC.

They don't seem to maintain it anymore though, so probably no GPLv3 stuff.

It doesn't matter

[Walter Carver]

If Novell decides to use software unver GPL3 then this gets into conflict with their contract with Microsoft. It doesn't matter which predates.

Re:copywrong

[KarmaMB84]

How does this work when the person redeeming the voucher could already acquire the software with full permission of the copyright holder but without the support contract from Novell?

When is the FSF going to start suing retailers?

Re:Jeez Loo eeeze, read what you wrote...

[JetScootr]

clearly stated that their patents are infringed
OK. Tell me ONE patent number identified by Microsoft as being infringed by Linux. Just one. They claim hundreds, just tell me ONE of them.
Only then can you claim Microsoft "clearly" stated their patents are infringed.
Without the patent numbers, the statements are vague, they're FUD and they're BS.

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

[PietjeJantje]

Wow, you and your (sad) buddies just proved my point by again modding down a valid opinion. You are damaging the purpose of the FSF by doing this, because word is: GPL zealots are assholes.

Re:Jeez Loo eeeze, read what you wrote...

[trifish]

OK. Tell me ONE patent number identified by Microsoft as being infringed by Linux. Just one. They claim hundreds, just tell me ONE of them.
Only then can you claim Microsoft "clearly" stated their patents are infringed.
Without the patent numbers, the statements are vague, they're FUD and they're BS.

You're being ridiculous. What I responded to was your claim that Microsoft used the term "Intellectual Property" to confuse people. THAT term is what we have been talking about here. Not patent numbers. Read the previous posts, before posting another garbage.

Re:copywrong

[GISGEOLOGYGEEK]

And that's the big scam that is being attempted in the name of open source.

Microsoft created the vouchers before GPL v3, for software created under other licenses. The open souce community thought that if they changed the license that somehow MS wouldn't have to be consulted and agree to be bound by it ... they assumed that the MS vouchers would still be valid.

But they are not and MS has been reminding the world that this is the case. You're welcome to all the updates you want ... but if you update to GPL v3 code, you are making an intentional choice to void your voucher.

You know damn well that GPL v3 was created in part to entrap Microsoft on these vouchers. Such pathetic entrapment attempts will never stand up in court.

Can you imagine the uproar that would happen if MS tried to pull this shit on the open source community?

Re: I did

[JetScootr]

As I quoted, I was replying to the "clearly stated" part of your comment, which is ontopic as a reply to your post. MS's claims of patent infringement, without supplying patent numbers, is one example of MS's "intellectual property" FUD, which makes your comment also ontopic. And I did RTFP.(PS: check sig, I think you have me confused with a grandpa poster)
Using either term "IP" or "235 patents" to accuse someone of infringement should be followed immediately with the specifics, in order to clarify (prove) or work towards a resolution.
It's like using the term "titled property", which would include cars, real estate, etc. If someone is accused of burning "titled property", are they accused of burning a car or a house, or something else altogether?
If talking about whether a company is a generally good investment, "Intellectual property", "235 patents being infringed", "titled property", etc, are probably all useful terms. When accusing a specific group hardworking people (Linux developers, in this case) of infringing copyrights, patents, etc, you'd better be specific or expect to treated harshly.

Re: I did

[trifish]

Again, the discussion (parent, grand, grand-grand, wherever you look) was about the term "intellectual property" and how FSF belives it is MS propaganda to use that term to collectively refer to copyrights, patents, trademarks, etc. You brought the MS patent claims in, which was totally off-topic.