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."

How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

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:

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?

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?

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?

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

Re:

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.

Re:

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:

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 copyrig

Re:

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 con

Re:

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 al

Re:

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 the

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

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?

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?

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?

"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 [novell.com] distributing GPLv3 software. The FSF DOES [nwsource.com] 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?

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:

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 appl

Re:

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 tha

Re:

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

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

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:

(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 y

Re:

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 physic

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

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.

Followup

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 ad

Re:Followup

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:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

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:

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

Re:

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:

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

Re:

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

Re:

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 u

Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?

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

Clarification

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:

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.

Re:Clarification

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

Cool

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:

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

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:

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

Re:

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

Re:

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 infringem

Confused

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:

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:

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

And in the red corner, weighing in at

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*

Gross Speculation

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

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!

Get a chill pill people

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

Jeez

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:

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 compar