Groklaw Explains Microsoft and the GPLv3 349
A Groklaw Reader writes "After all the questions about how the GPLv3 will or won't apply to Microsoft following Microsoft's declaration that they weren't bound by it, PJ of Groklaw wrote this story about how and why the GPLv3 will apply to Microsoft. Specifically, it covers in what ways Microsoft would convey GPLv3 software under the Novell agreement, and how Microsoft's refusal to allow previously sold vouchers to be redeemed for GPLv3 software would impact that agreement. Given that Novell has said that they will distribute GPLv3 software, Microsoft may have had the tables turned on them already."
Re:is it just me? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:What matters is enforceability (Score:5, Informative)
It sure seems to me that the EU has been hitting Microsoft pretty hard.
Re:What matters is enforceability (Score:3, Informative)
Otherwise, who are we really expecting to take Microsoft to court?
Isn't this the patent enforceability clause? Basically, this isn't about making Microsoft do anything, it's about defending people should Microsoft sue them for patent infringement - i.e. Microsoft have inadvertently indemnified everybody through their distribution deal with Novell. Nobody's looking to sue Microsoft.
Re:Microsoft Vouchers (Score:4, Informative)
Dream on M$ Bashers... (Score:3, Informative)
Those "unexpiring" vouchers won't cover GPLv3 stuff, and even if it DID, it is highly unlikely a court would enforce the patent covenants.
So when Microsoft says it is unaffected by the GPLv3, that is perfectly correct, they will have NOTHING to do with it, and anything otherwise is wishful dreaming.
Re:Microsoft Vouchers (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Coupons do not make for distribution (Score:3, Informative)
From the article:
Had you bothered to read the article you would have know that too.
Re:What matters is enforceability (Score:5, Informative)
The above line is there to note that, due to how taxes work in the US, the US Amazon site does not have tax as part of its item prices. -- Amazon.co.uk [amazon.co.uk]
Whereas the UK site includes the UK VAT of 17.5% for software.
So... £184.98 = 1.175 x price... divide both sides by 1.175... the price is actually £157.43 ($317.32)
So, while the gap is still large (around $100), it's not nearly as large as you originally made it out to be (around $155).
Re:What matters is enforceability (Score:3, Informative)
OTOH, maybe MS does like they've said they will, and doesn't ever sue anybody over these alleged patent infringements. Then we can probably expect them to continue throwing their FUD around about the patent infringment. This will continue to hurt corporate Linux adoption. If we want to avoid that, then somebody would have to sue MS for, I don't know, libel or slander or misrepresentation or something.
So, we have a couple of possibilities. In each possibility, either somebody sues MS, or somebody (FOSS adoption or some FOSS user(s)) suffers somehow. This doesn't seem to comport with "Nobody's looking to sue MS", unless MS voluntarily doesn't throw any more FUD over the patents, which seems unlikely.
Sheesh, have you forgotten? (Score:5, Informative)
Given that he believes Microsoft is in trouble and that Microsoft *actually took notice* of the GPLv3 enough to issue an announcement, I'll have to say that while it's probably a thorny legal question, it's nowhere near as one-sided as you make it out to be.
Eben, BTW, is pretty much the foremost legal expert on the GPL. You know, having helped draft it and all. And it's not like PJ doesn't talk with lawyers about her posts. You know, like Eben...
But what the hell do I know? I just post snarky comments on Slashdot... like you do.
Re:Microsoft Vouchers (Score:4, Informative)
The FSF is doing no such thing.
GPLv3 is simply new terms on distributing FSF software in the future. There may be no way for Microsoft to honor the vouchers they've distributed, avoid the new GPLv3 terms, *and* not infringe copyright - but that doesn't mean the FSF is altering any agreements retroactively, they're simply changing the terms of the license that they are offering their future work under. Microsoft shouldn't have assumed that the FSF would continue to offer their new software under GPLv2.
Re:Sacred horse (Score:2, Informative)
What, because, uhh, PJ, a non-legally qualified person, has decided he has, by virtue of her selective soundbiting? Scroll around this thread for many comprehensive examples of how she has twisted commonly and legally accepted definitions of concepts and phrasing.
This is all moot in the US (Score:4, Informative)
See: Title 17 Section 109 [copyright.gov] Limitations on exclusive rights: Effect of transfer of particular copy or phonorecord.
Wrong! SLES vouchers were sold! (Score:4, Informative)
No, that's exactly what they've sold! The SLES vouchers are redeemed for Suse Linux and a year of support / updates per the article.
And thanks to the grandfather clause in the GPLv3, Novell is allowed to distribute the software, but Microsoft can no longer be discriminatory in who it sues with its software patents.
So my analogy was correct, you just don't understand the situation. Not that I expect anyone to read TFA around here, but it does make that clear, you know!
Re:Microsoft Vouchers (Score:3, Informative)
Same with the GPL. You can't be forced to comply with GPLv3 requirements unless you distribute code that was given to you under the GPLv3 license. If you're using a current version of software, licensed to you under GPL 2.1, you can continue to use that software and abide by those terms forever. The mere existence of newer code with a newer license has no binding effect on you, period. The developers can smoke you out with protocol changes or authentication changes if it's a network service, or they can break compatibility with functions or let the GPL2 version die off, neglected...but they can't force you to accept a new license simply because it has come into existence (regardless of whether drafts of the future version were circulating at the time you entered into the agreement).
The "or later versions" line refers to end user choice, as the GPL is written to the "licensee" in keeping with the "consumer" slant. A developer can't retroactively apply a new license to old software distributed under an old license. The recipient of GPL2 software can, as of the launch of GPLv3, choose to use GPL2 OR GPL3. The provider of said GPL2 software cannot retroactively make it GPL3 software; they must introduce new software distinguishable in some way (even if just changing the version number). They can then pull the GPL2 files from their servers and distribute solely in GPL3 from that point on, but they must still provide the old GPL2 source as required by the GPL--for three years, to anyone who asks for it.
Enron (Score:3, Informative)
Microsoft, during the same period, was #2 at $370B, and today it's still $281B, almost six times larger than Enron was; Microsoft employs 71,000, or about 3.5 times as many people. Given that Enron's collapse is frequently described using words like "unprecedented" and "disastrous," and led directly to the one of the biggest changes in corporate securities law since the 1930s (Sarbanes-Oxley), not to mention the dismantlement of one of the nation's largest accounting forms (Arthur Anderson), a Congressional investigation, and jail time for most of the people responsible (except for Kenneth Lay, who had the good fortune to die first, to much applause [gawker.com]), and speculation that its long-term effects would be greater than 9/11 [hbs.edu], I'm not sure I'd be so blasé.
Re:is it just me? (Score:3, Informative)
If Novell is guilty of copyright violation in the distribution of GPL3 software, it will be because they software was covered by patents that they knew about, and didn't have the right to allow others to redistribute. If this is the case, then they knowingly exposed other people to legal danger, and therefore deserve to be punished.
If Novell is not guilty, then either they didn't know about the patents, or they had the right to distribute. Novell's claim is that they don't know of any valid MS patents that cover the GPL software that they distribute.
If MS is endangered by the GPL3, it will be because of some part of the MS-Novell agreement that isn't public knowledge. As such, they will deserve to lose any benefit from hidden patents.
My suspicion is that Novell is being honest, and that MS is engaged in a massive FUD project. Nevertheless, to protect myself I do not intend to purchase from Novell or MS, or to use any recent Novell software, including mono, until this is resolved. I hope that Novell got LOTS of money from MS, but I don't care enough to re-examine the public parts of the deal.