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:What matters is enforceability (Score:5, Interesting)
It is all about mindshare, not compliance or enforcement - and GPL is clearly winning the mindshare battle.
All in all, recent moves have clearly indicated that the GPL is really working, and achieving the stated objectives of the FSF. Kudos to Stallman, Moglen and co.
wrongo (Score:3, Interesting)
This analysis is wrong. If Novell chooses to provide software and services beyond what is required by the voucher, Novell is free to do so. That choice is not in any way binding on Microsoft. This is no different than saying that a grocery store may choose to give me a free box of cereal in exchange for a 35 cent coupon. That store's choice does not in any way compel Kellogg's to give me more free Froot Loops.
Re:Microsoft Vouchers (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Microsoft Vouchers (Score:4, Interesting)
If Microsoft posted on their website tomorrow new terms to their license that I give them full rights to do anything on my box, or that I owe them whatever, if people really fought it in court, the people would win. You can't hold people responsible for terms that they didn't initially sign up for.
The FSF is claiming to be the good guys here, so why should they do something so underhanded as to claim a new license alters previous agreements retro-actively?
Re:Microsoft Vouchers (Score:3, Interesting)
But more to the point, This license won't effect Microsoft because it doesn't do what people are claiming it to do. the terms You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License.means if you received the work in itself complete with all the abilities it implies. It doesn't preempt any legal holding a person or company might or would have if a third part placed your IP in the work and passed it off as theirs. In this case, the restrictions would be on the work before the license was applied (because of the law and the timeline) and the license would have to carry the restrictions or limitations because it is after the fact with regard to existing infringements when the license is put in place and when you would receive the work covered by the license.
The other terms used are just as misinterpreted. the clause If you convey a covered work, knowingly relying on a patent license, and the Corresponding Source of the work is not available for anyone to copy, free of charge and under the terms of this License, through a publicly available network server or other readily accessible means, then you must either (1) cause the Corresponding Source to be so available, or (2) arrange to deprive yourself of the benefit of the patent license for this particular work, or (3) arrange, in a manner consistent with the requirements of this License, to extend the patent license to downstream recipients. "Knowingly relying" means you have actual knowledge that, but for the patent license, your conveying the covered work in a country, or your recipient's use of the covered work in a country, would infringe one or more identifiable patents in that country that you have reason to believe are valid. specifically state that "if you convey a work knowingly relying on". This means you would have to know the exact contents of the disputed IP whether it is copyright claims or patent claim and distribute after adding this into the work. It wouldn't cover You distributing something not knowingly relying on your IP that I snuck into the work. In Microsoft's case, they would have to not only convey a work they claim violates something, but would have to have knowledge of the claimed violation before conveying it. Just distributing Samba updates under the GPLv3 would not invalidate any claims against KDE, OO.org, or the GNU C compiler. In fact, it wouldn't even invalidate claims against Samba unless those claims are known and in the update. The great misconception comes from where the license says of it is derived, it must carry the same license. It isn't a matter of being included in the original program. So an update to Samba wouldn't negate and claimed violations in samba unless the claimed violations were in the update and obvious to the owner when conveying or propagating the work.
The terms If, pursuant to or in connection with a single transaction or arrangement, you convey, or propagate by procuring conveyance of, a covered work, and grant a patent license to some of the parties receiving the covered work authorizing them to use, propagate, modify or convey a specific copy of the covered work, then the patent license you grant is automatically extended to all recipients of the covered work and works based on it. says basically the same as above except that it is more in general. And again, it doesn't make a blanket claim as people are claiming.
Now here if the clause most people are making not of,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 righ
Re:Microsoft Vouchers (Score:2, Interesting)
'cause that's what the FSF is trying to do.
But *copyright law* still covers them! (Score:5, Interesting)
No, no she's not. The GPLv2 limited itself to distribution, but copyright law has fun theories of secondary liability, etc. The GPLv3 expands the scope that it covers to something close to the full scope of what's covered by copyright law.
Did everyone but me forget just how BROAD copyright law is? It covers loads of crap. Just like I can't sell warez vouchers for Joe'z Warez Sitez which happen to be hosted in a copyright-hostile country and claim no liability, you can't "procure the conveyance" of GPLv3 software as a license dodge any more. Yes, you COULD dodge like that under the GPLv2, but only because the GPLv2 said you didn't need permission for anything but distribution. But not any more, because the GPLv3 forbids it and copyright law says you need permission.
The rules have changed, folks. The GPLv3 is stronger, because it takes advantage of the ridiculously strong copyright laws that are so prevalent. But it really shouldn't matter much unless you dislike things like compatibility with the Apache license or planned to undermine people with weird software patent threats.
Re:What matters is enforceability (Score:3, Interesting)
I wish Slashdot would apply the same skepticism (Score:3, Interesting)
And, yes, RMS is radical and radically wrong on some points. His definition of "freedom" involves having the government coerce people who disagree with him. Read the GNU Manifesto -- not just the fluffy "Oh, I'm going to give you tons of free goodies" bits but the hard core "I really desire a radical transformation of how EVERYONE, not just you and me, see software" bits. Actual quotes, emphasis is mine:
"If programmers deserve to be rewarded for creating innovative programs, by the same token they DESERVE TO BE PUNISHED if they restrict the use of these programs"
"Proprietary and secret software is the moral equivalent of runners in a fist fight. Sad to say, the only referee we've got does not seem to object to fights; he just regulates them ("For every ten yards you run, you can fire one shot"). He really ought to break them up, and penalize runners for even trying to fight." (This is a call for the government to *ban proprietary software*.)
There's another bit where he proposes funding software development by creating a transnational agency to tax all computer hardware, and then fund deserving projects. "The total tax rate could be decided by a vote of the payers of the tax, weighted according to the amount they will be taxed on." Quite aside from the fact that your Dell is now 30% or 300% more expensive than it was yesterday, do you really want ALL money flowing into software to be allocated on the basis of the priorities of the US business community, who will ALWAYS win the "election" for determining development priorities because they spend vastly more money on hardware than anyone else? For that matter, does the idea of any government agency determining how much money needs to be allocated to WoW relative to Office appeal to you?
Re:Microsoft Vouchers (Score:3, Interesting)
Since it is practically (although not actually) impossible to forgo updates, you have to agree to a new license or run some pretty big risks.
Re:Nobody's really going to go that far. (Score:3, Interesting)
Corruption isn't just a conservative phenomenon. By the time you get to the White House, unless you end up there by mistake, you're already crooked. The process of getting there guarantees it. I'm sure Microsoft slathers its campaign contributions around so that no matter who wins, they owe Redmond a few favors.
The only reason any politician would ever break up Microsoft would be if they thought they could somehow capitalize on its demise, and I don't see any reason why that's possible. You don't win votes by torpedoing one of the crown jewels of the U.S. economy and its economic dominance, even if you're a leftist. There might be some saber-rattling, but it's not going to be anything serious.
Your faith in one batch of weasels over another is cute, but ultimately I think you're just setting yourself up for disappointment.
Oh yea? I beg to differ.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/ [ronpaul2008.com]
His fund just passed McCain's because of the people, not Fuck 500 companies, and big government, NWO, globalists.
Re:What matters is enforceability (Score:3, Interesting)
The French price is 339 ($461.04)
Including 19.6% tax, or 283.45 ($385.49) without
Amazon.co.uk page on european tax rates [amazon.co.uk]
Re:Coupons do not make for distribution (Score:5, Interesting)
For all the wailing that distributing vouchers doesn't give MS any liability, if MS stopped distributing those vouchers prematurely, and not just prematurely, but about the time that this supposed liability became public knowledge, then that says one of two things:
- Random corporate shit happened and it caused a halt to the voucher distribution, or...
- Microsoft's lawyers believe that the vouchers DO have the potential to put enough liability on MS to really fuck them up.
My money is on #2. And I find it very humorous to think that the extremely expensive and super effective with the sneaky-tactics lawyering team at MS missed the problem in the first place and OKed the whole SuSE voucher sneakiness. They were trying to pull a dirty-tricks campaign by manipulating SuSE and they ended up hoist by their own petard. It's just amazing that MS would make that big of a tactical blunder.Re:What matters is enforceability (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:is it just me? (Score:4, Interesting)
Think of it like a book... (Score:4, Interesting)
Now, saying that Microsoft is at all liable for anything under GPLv3 is like saying that J.K Rowling could claim the cafe is violating her copyright. I don't need J.K. Rowling's permission to give out coupons for her book, because my cafe didn't copy it. The publisher/bookseller (I'm lumping them together to make the analogy simpler) copied it. The publisher/bookseller is is the party that needs permission to copy the book, not me. I'm just acting as a mediator to bring together someone who is licensed to sell the book with people who want the book.
Now, if the bookstore was making bootleg copies of the book, and I knew this and got some sort of a discount on their coupons because of it, then a case could be made that my coupons facilitated copyright violations. This is where facilitation clauses in copyright law come in - but this doesn't apply in the Microsoft deal. There is no inherent copyright violation in Novell's distributing of Linux, so Microsoft giving out coupons for it doesn't count like that. Microsoft is not facilitating copyright violations with their coupons, because Novell is licensed (by the GPL) to hand out Linux. If Novell was violating the GPL in some way, and Microsoft knew about this and was using the coupons as a way of facilitating that violation, then they could be said to be liable under copyright law. That isn't the case, so Microsoft has nothing to fear. Microsoft doesn't need the GPL's permission to do what they are doing, because they aren't copying.
The GPL is not keeping anyone from suing Microsoft over this deal, because the GPL doesn't apply to Microsoft in this deal. Microsoft isn't copying the work. They are bound by nothing, just as my cafe isn't subject to any copyright laws for distributing harry potter coupons.
Re:is it just me? (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah, I pretty much hate Microsoft's OS...and their business practices really suck...but their stranglehold on the industry is finally weakening.
What I'd really like to see happen is that Microsoft actually starts legitimately competing to hold onto its market share... Starts turning out a quality product... Makes Windows less of a headache to deal with... Makes Office appealing for reasons other than "we have to buy it because everything is in Word format."
Unlikely, I know... But anyone who can help point them towards the light deserves credit.
Re:What matters is enforceability (Score:1, Interesting)
I ask because I can't see how the software license for Linux can be used as a defense against violating Microsoft's patent.