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."
BOOM (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Cheers.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
What matters is enforceability (Score:5, Insightful)
How could it possibly stop Microsoft from doing anything they do as long as no one has the money or the reason to take them to court over it and see it through completion. IBM is the only company I can think of that would really have both, and Microsoft isn't stupid enough to violate any of IBM's licenses, nor is it strategically positive for IBM to place themselve directly against Microsoft right now either.
Otherwise, who are we really expecting to take Microsoft to court? Novell? The Free Software Foundation? Please... Microsoft has been stalling the sum total of *Europe* for almost half a decade, if you think Novell or the FSF is going to force Microsoft to comply witht eh GPL you're delusional.
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:5, Insightful)
Europe [amazon.co.uk]: £184.98 ($371.92)
Yup. The EU sure showed them!
Want to take a bet that MS is expecting to sell more than 3 million (1/2 billion / $150 delta) copies of Vista in Europe?
Heh. I'll take double or nothing on "this is inline with MS's estimates when they got involved in the legal process".
Re:What matters is enforceability (Score:5, Insightful)
Regardless, how many people buy these licenses as direct consumers?
Most people get their OS license on the cheap bundled directly with their hardware. If Dell was paying Microsoft more than $50 for the license of Windows on a $400 computer, I'd be shocked, yet people keep insisting that license costs over $200.
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: (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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
it's a pr statement to spin it all even further. again, eu definitely _did not_ request releasing of source code. to quote that article, "The Windows source code is the ultimate documentation of Windows Server technologies."
this is like "we can't document shit, and we see a chance to do a pr spin as if this was requested".
also, notice article heading : "Microsoft Goes Beyond EU Decision"
Re: (Score:2)
At least Europe has done a better job of sticking to their guns than we have.
Re:What matters is enforceability (Score:4, Insightful)
Now, here's where I'm going to get really crazy into progressive fantasy. Suppose a major shake-up happens in the '08 elections. Conservatives get crucified left and right. Bush has been impeached for Obstruction of Justice (which he just did again today, when he invoked "Executive Privilege" to prevent White House Aides from testifying under Oath). Both the house and senate see major shake-ups, and some lefty, like Edwards or (dare to dream) Gore, is sitting in the Oval Office.
Now, seems to me that because of their previous conviction, some nasty complaints to a newly empowered FTC could result in a review of Microsoft's behavior following their conviction. What if they found it necessary to enact the judges original recommendation? Can you imagine the shock-waves? Early '09 "Microsoft Busted," "Microsoft Split into 5 Separate Companies" I'm not saying it's even possible, but just the scenario gives me the shivers!
Nobody's really going to go that far. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (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 e
Follow the money and the votes. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure what you mean by "significantly," given that I think the odds of either party doing it are so vanishingly close to zero that it's hardly worth pretending that it's on the table.
You couldn't disassemble Microsoft, in the current climate (monoculture and dependence), without risking a huge upset in the tech sector. If Redmond catches a cold, the entire economy would feel it. And "it's the economy, stupid." Being 'pro-consumer' doesn't count for much if you're perceived to be bringing on the next dot-bomb.
If anything, Democrats depend far more on the high-tech sector of the economy than Republicans do for support, particularly corporate support. In recent years, Microsoft (and its employees) has been a major Democratic donor (#30 overall -- even bigger than the NRA and just beneath the AFL-CIO); in both '04 and '06 they gave the majority of their donations to Democrats.* Their employees are overwhelmingly Democratic donors and voters as well. Not to mention, Microsoft is also deeply in bed with the entertainment industry, another Democratic stalwart.
The political philosophy of either of the major parties is basically irrelevant; their actions are virtually always predictable by looking solely at their sources of funding and votes. Democrats are funded by the high tech industry, and many of their core constituencies are people who work in the tech industry, or are from areas (major urban centers) that depend on high-tech industries. They're not going to wreck that gravy train.
* Source is here [opensecrets.org] although I'm not sure the deeplink will work. You can just search Opensecrets for Microsoft Corp.
Re:Follow the money and the votes. (Score:4, Insightful)
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
Re: (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: (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 infringm
Re:What matters is enforceability (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:What matters is enforceability (Score:4, Insightful)
But there would be countersuits. That is what OIN is for.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
IBM is not Microsoft's only enemy by any stretch.
And don't applaud IBM to loudly, either. They have a strong set of their own proprietary software tools (Rational comes to mind, and I think they just bought Telelogic).
These brands have tools which put comparable Open Source tools to shame in the professional organizations that IBM sells them too.
No, IBM alone won't sue Microsoft. Nor will Sun or Red Hat. And as long as Microsoft keeps its code closed... you'll never see anything but the remenants of old BSD code packaged with Windows...
The vict
Re: (Score:2)
And don't applaud IBM to loudly, either. They have a strong set of their own proprietary software tools (Rational comes to mind, and I think they just bought Telelogic).
Matter of fact, I didn't. I actually ponited out that they still have both strings - AIX AND Linux, and still speak as if AIX is an important part of their future. Which to me suggests they are playing fast and loose with Linux and Free Software.
Lotus Notes on Linux is not Free Software - it is proprietary. And IBM has bought over many commercially successful s/w outfits - testing tools, version control, databases etc. - and ensured none of them went the Open Source route.
Fortunately for the Free Software
Re: (Score:3)
What I see is Microsoft beating the patent war drums. If Microsoft is foolish enough to sue ANYONE or play the patent FUD card too strongly so that IBM's business is harmed it will become a concern to IBM.
If someone with one of the Microsoft coupons waits until they are sure that Suse Linux comes with GPL V3 software and then gets that software using that coupon it will
Re: (Score:2)
People are going back and forth about whether or not the GPLv3 will apply to Microsoft, but the real crux of the deal is that it won't matter if there is no one that both has the resources and the motivation to force Microsoft to comply.
How could it possibly stop Microsoft from doing anything they do as long as no one has the money or the reason to take them to court over it and see it through completion. IBM is the only company I can think of that would really have both, and Microsoft isn't stupid enough to violate any of IBM's licenses, nor is it strategically positive for IBM to place themselve directly against Microsoft right now either.
Otherwise, who are we really expecting to take Microsoft to court? Novell? The Free Software Foundation? Please... Microsoft has been stalling the sum total of *Europe* for almost half a decade, if you think Novell or the FSF is going to force Microsoft to comply witht eh GPL you're delusional.
Introducing!... In the left corner... weighing in at 90 pounds, sporting a long scraggly beard, receding hairline, ponytail, awful breath and "hacker BO"...surrounded by idealistic and hungry lawyers...wearing the Gnu Shorts...
... The Free Software Foundation [fsf.org]
Operators are standing by to take your on-line donation.
Re: (Score:2)
My (naive) understanding is that this is not the issue. GPLv3 reduces the affect of MS's patent litigation threats, and represents another line of defence for Free Software. If MS sues, and they're bound by GPLv3, then they're in breach of copyright.
Of course, whether MS is legally a distributor of GPLv3 code would likely need to be decided in court, which will probably only occur as a defence for a patent suit launched by MS, which will probably nev
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What Microsoft said... (Score:2, Insightful)
Groklaw says it does apply to them (in the future).
There is no argument here, no discussion. Does Groklaw actually think that Microsofts Army of Layers knows less than they do about law or something?
This type of round robin arguing, where everyone is shouting about different scenarios yet equating them because they are "similar" is so typical of
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In any case, they are NOT living up to the obligations they gave to the coupon buyers after they told them they would not sue (except, now, if they include GPLv3 code in SLES). Gee, I wonder how Walmart feels after being used by MSFT in the NOVL ploy; did they pay for nothing? Not to mention what happens if someone takes some GPLv2
Re: (Score:2)
That's exactly what they think:
That's not the lawyer's job! (Score:3, Insightful)
You seem to forget that it's not the job of "Microsofts Army of Layers" (is it just me or .... ?) to tell the world about the implications of law. It's their job to spin the story long enough to convince some judges. Given the U.S. case law, they may prevail in the end. OTOH the SCO case demonstrates that spin doctors don't always succeed.
That being said, the GPLv3 does apply to everyone - as soon a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's like some kind of new slashdot fallacy, argumentum ad happyendium perhaps, assuming that in the end the bad guys will get their just deserts and the good guys will be triumphant. But that's j
Microsoft Vouchers (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think you should ever be held accountable for past actions under a new license. If Microsoft sold vouchers before the GPLv3, then they did so under the assumption that the vouchers covered GPLv2 software. Furthermore, much of this whole argument assumes that all this software is definitely moving to GPLv3, and while I expect many of the GNU tools to do exactly that, I haven't seen that many official GPLv3 announcements just yet. The kernel is certainly not moving to GPLv3 anytime soon.
Re:Microsoft Vouchers (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Microsoft Vouchers (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's get over this one now. The "later version" thing in the GPLv2 allows the USER/CONSUMER (corportation, or individual etc.) choose which license to use. You obviously (at least I hope everyone can see it's obvious) can't legally bind someone to a future version of your license, it can only allow them to choose between the version distributed with the software and a future one.
If you could retrospectively apply the terms of a license which didn't exist at the time of distribution, you could put anything you like in the new version. That'd be plain silly, because by the drop of a hat the FSF could gain massive riches by making GPLv4 say that the price of the software you downloaded a few years ago has changed from free to a million dollars per copy. Hey, you're bound by "or later versions", aren't you? Erm, no. You're not.
D.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Besides, if it turns out that some convoluted trickery in the GPL really does wind up costing
Re: (Score:2)
So unless Microsoft wants to start it's own SMB/CIFS networking protocol from scratch in the Linux
environment they have to sanction and help a GPLv3 project in the name of interoperability.
Jeremy Allison is no ones fool.
Re:Microsoft Vouchers (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (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: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:Microsoft Vouchers (Score:5, Insightful)
Very true.
Exploiting a loophole in the GPL2 to try and split the free software community over supposed "secret" patents is underhand.
Updating the GPL for new software to prevent this scam was just common sense - although it was a lot of work!
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
'cause that's what the FSF is trying to do.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And this is pretty much exactly what is happening with GPL3. Versions of projects which have been distributed under GPL2, if you can get your hands on them (from somebody distributing under GPL2), are still under GPL2. But, projects which are moving to GPL3 are basically saying "if you want updates, you have to agree to an updated license".
Since it is practically (although not actually) impossible to forgo updates, you have to agree
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is for all the lonely people in this thread who don't seem to understand basic legal principles:
Once you license your software v2.4 under licence A, that's a done de
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Quite right, which is why it's so important that the vouchers they have been conveying have no expiry date. When, in the future, someone goes to Microsoft with a voucher and Microsoft conveys a copy of SLES with Samba [slashdot.org] (or some of the other projects [vnunet.com] who're switching) then the GPLv3 will apply:
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (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 an
Re: (Score:2)
And this is why the term "Intellectual Property" is much more confusing than it is helpful.
Looking at it this way is much more likely to produce an accurate understanding of the legality: Peopl
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft can do what they want (Score:3, Insightful)
The fact is, they sold a contract to support software that is being released under a licence they didn't control. Software that is developed by people who are hostile to their interests. And that left them open to being unable to meet their obligations. They should have known that the GPLv3 could have specifically said "M$ is teh evil, you cannot run this software and theirs in the
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
At any rate, it doesn't matter what their private deals with Novell state. If you agree to two licenses which contradict each other, that's your own fault, and doesn't mean you can break one of them. If MS start distributing GPLv3 software then they must comply to its terms, irrelevant of its other deals.
Re:Microsoft Vouchers (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Coupons do not make for distribution (Score:5, Insightful)
In shory, GPLv3 can say anything it wants, but it falls under copyright law, and if I don't copy, I can't infringe. No version of the GPL can define what constitutes making a copy - only the law can do that.
Re: (Score:2)
I would not be surprised if this turned out to be the reason that the deal was structured to use coupons.
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright is about copying.. Novell are doing the copying, not Microsoft.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
From the article:
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm? (Score:2)
Anyhow, you can thank secondary liability under copyright law for the GPLv3 being able to cover that. The GPLv2 only cares about distribution, but that's not all a software license can cover, it's just that it usually doesn't m
Copying defined by law, not by GPLv3 (Score:4, Insightful)
I would love it to be the case as much as anyone, but that doesn't make it so.
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: (Score:2)
If that were true, then a bittorrent tracker like The Pirate Bay would be obviously legal here in the USA. Such a tracker isn't legal because of a concept called contributory infringement - if you enable someone to infringe copyright, then you are also infringing copyright (unless you have some sort of copyright license). This appears to be the basis for the "vouchers are conveying" claim.
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:
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:Coupons do not make for distribution (Score:5, Insightful)
More than that, there are two amazing memes developing on Groklaw. Meme 1 - simply because a lot of GPLv2 software contains the clause that says the recipient may (at their option) choose to copy/modify/redistribute under the terms of a later version of the GPL - loads of GPLv2 software automagically morphed into GPLv3 overnight. Apparently, as soon as Mrs Trellis of Wales decides she is going to give her son a copy under the terms of GPLv3 that decision (with all the extra obligations and restrictions) ripples back down the chain of people who gave her the software... Yeah, right.
Meme 2: if you enter into a promise/agreement/contract (e.g. the vouchers) and then something changes that makes it illegal for you to carry out that promise (e.g. if/when GPLv3 code shows up in SUSE) then not only are you obliged to follow through with the promise and break the law, but the mere existence of the promise becomes a violation of the new law... I mean, does anybody think that Microsoft is going to lose sleep over having to give a few bucks in compensation to voucher holders? Is a future court not only going to back the vouchers=distribution theory, but find that compelling/blatent enough to tell Microsoft that all its patents are now belong to the world when it could just issue a fine and an injunction to stop distributing?
While PJ and the FSF people haven't said this in so many words, its implicit in the "spin" of their postings and they haven't stepped in to correct the IANALs who do express this view. TFA is a typical example of trying to open the box with the crowbar found inside (the GPLv3 re-definition of distribution).
Don't get me wrong - I don't want to see MS get away with their datstardly scheme to take over the world and hope that - as authors choose to adopt GPLv3, it will help. But the GPL is just a software license, not a magical time-travelling IP-law-re-writing superhero - if it has a few drinks, pulls on some blue and red lycra and throws itself the top of a tall building it will just destroy its own credibility.
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.
Why does MS need GPL? (Score:3, Insightful)
MS is not making copies, they are giving away coupons, from someone else. I don't see how they can possibly be held to the GPL. It makes about as much sense as me saying clipper magazine employees must where there shirt because I used there coupon at an eatery.
The only way I can possibly see it applying is if MS also chooses to directly distribute GPL3 software, because then they would have agreed to the concept that handing out a coupon is distributing, but without agreeing to that I hope that they can't be forced into it.
I also imagine it is possible for the GPL3 to force Novell not to sell any coupons to GPL3 software without getting the purchasers agreement to abide by the terms, in a sense attaching the restrictive (perhaps in a good way, but still restrictive) parts of the GPL to any coupon.
It could also force the "conveying" party not to convey its copy unless all parties involved in propagating and conveying agree to GPL3 terms, but I didn't read it that way at all, it clearly puts pressure on the propagating party, which does not need any permission from the GPL at all to act. I really think the GPL3 as it is written, and being interpreted is worse than a standard EULA in enforcability. It is trying to capture parties not involved at all (book sellers, box stores, ect) and bind them into a contract that they need no part of to carry on (thus undercutting the defense that the GPL is granting you rights you didn't already have).
It is a shame that the ideals that I bought into were sold out to stick it to the man, it makes me feel silly for defending the GPL vs BSD.
Re: (Score:2)
no. the GPL's premise is that if you distribute gpl'd software you must also make the source code availible. In the end it's rather a moot point since nothing MS distributed is modified anyway and isn't out there on 1000 ftp servers to start with. I personally hope MS win this, because if they lose they will jump up and down and point at how viral the GPL is and how OSS is the de
Secondary Liability (Score:2)
If you read the Groklaw article, you'll see that there are fun secondary liabilities you can give rise to under copyright law. Yes, procuring the conveyance of a copyrighted work could be infringement under copyright law if I didn'
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!
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.
Oh, my head (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Here's why PJ is wrong... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No one, even the experts, get more than an opinion (Score:5, Insightful)
The judge you get on the day, the jury, how well the lawyers convince the jury to see things their way, what the judge allows and disallows, what the various appeals processes rule, the politicians you buy to change the law at the last moment, all of those change it from absolute certainty to something much hazier.
In that haze, Microsoft's PR, lawyers, management, etc. can all state, "The GPLv3 won't stand up in court." Groklaw can state, "This is how it will go..." and we on Slashdot can argue, "Ha, we've got them now!" or "Microsoft will wriggle out of it somehow, like they always do." to our heart's content. The one certainty is that those are opinions, not absolutes for how it'll work out.
PJ's welcome to an opinion. More accurately however, the title should be "PJ from Groklaw has an opinion about how GPLv3 and Microsoft will work out." What it isn't, and can't be until it's gone through every last legal wrangling, is an absolute what "will" happen.
Re:No one, even the experts, get more than an opin (Score:3, Insightful)
And, of course, PJ is NAL. She is not licensed in any jurisdiction to practice law...
Sacred horse (Score:5, Insightful)
"Marvel, marvel at my adroit dissection! Pay no heed to the fact that my dissection is nothing more than occasionally witty, subjective hypothesizing by someone without a law degree, enjoy the fact that I'm ragging on Microsoft!"
Bah.
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: (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.
This just in. (Score:4, Funny)
This article doesn't address Microsoft's claims (Score:3, Insightful)
Whether or not Microsoft's voucher system is legal under copyright law is a matter for the courts (should it get that far), but this point is in no way addressed by the Groklaw article. From first glance, it might actually be legit, since they are buying a voucher from Novell, and then reselling it, which should be covered by first-sale doctrine.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:is it just me? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, I certainly wish Novell no ill, what with all their contributions, both technical and otherwise (they probably will be the ones that finally crush SCO, before IBM gets a chance from that judge).
But it seems PJ and many people here is hoping Microsoft will be found to have distributed copyrighted works on account of those vouchers. As I see things, the only possible way one could argue the vouchers are distribution would be under some sort of contributory infringement theory---the kind of liability you would have if, for instance, you distribute coupons that some pal of yours will redeem for pirated software. You're liable even if you're not distributing, because you're contributing to the infringement by your pirate friend.
Under US law, contributory infringement requires direct infringement by some other party. So, in this case I think Microsoft can only be held liable is Novell is liable too. The direct infringement would be Novell's, and Microsoft would be contributing to it. That sounds like an awfully weak theory to me, but never mind that, my point is that hoping Microsoft will be infringing copyright implies that Novell will be in an even worse position. Which is effectively "hoping Microsoft drags Novell down into the muck", as the GP said.
Now, I don't give a rat's ass about Microsoft patents, so Novell taking some millions from them to "license" those to their customers is perfectly fine with me. More power to them, who cares. But people here seems to be implying that Novell's covenant was a big fucking sin, so ugly and despicable that we shouldn't feel any kind of gratitude for them, that there's nothing morally wrong if they get hurt, backstabbed by the very community that Novell is protecting from SCO.
I think that is disgusting. But hey, this is probably just me.
Re: (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 t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:is it just me? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It could be entirely possible that MS could distribute updates to samba and not cover any IP they claim ownership to and therefore not validate the rest of samba users.
But even more likely is that they will just say the GPLv3 didn't exist in it's current state when the vouchers were released and the terms don't apply to that software. Novell could be picky about what GPLv3 software they include and GPLv