decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
FUD/CounterFUD
Wednesday, July 02 2003 @ 08:21 PM EDT

As you may already know, a group calling itself VSI, a software federation of proprietary software firms and other hangers-on located in Munich, Germany, has put out a study, claiming that there are legal issues with using open source in Germany, because of the GPL and the openness of the process leading to copyright concerns. Heiseis reporting the story in German, with an English translation here.

I smelled more coordinated FUD, so I went to find out who are the members of VSI.

Here is their list of their chief members and partners (they say they have more than 170 members in all, but these are the ones that get to put their logos up on the members page):

Sun Microsytems
Microsoft
Afontis
Autodesk
Software Spectrum
Dekra
Fujitsu Siemens
and a few attorneys.
Yup. No agenda there.

As usual, the Babelfish translation is just off enough to be a challenge, but there is no way to miss what this part means:

Anyhow the result might come been appropriate for the VSI, in order to disconcert open SOURCE prospective customers, who at present pursue the procedure of SCO against IBM strained.

Now for your dose of Anti-FUD, here's what is happening in Germany.

Infoworld reports on a study, released on Tuesday, that predicts a huge growth in the use of open source software in Germany:

Germany is poised to see sales of open source software and services grow substantially over the next few years, particularly in the public sector. In its report "The Market for Open Source Software in Germany," Soreon Research projects that sales of open source software and services will rise from 131 million German marks (US$152 million) today to 307 million German marks by 2007....

The study was based on interviews with 150 companies and organizations in the private and public sectors, excluding the agricultural market, using 10 PCs or more, said research director Steffen Binder.

Anybody see a connection between these two stories? Besides me, I mean.

  


FUD/CounterFUD | 2 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 03 2003 @ 01:32 AM EDT
I've read into the VSI-Open Source report and one of the first conclusions in it
is that the main provisions of the GPL (make source available for free copying)
are enforcable under German copyright law. Pretty soon after that I stopped
reading the rest of the report...
It is true that under European law a vendor is obliged to pay damages when
something goes seriously wrong an a "No warranty" clause in a contract isn't
binding. For something that is provided for free, it is expected that the
customer performs his own checks of the offer and only negligence or malicious
intent can be reasons to order an open source developer to pay for damages. style="height: 2px; width: 20%; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: auto;">MathFox

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 03 2003 @ 10:04 AM EDT
Please, MathFox, can you provide us with a translation of the paragraph that
says that the GPL's main provisions are enforceable? In any case, thanks for
the information you provided.
pj

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )