|
|
| MS: Dancing as fast as it can to try to get away from GPLv3 |
 |
|
Thursday, July 05 2007 @ 09:48 PM EDT
|
Want to laugh? Microsoft Says It Is Not Bound by GPLv3" -- they think they can so declare, like an emperor, and it becomes fiat. It's not so easy. I gather Microsoft's lawyers have begun to discern the GPL pickle they are in. In any case it won't be providing any support or updates or anything at all in connection with those toxic (to them) vouchers it distributed as part of the Novell deal. What a surprise. Novell, still Microsoft's handmaiden in other respects, says it will too provide support for GPLv3: This means that Novell will support those technologies licensed under GPLv3, he said, noting that for those customers who obtain their Linux via a certificate from Microsoft in the future, Novell will provide them with a regular SLES subscription, regardless of the terms of the certificate provided by Microsoft. What are friends for but to try to escape the consequences of the GPL hand-in-hand? So they are backing out partially too. Well, folks, how do you like dealing with companies that back out of their commitments? You will not get, I gather, what your voucher said you would. Well, well. These two -- I can't decide if it's an elaborate dance like a tango or more like those games where you place a cloth with numbers on the floor and you have to get into a pretzel with your hands and feet to touch all the right numbers. Whichever it is, Novell and Microsoft keep having to strike the oddest poses to try to get around the GPL. If they think this new announcement has succeeded, I believe they will find they are mistaken. In other words, not to put too fine a point on it, GPLv3 worked.
Microsoft has partially backed out, then, from the Novell deal, and so has Novell, although they PR it with an emphasis on the parts that remain. That was the purpose of the clause. Novell is sticking to Microsoft like barnacles on the bottom of a boat, even when offered a chance to swim away to safety. The interoperability work continues, they say, blah blah, but nobody ever minded that, except for the attempted killing off of ODF. The world has been begging and hoping for interoperability with Microsoft for as long as I can remember. The EU Commission ordered it. So interoperate away, by all means, boys. Of course, just between you and me and the lamp post, I don't think they really mean it, not with respect to ODF, not 100%, or if they do, I've seen no such indications. They'd rather do a translator they've already told us will not work 100% than work with ODF, the international standard that already exists, to make one responsible standard we all can use that will work 100%. No, no, instead of true, two-way interoperability, the whole world has to make do with annoying translators that don't really work so perfectly and are not so user-friendly, so Microsoft can keep its secrets. That's fine, secrets. Just don't call it an open standard if it isn't fully documented and allows for proprietary extensions. And I wouldn't call it interoperability, either. But that's me. You know what I love about the GPL? Regular lawyers can't understand it. We've seen that over and over. I think it is so different from what they are used to, they can't get their heads around it, brainiacs though they may be. It seems unnatural to them, and I guess they can't believe it means what it says. But it means it. And if they think this is the end of their GPLv3 difficulties, it's not: Microsoft also said July 5 that its agreement with Novell, as well as those with Linux rivals Xandros and Linspire, were unaffected by the release June 29 of GPLv3 by the Free Software Foundation. Guess again. Maybe you should reexamine GPLv2 while you are learning on the job. IANAL, but I think those latter deals are probably in violation of v2 as well as v3. Hey, don't go by me. Ask your lawyer. But the bottom line is this: You can't disrespect other peoples' intellectual property and just walk away. As I believe they are going to find out.
Here is the Microsoft statement in full:
**************************
Microsoft Statement About GPLv3
A Microsoft statement about GPLv3.
Published: July 5, 2007
Microsoft is not a party to the GPLv3 license and none of its actions are to be misinterpreted as accepting status as a contracting party of GPLv3 or assuming any legal obligations under such license.
While there have been some claims that Microsoft’s distribution of certificates for Novell support services, under our interoperability collaboration with Novell, constitutes acceptance of the GPLv3 license, we do not believe that such claims have a valid legal basis under contract, intellectual property, or any other law. In fact, we do not believe that Microsoft needs a license under GPL to carry out any aspect of its collaboration with Novell, including its distribution of support certificates, even if Novell chooses to distribute GPLv3 code in the future. Furthermore, Microsoft does not grant any implied or express patent rights under or as a result of GPLv3, and GPLv3 licensors have no authority to represent or bind Microsoft in any way.
At this point in time, in order to avoid any doubt or legal debate on this issue, Microsoft has decided that the Novell support certificates that we distribute to customers will not entitle the recipient to receive from Novell, or any other party, any subscription for support and updates relating to any code licensed under GPLv3. We will closely study the situation and decide whether to expand the scope of the certificates in the future.
As always, Microsoft remains committed to working with the open source software community to help improve interoperability for customers working in mixed source environments and deliver IP assurance. Our partnerships with Novell and other Linux platform and desktop providers remain strong and the IP bridge we built with them, embodied in our collaboration agreements, remains intact. In particular, our technical and business collaboration with Novell continues to move full steam ahead, including our joint development work on virtualization, standards-based systems management, identity interoperability and document format translators. In addition, the patent covenants offered by Microsoft and Novell to each other’s customers are unchanged, and will continue to apply in the same way they did previously.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Totosplatz on Thursday, July 05 2007 @ 09:56 PM EDT |
Make links clicky!
---
All the best to one and all.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- OLPC expected to dip to $50 by 2009, get WiMAX someday - Authored by: bstone on Friday, July 06 2007 @ 12:08 AM EDT
- Off topic thread here - Authored by: vulturefu on Friday, July 06 2007 @ 12:54 AM EDT
- Sadly for MS, the worm has turned - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 06 2007 @ 03:03 AM EDT
- Re: Newspick "Apache Foundation Co-Founder Likes GPLv3" - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 06 2007 @ 04:29 AM EDT
- Perceptive comments on standards from ... Microsoft !! - Authored by: paladin on Friday, July 06 2007 @ 07:56 AM EDT
- Off topic thread here - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 06 2007 @ 08:03 AM EDT
- Off topic thread here - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 06 2007 @ 08:29 AM EDT
- Not really off topic - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 06 2007 @ 09:06 AM EDT
- More on: Massachusetts Lowers its Standards - Boston gets MS R&D center - Authored by: clark_kent on Friday, July 06 2007 @ 09:58 AM EDT
- High Performance Computing - Authored by: JamesK on Friday, July 06 2007 @ 12:56 PM EDT
- Linux Help Forum recommended? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 06 2007 @ 02:31 PM EDT
- Double-agent man Novell - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 07 2007 @ 04:18 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: BigTex on Thursday, July 05 2007 @ 09:56 PM EDT |
| WOW! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Coming storm? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 05 2007 @ 09:59 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: CypherOz on Thursday, July 05 2007 @ 09:58 PM EDT |
If they don't distribute GPLv* licensed code then they are not bound by GPLv*
anything.
The moment MS do distribute GPLv3 *anything* they are bound to the GPLv3
conditions for that product.
The question is are MS distributing GPL code?
---
The GPL is enduring, not viral[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Scenario for comment - Authored by: CypherOz on Thursday, July 05 2007 @ 10:07 PM EDT
- What are MS distributing? - Authored by: PJ on Thursday, July 05 2007 @ 10:54 PM EDT
- Is Microsoft Distributing GPL Code? - Authored by: Weeble on Thursday, July 05 2007 @ 11:28 PM EDT
- What are MS distributing? - Authored by: PolR on Friday, July 06 2007 @ 12:22 AM EDT
- Windows search seems to be similar to SED - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 06 2007 @ 02:42 AM EDT
- What are MS distributing? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 06 2007 @ 02:52 AM EDT
- Yes: Subsystem for UNIX-based Applications - Authored by: leopardi on Friday, July 06 2007 @ 03:04 AM EDT
- Isn't It Already Available? - Authored by: SteveHil on Friday, July 06 2007 @ 05:37 AM EDT
- Please may we see the text...? - Authored by: talldad on Friday, July 06 2007 @ 07:40 AM EDT
- What are MS distributing? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 06 2007 @ 10:25 AM EDT
- GPLv2 or any later version - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 06 2007 @ 11:07 AM EDT
- Yes - Services for Unix from MS - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 07 2007 @ 04:16 AM EDT
- Oh dearie me? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 07 2007 @ 03:08 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 05 2007 @ 10:04 PM EDT |
BTW, has anybody noticed that PJ's "red dress" (to be) can also be
considered a form of "redress"?
So, PJ, that means that SCO getting their comeuppance WILL BE your
red(d)ress!!!! <insert goofy grin here>[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ted Powell on Thursday, July 05 2007 @ 10:08 PM EDT |
Please include a brief description in the comment title.
---
This is *my* computer, not Microsoft's![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 05 2007 @ 10:09 PM EDT |
| Microsoft also said ... that its agreement with Novell, as well as those with
Linux rivals Xandros and Linspire...
What's a "Linux
rival"?
-Wang-Lo.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: MDT on Thursday, July 05 2007 @ 10:12 PM EDT |
...and they are *not* liking the clue.
Microsoft, at some level, understood they would eventually get sued over GPL
code use, or distribution, or something, with the GPL (version 2, 3, 3.5, 4, 12,
as the case may be).
Microsoft has always, *ALWAYS* had a final solution for lawsuits. Fight, whine,
FUD, complain to the Govt, and finally, if none of that works, throw money at
the people that caught you with your hands in the cookie jar until they smile
and go away (and sign a partnership deal with you so that they are out of
business in a few years).
Someone at M$ just got hit with the clue bat and realized that that won't work
this time. The people and organizations that have the IP rights tied up by the
GPL simply won't go away when you throw money at them.
I'm quite certain that this scares the daylights out of many many someones at
M$.
---
MDT[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bobn on Thursday, July 05 2007 @ 10:18 PM EDT |
The last GPLv3 I heard about seemed to exempt deals entered into prior to March
of this year. Novel-MS was November last year. Does GPLv3 really apply?
---
IRC: irc://irc.fdfnet.net/groklaw
the groklaw channels in IRC are not affiliated with, and not endorsed by,
either GrokLaw.net or PJ.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Thursday, July 05 2007 @ 10:25 PM EDT |
| Dell agreed, as I recall, a while ago to re-sell the MS SLES certificates with
its hardware or services (servers or "enterprise services", I presume).
Now
I'm real confused as to where Dell customers will go for support, maintenance,
and upgrades: Dell, Microsoft, or Novell?
I'll bet some Dell customers will
be as confused as I am.
---
"While world domination is a nice fantasy,
a Free computer is essential."
--artp, Groklaw, 2007-06 [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 05 2007 @ 10:53 PM EDT |
There's a part of the situation with Microsoft/GPL3 which I'm not following.
I understand that if Microsoft distributes GPL3 code, then users are also
granted patent usage rights to that code, and that would weaken MS's
anti-Linux/anti-OSS campaign.
But what GPL3 code is MS distributing? It's not any of Novell's Linux
distribution, that's GPL2 licensed code, even ignoring the grandfather cause.
As far as I see, MS is only in trouble if Novell updates their packages to
include some new GPL3 code, then MS themselves distribute those new GPL3
applications. But this hasn't happened, and MS will probably be very careful
for it not to happen.
Please help me understand where the missing step is that is so dangerous to MS,
starting with what specific GPL3 software is MS distributing?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: TedSwart on Thursday, July 05 2007 @ 11:04 PM EDT |
I have recently seen quite a few articles which endeavour to answer this
question. And the most convincing answer seems to be that MS software has used
..nix code of one kind or another in their software. Because of the BSD style
license there is no problem about then using BSD code. But, if they use Linux
or other GPLed code -- with GPL-2 or GPL-3 licenses, they are in real trouble.
It has always seemed to me incredibly lopsided that GPL code is available for
all too see but proprietary code is not. So MS can hide what they do and they
have indeed been placed in a difficult position by the arrival of GPL-3. And it
is not unfair to say : Serves them right!
Let me close with a question. Why did MS give Novell money when they concluded
their agreement?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 05 2007 @ 11:07 PM EDT |
quick... think of a business model that respects
customers' freedom, that respects other authors'
copyrights and lets you preserve the dominant
position you've achieved. (through lies, deception
and bullying, cheating the market, cheating the
law and resorting to every dirty unethical trick
you could think of)
never mind, Microsoft, it just can't be.
you just don't have and can't afford what it takes to win the hearts and the
minds of honest hard working people.
these people are not just the 'commies' or the 'hippies', but grandpa and
grandma, and joey at the small business around the corner.
most people in this society are naturally honest and well balanced.
being narrow minded, corrupt and disrespectful is in your DNA.
this is why people won't love you, won't buy from you, and won't be proud of
making business with you.
you are a drag, dead weight for the market, an anchor for society and progress.
dear Microsoft, this can't be anymore.
you're toasted, you're history.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: midow on Thursday, July 05 2007 @ 11:10 PM EDT |
FSF: knight to bishop three, check
MS: We are not bound by that
FSF: queen to bishop one, checkmate
MS: wait, wait[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: brian on Thursday, July 05 2007 @ 11:27 PM EDT |
| PJ:
"I can't decide if it's an elaborate dance like a tango or
more like
those games where you place a cloth with numbers
on the floor and you have to
get into a pretzel with your
hands and feet to touch all the right
numbers."
The name of that game is Twister...
I don't think it
is Twister but more like Mystery Date...
(Link for reference)
Mystery
Date
B.
---
#ifndef IANAL
#define IANAL
#endif [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: devil's advocate on Thursday, July 05 2007 @ 11:31 PM EDT |
Microsoft throws down the gauntlet. Sure, their argument is rubbish, but what
does that matter? Remember SCO? That bunfight at the OK corral? Four years ago
we laughed. We're still laughing. I think they'll just ignore the problem until
someone stumps up the cash to bring them to court, and then it will take five
years or more to get anything done. By then we'll all be living on Mars.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 05 2007 @ 11:33 PM EDT |
...they think they can so declare, like an emperor, and it becomes
fiat.
Why not? It's worked exceedingly well for the past 20 years! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kawabago on Thursday, July 05 2007 @ 11:46 PM EDT |
If ISO approves OOXML, every other large conglomerate is going to want it's
products to become International Standards and the ISO will be unable to refuse
after allowing Microsoft to buy the process. Standards will still be created,
but they will be completely meaningless.
What I think people really need to look at is why is there a need to include
Microsoft's legacy formats in new standards going forward? All Microsoft has to
do is release documentation on the legacy formats so they can be read by
everyone's software or translators to the ODF standard can be written. Asking us
to enshrine Microsoft's legacy formats in a formal XML standard that is meant to
eliminate them seems just a little bit stupid!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ansak on Thursday, July 05 2007 @ 11:53 PM EDT |
| Perhaps this fits in the too-silly-for-words department, but my mischief
circuits started running when I saw the subject line on this story and an idea
struck me:
If someone will send me a Microsoft voucher, together with a
letter describing which Linux distro they would like to redeem it for, I will be
glad to download and burn that distro and mail it back to them. GPL-v3-infected
distros that are downloadable by ftp, http, jigdo or torrent only! :)
I will
notarize the received letter and voucher as well, scan them and put them up on
the web for all to see and take advantage of. The recipient should be prepared
to make a similar public record on receipt of the distro.
Actually, if
someone else already has a small business going and can do proper silk-screening
of the media that gets sent back, it might be better left for someone else here.
That would close the loop, wouldn't it, on Microsoft becoming a distributor of
GPL v3 software?
cheers...ank [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: LocoYokel on Thursday, July 05 2007 @ 11:56 PM EDT |
IANAL, but doesn't this fall under the false advertising clauses in most states
(federal also?)? I would think that if you try to redeem one of these and they
say that you are getting some lesser deal that you would have a valid complaint
to the FTC, your state AG, your BBB and the Washington, and Utah BBBs. Wonder
how they would like to have a few more AGs and the FTC going after them for
these violations?
---
Waiting for the games I play to be released in Linux, or a decent Windows
emulator, to switch entirely.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ssavitzky on Friday, July 06 2007 @ 12:32 AM EDT |
... because there's a lot of code in any Linux distribution (not the kernel,
though) that's licensed under the "GPL v2 *or any later version*.
And note that it's the recipient of the code who gets to decide which version
they want to use and redistribute under.
---
Never anger a bard, for they are not subtle and people remember funny songs.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: MacsEntropy on Friday, July 06 2007 @ 12:36 AM EDT |
no more than anyone is bound by any license.
Licenses don't bind, they give rights. They can't, because they are not
contracts.
The GPL gives you rights to do things that are otherwise unlawful - like copying
code - under certain conditions.
If you copy code, and don't abide by the terms of the license, you are guilty of
violating the copyright law.
Perhaps this simplicity is why attorneys, so finely attuned to teasing out the
subtlest nuances of laws and contracts, have a hard time understanding it.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: fudnutz on Friday, July 06 2007 @ 12:57 AM EDT |
Monopoly Statement About GPLv3
Published: July 5, 2007
Monopoly is not a party to the GPLv3 license. Its actions are to be interpreted
as accepting status as a contracting party of GPLv2 only, assuming the legal
obligations under such license.
While there have been some claims that Monopoly’s distribution of SuSe Linux
certificates for Novell support services, including code updates, under our
software interoperability collaboration with Novell, constitutes acceptance of
the GPLv3 license, since we accepted "GPLv2 or later" terms, we do
not believe that such claims have a valid legal basis under contract,
intellectual property, any other law or against our wishes. In fact, we do not
believe that Monopoly needs to respect a license under GPL to carry out any
aspect of its code distribution with Novell, including its distribution of
support certificates, even if Novell chooses to distribute GPLv3 code in the
future. Furthermore, Monopoly retracts any grant of any implied or express
patent rights under or as a result of GPLv3, and GPLv3 licensors have no
authority to represent or bind Monopoly in any way. Monopoly defines its own
role and does not submit to any license.
At this point in time, in order to avoid any doubt or legal debate on this
issue, Monopoly has decided that the Novell support certificates that we
distribute to customers will not entitle the recipient to receive from Novell,
or any other party, any subscription for support and updates relating to any
code licensed under GPLv3. We hereby strip any code distributed by Novell at our
behest of its GPLv3 license. We will closely study the situation and decide
whether to expand the scope of the certificates in the future. The certificates
negate the license of the code distributed thereunder, and substitute therefore
the MVLv1, the Monopoly Variable License version 1. This is consistent with all
our EULA's, partnership agreements and licenses. They are variable and
terminable at Monopoly will.
As always, Monopoly remains dedicated to guiding the open source software
community to purchase interoperability with Monopoly products and keep our
products in mixed source environments and deliver IP assurance without
litigation. Our partnerships with Novell and other Linux platform and desktop
providers remain cost-efficient and useful and the IP chains we built with them,
embodied in our Monopoly-First agreements, remains intact. In particular, our
technical and business collaboration with Novell continues to move full steam
ahead, but without any GPLv3 code including our joint development work on
virtualization, standards-based systems management, identity interoperability
and document format translators. In addition, the patent covenants offered by
Monopoly and Novell to all GPL code customers are unchanged, and will continue
to apply in the same way they did previously. All the code remains free as in
freedom, beer too.
Top of page[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Friday, July 06 2007 @ 12:59 AM EDT |
| Why is it every time I see the phrase "The Toxic Voucher" my brain thinks, "The
Toxic Avenger"?
Reference: The Toxic Avenger (Not suitable
for the easily offended.)
Tagline: "Melvin was a 90lb. weakling until
nuclear waste transformed him into..." [The Toxic Avenger]
---
"While
world domination is a nice fantasy, a Free computer is essential."
--artp, Groklaw, 2007-06 [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 06 2007 @ 02:39 AM EDT |
What I can't get is, how can someone be bound by a license that didn't exist
when the original agreement was made.
I am ready to loath MS like no other, but this seems an SCO trick. "Maybe
we
can't nail you now, but wait till you read the next license we're cooking
up".
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 06 2007 @ 02:53 AM EDT |
MS said:
In addition, the patent covenants offered by Microsoft and Novell to each
other’s customers are unchanged, and will continue to apply in the same way they
did previously
Until M$ has to distribute code. Which M$ will have to do. HAHAHA. I just love
M$.
- moosie.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 06 2007 @ 03:26 AM EDT |
...
At this point in time, in order to avoid any doubt or legal debate on this
issue, Microsoft has decided that the Novell support certificates that we
distribute to customers will not entitle the recipient to receive from Novell,
or any other party, any subscription for support and updates relating to any
code licensed under GPLv3. We will closely study the situation and decide
whether to expand the scope of the certificates in the future.
...
Doesn't that open up Microsoft to breach of contract claims? If someone
purchased a product that includes a voucher from MS with the expectation of an
entitlement of support, then MS would be in breach of that contract. (I suspect
that there are some weasle words on the certificate that render it worthless if
MS decree, though)
I guess that MS should have paid more attention to the "or later"
clause in some of the GPL licenses.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Night Flyer on Friday, July 06 2007 @ 03:26 AM EDT |
Let us consider that we have a copy of SuSE Linux OS with all parts GPLv3.
Suppose Microsoft writes a translation program, or some other add-on and
copyrights it as MS proprietary (closed source software). Suppose MS puts it on
another disk, charges $20 and says "You need this to run Microsoft Word on
this Linux OS in this package".
It then sells a package including Linux OS GPLv3 (distribution costs ie: $25),
plus its proprietary translators (ie: $20), plus Microsoft Word for Linux (not
GPLvX for ie: $300).
It could mess around a bit with the links so that the Wine Project would have a
problem running this version of Microsoft Word.
I don't see how this interferes with the GPLv2 or GPLv3.
I'm interested in any comments on this theory.
---
Veritas Vincit - Truth Conquers[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 06 2007 @ 04:03 AM EDT |
1) The certifcates are a way of conveying GPL code. If someone didnt have the
certificate he would not have gotten the GPL code from Novel. By giving Novel
the certificate he gets the code in return. That makes the certificate equal to
a MS CD-ROM with the GPL code.
2) Even if Novel would only give GPL2 code for the certificate, I am sure that
right after that transaction someone would want the latest version with GPL3
code in it. So right after the first transaction, a second update transaction is
taken to make sure you run the latest version.
3) Even if all parties involved claim that in step 2 two transactions have taken
place, in reality this is only one transaction as a direct result of the turning
in of the certifcate. You can call it differently, but it really makes no
difference. So even if you "officially" only get GPL2, the whole
transaction will be for GPL3.
4) Given the convey clause in GPL3 MS is bound by GPL3 and loses all patent
claims.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 06 2007 @ 04:31 AM EDT |
...
Jumpstyle!
Yeah, you can put multiple explanations on it. It's
either MS thumping on the GPLv3 lying on the floor, or it's RMS dancing for joy.
I'll leave that for the viewer. But I think this is how Bill Gates would
do it.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: coolmos on Friday, July 06 2007 @ 04:38 AM EDT |
I keep seeing the image of someone dancing because bullets are being shot at his
feet.
I surely hope that will be the dance for Microsoft in the not too distant
future. Anyone do a cartoon with Richard Stallman shooting GPLv3 bullets at a
dancing Bill Gates?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- What dance? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 06 2007 @ 05:05 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 06 2007 @ 06:02 AM EDT |
The problem is that although Novell, Linspire, Xandros can't run the Microsoft
patent scam to restrict GPL3 code use and distribution, they can still
distribute the Linux kernel with the Microsoft patent tax under GPL2 along with
GPL3 code with no Microsoft patent restrictions it their distro.
One way to tackle this problem is for Linux open source driver authors to
release their open source drivers under GPL3 only. Linus can't block this since
binary drivers are permitted in Linux, so Linus has to permit GPL3 drivers. The
authors should also provide a binary dual license deal in the short term for
those who can't distribute under GPL3 due to deals with Microsoft for which the
author would charge subject to the author's agreement. After all if Novell,
Xandros, Linspire, LG, Samsung and others are going to charge for use of the
author's code, then it is only fair that the author charges them for use of the
author's code.
This will force Novell, Xandros, Linspire and others to either write all their
own drivers or drop the Microsoft patent restrictions scam on Linux.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kattemann on Friday, July 06 2007 @ 06:35 AM EDT |
That statement from Microsoft was quite harmful to my blood pressure and I had
to take a few deep breaths - spend some time near the water cooler and
afterwards read the GL comments. I'm sorry, with my limited command of English I
find myself mostly unable to comment on the statement without breaking Groklaw
posting rules. I'm very glad PJ wields a legalese stiletto compared to the troll
club (as in Discworld) I had in mind.
Really - how CAN they post such utter drivel and hope to get away with it?
(goes off, muttering Hogwarts jinxes and curses ...)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 06 2007 @ 06:37 AM EDT |
Microsoft does seem to have changed it's tune on interoperability, but it is
very clear that they are attempting to architect a version of interoperability
that will meet the letter, but not the spirit of the law.
Having the OOXML standard published as it is will allow for full
interoperability between office suites... it will allow for third party
applications to open, read, parse, modify and save MS documents.
Microsoft however, is being it's old self - and has the knife waiting to
pounce...
Interoperability will work for virus scanners that need to open and process
files - for batch tools that need to open and process files.. for automated
generators that need to create files...
Third party stuff *will* be able to interoperate with OOXML files...
What microsoft don't want to give up is the relationship between the human eyes
and the file format - they want to
be the only ones who can reliably represent the data on screen / printer etc..
It's the classic MS behaviour - they are taking the 'interoperability' bit very
specifically to apply to one part ( programmatic ability to process the ooxml
files ) - what they are not doing is the "display consistently on
screen" stuff that we come to expect from LaTeX, PDF, PostScript etc...
They are trying to change the game ( again ) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 06 2007 @ 06:42 AM EDT |
It strikes me that these vouchers can be sort of compared to hyperlinks.
The RIAA is after shutting down sites that just link to torrents on the premise
they are infringing.
I view these vouchers, provided by MS as a hyperlink, meaning MS is providing
the means to use floss software.
Therefore they should then be bounds by its terms and conditions, just like
everyone else that uses it, regardless of all the handwaving and crying they are
doing.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 06 2007 @ 06:43 AM EDT |
"As always, Microsoft remains committed to working with the open source
software community to help improve interoperability for customers working in
mixed source environments and deliver IP assurance."
So true, mostly the IP assurance part ... They stay commited to collecting all
the money they can from any IP that crossed their path ...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Not even that... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 06 2007 @ 03:35 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 06 2007 @ 06:55 AM EDT |
Reading the article it seems to me that MS is claiming that these vouchers
are only for Novell support:
"While there have been
some claims that Microsoft's distribution of certificates for Novell
support services
...
In fact, we do not believe that Microsoft
needs a license under GPL to carry out any aspect of its collaboration with
Novell, including its distribution of support
certificates
...
etc..."
Is MS now trying to
backtrack by saying these vouchers are only for Novell's support, and not for
SLES itself, and therefore MS is not "distributing" SLES? Is this backtracking,
or have these vouchers always been "support certificates"?
Is this a
sufficient get out clause though, or does "support" imply distribution of
updates which may include GPL code?
--
Chris.
IANAL and INH
(I'm new here).
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 06 2007 @ 06:57 AM EDT |
I think the community should start looking at all of Microsoft's patents and
start looking for prior art and other information to challenge them.
A web site like Growklaw could be done with the Microsoft patents and all the
things found to refute each one. Then at some point a lot of free law help could
start actions to take Microsoft's patents away from them.
I talked to some very bright young engineers, medical students, lawyers, and
surprisingly MBA students and young professionals (under 30) who thought this
would be a lot of fun. I was really surprised by their passion to be free.
Does anyone have an idea how to start of where to help do this?
Yoda One the free spirit of Patrick Henry[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 06 2007 @ 07:16 AM EDT |
In the "Microsoft’s Patent Pledge for Individual Contributors to
openSUSE.org" it says:
Microsoft reserves the right to
prospectively update and revise
the terms of this pledge, for example to
accommodate applicable laws, rules,
orders or regulations. The rights provided
under this pledge are personal to
You and are not for the benefit of
others.
They can just say: "Things have changed since GPLv3. We
are now
changing the agreement so you don't get any patent protection any
longer.
This doesn't break our contract with you because we said we could
update
the terms any time we liked." Hence it appears to me that they
can get out of the GPLv3 trap laid for them by Eben Moglen, although
they
can't give patent pledges in future. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 06 2007 @ 07:32 AM EDT |
How can Microsoft be bound by the GPLv3 until/unless they distribute some GPLv3
code (which is unlikely given that GPLv3 has only been out a week...)?
Even if the "vouchers=distribution" argument holds water, how can that
apply until/unless someone has received a copy of a *future* GPLv3-containing
SUSE Distro (or whatever) in exchange for a voucher? Worst-case scenario: they
are unable to deliver on the vouchers and have to compensate holders for the
value of... er, a copy of some free software (they could always deliver any
"value added" non-free components separately).
While I sincerely hope that GPLv3 will work as intended and stop *future*
MS/Novel-type FUD shennanigans, trying to contrive ways in which it might apply
retroactively to GPLv2 users before they have distributed a line of v3 code
seems counter productive: the meme that accepting one GPL version automatically
binds you to GPL versions yet unwritten would be pure poison to any mildly
skeptical legal department or pointy-haired-boss.
I do hope that the GPLv3 "victory" doesn't amount to throwing Bre're
Microsoft into the briar patch. PJ points out that lawyers seem to have
difficulty understanding the GPL. My main concern with GPLv3 is that - unlike v2
- non-lawyers can't understand it either.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 06 2007 @ 08:12 AM EDT |
Even XP isn't interoperable with Vista. Why do we want it
with Linux?
Linux is self-contained. You don't need anything else. If
you have Windows only apps, keep enough Windows
machines around to use them. You don't need Windows
companywide.
ODF is already a standard, and translators (Sourceforge,
Sun) and plugins will be coming out. If your collaborator
can't do ODF, just tell him where to get one. You might
be surprised how willingly other people and companies
will accommodate you.
It's already happenng with government, which has been
moving to PDF. It's no more difficult to convert Windows
documents to ODF than it is to PDF.
What's the big deal?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Long time CNE on Friday, July 06 2007 @ 08:38 AM EDT |
I'm having problems understanding the legal aspects.
What happens if Novell embraces GPLv3 wholeheartedly. For the sake of argument,
lets say they release eDirectory under GPLv3. (And since it's such a wonderful
product many distributions adopts it and help develop it further :)
-Will the deal help Microsoft in any way to sue Redhat if they would distribute
it?
-Would it matter if eDirectory were part of the patents agreement between MS and
Novell?
-If eDirectory had been Redhats product and Novell had just contributed with
some code?
It feels like if this deal continues in the same direction as it has, soon all
that will be left is the big pile of money that Novell so eagerly want to pour
into it's Opensource revenue account to appease it's investors. And I wouldn't
expect Microsoft to enter such a deal...
...so I am getting a bit nervous that there are some kind of IP trap that
enables Microsoft to come in a couple of years and say something like
"Novell saw our ActiveDirectory code, they used it and thus our IP. Now you
(Redhat) are using Novells Code....."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 06 2007 @ 08:54 AM EDT |
First the usual disclaimer. I am not a lawyer, nor does my understanding of US
law extend beyond what little I have learned here at Groklaw. That said, my
understanding is that the Microsoft statement is not a legal document and
consequently the targetted audience includes people like me. So, here is my take
on it:
"Microsoft is not a party to the GPLv3
license..."
In conversational English the use of the word "party"
suggests that the statement is made by someone who believes that they must have
participated in the formulation of GPLv3 to be governed by its terms. Either
that or that GPLv3 is a contract. A contract implies that those party to it are
identified and those bound by it have signified that they are in agreement with
it.
"...and none of its actions are to be misinterpreted as
accepting status as a contracting party of GPLv3..."
That seems
fine to me. Nobody who understands the purpose and the working of the GPL (v3 or
otherwise) would make the mistake of thinking that anyone benefitting from a
licence is a "contracting party".
"...or assuming any legal
obligations under such license."
Ah, this could be problematic. If
Microsoft is truthfully declaring that none of its actions can legally be
interpreted as participating in the distribution or propagation of GPLv3 code
then it looks fine to me. On the other hand, if anything they have done has
resulted or does result in the propagation of GPLv3 code then the plain simple
fact of it is that the only legal way they can do that is by assuming their
legal obligations under the relevant licence. If that means GPLv3 then
whoop-de-doo.
"While there have been some claims that Microsoft’s
distribution of certificates for Novell support services, under our
interoperability collaboration with Novell, constitutes acceptance of the GPLv3
license, we do not believe that such claims have a valid legal basis under
contract, intellectual property, or any other law."
It's a long
sentence but the main thrust seems to be that Microsoft believes it must
explicitly accept the GPLv3 licence in order to benefit from its provisions.
Their belief that a contrary position has no legal basis is similar to the
ostrich's belief that if it can see no danger then it cannot possibly be in
danger. A more commonly accepted characterisation of the GPL is a licence
without which certain actions in respect of licensed software would be contrary
to copyright law. This means that making use of the permissions of the GPL
implies acceptance of its terms and flouting its terms implies liability under
copyright law. The only thing to be decided in Microsoft's case is does it
participate in the propagation of software protected by GPLv3?
"In
fact, we do not believe that Microsoft needs a license under GPL to carry out
any aspect of its collaboration with Novell, including its distribution of
support certificates, even if Novell chooses to distribute GPLv3 code in the
future. "
Clearly Microsoft is convinced, and prepared to argue in
a court of law, that it does not now nor will it in the future participate in
the propagation of GPLv3 software. I think it will take a judge to decide to
what extent the Microsoft voucher scheme constitutes a benefit from a protected
right under the GPLv3.
"Furthermore, Microsoft does not grant any
implied or express patent rights under or as a result of GPLv3, and GPLv3
licensors have no authority to represent or bind Microsoft in any
way."
Well, on the face of it I cannot see anything wrong with this
statement. I am clearly not a lawyer but I can see that if everything Microsoft
believes about its own action turns out to be a valid legal position then nobody
could object to this statement. Oh, wait a minute, I nearly missed a sneaky
llittle clause tacked on to the end. That bit that starts "... and GPLv3
licensors have no authority..." is only true if they are correct about their
role in the propagation of Novel Linux. Otherwise they are absolutely and
completely subject to the authority of the licensor to bind Microsoft to the
terms of the only licence which gives them the legal right to maintain their
voucher scheme.
"At this point in
time,..."
Now.
"...in order to avoid any doubt or legal
debate on this issue, Microsoft has decided that the Novell support certificates
that we distribute to customers will not entitle the recipient to receive from
Novell, or any other party, any subscription for support and updates relating to
any code licensed under GPLv3."
Oh boy. Lawyers are going to love
this if I'm any judge of backpedalling unicyclists.
"We will closely
study the situation and decide whether to expand the scope of the certificates
in the future."
At last, something which is comparatively devoid of
any useful information. No more comment, let's move on.
"As always,
Microsoft remains committed to working with the open source software community
to help improve interoperability for customers working in mixed source
environments and deliver IP assurance."
And then they go and spoil
it all by saying something stupid like this. They start with a tongue in the
cheek knowing exactly how to make steam come out of the ears of the average
freedom loving code junkie but watch out again for that sneaky modifier of
"customers"; those who are "...working in mixed source environments". Phew!
that's not me. In fact it isn't many people I know. If you think about it, most
of Microsoft's own customers probablty do not work in a mixed source
environment. That means therefore that Microsoft is only committing to work with
that very small open source software community (and not the free software
community) which is itself committed to working with Microsoft. That's good. We
can count them now and we can see that this is no great claim.
"Our
partnerships with Novell and other Linux platform and desktop providers remain
strong and the IP bridge we built with them, embodied in our collaboration
agreements, remains intact."
No real need to interpret this. Any
one who has seen "A Bridge Too Far" knows why bridges are so important for the
attacking force to preserve and for the defenders to destroy.
"In
particular, our technical and business collaboration with Novell continues to
move full steam ahead, including our joint development work on virtualization,
standards-based systems management, identity interoperability and document
format translators."
This looks like plain old PR fluff. Funny
though; I'm no expert, but aren't these all areas where existing standards are
widely adopted by every software company not called Microsoft?
"In
addition, the patent covenants offered by Microsoft and Novell to each other’s
customers are unchanged, and will continue to apply in the same way they did
previously. "
I reckon that is probably spot-on. I cannot think of
any theory or act by any party in the months since last November which could
change the way in which these patent covenants have been implemented. On the
other hand, wouldn't it be funny if a court were to decide that Microsoft is
indeed propagating software under the terms of the GPLv3 licence? Then Microsoft
would have to declare itself in default of its licence and accept the
consequences or risk making the whole of this PR statement a complete
nonsense.
Richard
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 06 2007 @ 09:34 AM EDT |
> At this point in time, in order to avoid any doubt or legal
> debate on this issue, Microsoft has decided that the Novell
> support certificates that we distribute to customers will
> not entitle the recipient to receive from Novell, or any
> other party, any subscription for support and updates
> relating to any code licensed under GPLv3.
Sounds to me like they are ordering Novell not to include any GPLv3 code in
their distribution. That ought to make Novell very happy - not.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: wvhillbilly on Friday, July 06 2007 @ 09:41 AM EDT |
From the Micro$oft statement:
As always, Microsoft remains
committed to working with the open source software community to help improve
interoperability for customers working in mixed source environments and deliver
IP assurance.
Hahahahaha! Fat chance!! How about putting
your money where your mouth is, M$, then maybe the rest of us will believe
you.
Our partnerships with Novell and other Linux platform and
desktop providers remain strong and the IP bridge we built with them, embodied
in our collaboration agreements, remains intact.
Partnership? I'd
say probably more like a stranglehold.
I know this is being a bit cynical,
but given Micro$oft's past record, I think anything they say needs to be
taken with a large block of salt. ---
What goes around comes around, and
the longer it goes the bigger it grows. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SirHumphrey on Friday, July 06 2007 @ 09:45 AM EDT |
, struggles to comprehend how fruit can spontaneously relocate. Still believes
it orates Ex Cathedra. Rest of day is spoiled by Groklaw funsters.
Vexum vexum. Litigatum spurium ad nauseum.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 06 2007 @ 09:47 AM EDT |
Hey, everybody!
As I write this, I have been giving serious thought to giving my trusty Linux
box one last good upgrade (bigger hard drive and a DVD reader/burner) and
changing the OS from SuSE to something else (three front runners--Red Hat,
Ubuntu, and MEPIS), probably by the end of the year. Just researching for
things to make installing and developing new software a breeze. I like how
Ubuntu makes putting the KDE desktop and dependent libraries very
straightforward (I can't help it, I prefer KDE to GNOME, just my taste).
Then Novell pulls a number like this (selling a new service that wasn't part of
the original coupon deal) and I wonder if I can do this a little quicker. I
used to be so proud to be a SuSE user. Those days are over.
The only real disappointment is some apps will probably never go to Linux, so I
will have to put up with my clunky Win boxes for a while. I prefer the thought
of one main machine to handle everything, but until everyone else catches up
(WINE can't handle everything, unfortunately), it looks like I'm splitting down
the middle.
Free software succeeds in part because of the principal. It pulls people to it.
Seeing companies do things like this is what makes us stay there.
Dobre utka,
The Blue Sky Ranger[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: DMF on Friday, July 06 2007 @ 10:04 AM EDT |
| Microsoft's statement above emphasizes that the certificates it distributes are
entitlements for support, not (by implication) distributions of GPL'd
software.
If that distinction is valid, then they seem to have a point -
they're not bound by the GPL. (Though I'd be interested to learn what lurks in
that proprietary code base of theirs.)
On the other hand, if "support"
includes software updates - which are distributions of code - then they
may be screwed.
So, what exactly does these vouchers entitle one to? Has
the text been posted?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 06 2007 @ 10:06 AM EDT |
Microsoft already has had for many years their own "LINUX LAB" that
various LINUX folks have worked at in the past few years. Why do they need to
build a new lab anywhere... why not do the interoperablity in the one they
already have?
Note - my guess is that the lab they not have, is designed to find ways to beat
LINUX, not to interoperate with it.
So they will apply what they have learned, in the new Novell interoperability
lab (how to delay anything that LINUX can do and delay delay delay until they
have Vista fixed, if Vista can ever be fixed)? If I were Novell, I would be
concerned that the time used to build a joint lab, is just a ploy to delay
things already, as MS has a lab right now, why doesn't Novell just move in to
the lab that is already running today or tomorrow?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- A few points... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 06 2007 @ 05:00 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: tz on Friday, July 06 2007 @ 10:37 AM EDT |
Those certificates may not mean "supporting" something under GPLv3,
but I see nothing that doesn't work the other way - the patent "we won't
sue" covenant or whatever will apply to something under GPLv3 that they
distribute.
Even their EULAs often have a clause that they can change terms at any time, so
what they say they can do can be done to them.
SCO ran into something like this when IBM asked how it was legal for them to
post IBM's copyrighted LINUX GPL code on their website - if the GPL was invalid
as SCO was claiming, they didn't have any right to distribute it.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 06 2007 @ 10:41 AM EDT |
The reason for the patent agreements between M$, Novell, Linspire, Xandros and
others are to cover M$'s big fat ***?
In other words instead of GNU/Linux packages purportedly infringing upon 253 (or
so) of M$'s patents -- could it be that M$ is actually infringing upon the
copyrights of GNU/Linux developers?
The later seems to me to be much more likely than the former.
krp[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 06 2007 @ 10:45 AM EDT |
You know what I love about GrokLaw lawyers? They're so busy being fans of GPL
that they've forgotten how to read it too. Microsoft has never released any
GPLv3 code, and their vouchers were written pre-v3 for pre-v3 products. GPL may
be abhorrently viral, but it can't time travel.
Microsoft is bound by the GPL, true. But <b>only the versions of the GPL
which covered the products they referenced at the time of their
distribution</b>. Come on, a freshman law student would be embarrassed to
make this kind of error. A party of the first part changing a contract creates
a new contract, which does not apply to the party of the second part unless the
agreement is remade.
That's why I can't enter into an agreement to repave your driveway, then rewrite
the contract to include your house as part of my fee.
It may be time to start signing your articles, so we know who not to read
anymore.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 06 2007 @ 10:48 AM EDT |
It's getting really annoying.
interoperability is a "must have" for enterprise and large business.
It is a necessary step in the move towards total OSS solution in their
environment.
I'm really shocked that you think that enterprises can just jump from their
proprietary solutions to OSS "overnight"
Whatever you're smoking, can I get some?
proprietary solutions are a multi-billion dollar business, you can't expect that
portion to go away either. yes, you can sell OSS solutions too, and yes, some
companies can make millions on it. but there are a few "zeroes"
missing between making millions and making billions.
Also it takes time to do all that.
And... it's been said before and it'll be said again, the best tool for the job
is the one that fits best, in some cases that's a proprietary tool.
eg: gimp/pixel and/or Blender may be the best things since sliced bread, but
they still aren't as good as Photoshop or Maya.
And "dia" is a pathetic excuse for a "Visio" replacement.
Nothing comes close to Visio yet.
And AutoCAD is an industry standard, and it's proprietary.
The list goes on and on.
The point is, this isn't going to change overnight, or even soon, or maybe,
even, ever in some cases.
and personally, that's a good thing.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Interoperability...has what to do with patents? Or Microsoft, for that matter. - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 06 2007 @ 10:57 AM EDT
- Please stop slandering Novell - n/t - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 06 2007 @ 11:19 AM EDT
- Seen it before... - Authored by: leopardi on Friday, July 06 2007 @ 11:19 AM EDT
- Visio is trash..... - Authored by: tiger99 on Friday, July 06 2007 @ 11:58 AM EDT
- Please stop slandering Novell - n/t - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 06 2007 @ 12:10 PM EDT
- Interoperability with MS: OO beats MS-Office - Authored by: mcinsand on Friday, July 06 2007 @ 12:53 PM EDT
- Please stop slandering Novell - n/t - Authored by: Long time CNE on Friday, July 06 2007 @ 03:12 PM EDT
- I beg to differ... Interoperability is not a must. - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 06 2007 @ 05:05 PM EDT
- Autocad? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 06 2007 @ 05:27 PM EDT
- Autocad? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 07 2007 @ 09:27 PM EDT
- Please stop slandering Novell - n/t - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 06 2007 @ 06:08 PM EDT
- MS-Novell comes close to violating third party's copyright. Killing Linux the hidden agenda. - Authored by: PeterMan on Saturday, July 07 2007 @ 06:56 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: belzecue on Friday, July 06 2007 @ 11:10 AM EDT |
Wow. What a week for MS:
* Finally own up to Xbox360 Red Ring of Death
* 1.2 billion write off for Xbox360 warranty extension
* Put out a press release that: a) publicly validates the legality of GPL3; b)
shows that MS is afraid of the GPL3; c) demonstrates to all that Microsoft's
promises are subject to change at any time, particularly when those promises
turn unfavourable for Microsoft
Ballmer will be tearing up the carpet in his office right about now, having no
more furniture to toss around.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- oz - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 07 2007 @ 04:20 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 06 2007 @ 11:37 AM EDT |
The last time I checked my Calendar Nov 2, 2006 came BEFORE March 28, 2007.
The GPLv3 specifically grandfathers the Novell-Microsoft and gives them a pass
because it was created before 3/28/2007.
Microsoft doesn't have to do any dancing. The FSF gave away the farm with its
"grandfather" clause.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 06 2007 @ 11:47 AM EDT |
Just another ignorant Groklaw post from someone who claims to understand the law
but fails miserably. Microsoft is in no way subject to the GPL3 and their
argument is absolutely correct. The GPLv3 is not some special thing that
lawyers can't understand... it's just another license with different terms. The
fanboys out there seem to think that the GPLv3 has some inherent power to suck
you in. It's just a freaking license.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 06 2007 @ 12:26 PM EDT |
How can distributing a voucher to receive product support from Novell be
construed as licensing the product? P.J. -- isn't that a stretch? It's at
least arguable.. I am concerned that you are getting sloppy. You used to
provide links to case law or at least counter-argument, but here you are just
making claims without substantiating them.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- PJ--Explain Yourself, Don't Just Declare.. - Authored by: tknarr on Friday, July 06 2007 @ 12:41 PM EDT
- Advice to Troll: Google is your Friend - Authored by: mcinsand on Friday, July 06 2007 @ 12:44 PM EDT
- No explantion required, read previous posts - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 06 2007 @ 12:47 PM EDT
- PJ--Explain Yourself, Don't Just Declare.. - Authored by: PJ on Friday, July 06 2007 @ 01:27 PM EDT
- Tell us, PJ! - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 06 2007 @ 01:56 PM EDT
- So you are working for Desperatesoft...? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 06 2007 @ 05:45 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 06 2007 @ 12:29 PM EDT |
<i>Microsoft is not a party to the GPLv3 license and none of its actions
are to be misinterpreted as accepting status as a contracting party of GPLv3 or
assuming any legal obligations under such license.</i>
I love this. Doesn't this mean that, conversely, one can just state "I am
not a party to the MS EULA and none of my actions are to be misinterpreted as
accepting status as a contracting party of the MS EULA or assuming any legal
obligations under such license".
What's good for the goose....
Thanks Microsoft for showing us the way to interoperability for incompatible
licenses!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 06 2007 @ 12:36 PM EDT |
...and I can't believe I'm saying that, is it reasonable that their contract
with Novell be bound to a license (or a clause in a license) that was drafted in
response to the contract?
I mean sure, there were plenty of GPL2 code that had the or-later clause in
SUSE, and MS would have a hard time explaining they were unware of it. But
couldn't they explain to the court that this is abusive?
How would it be any different than say if they added a clause to GPL 2+N that
says "You may distribute this software as long as you distribute it with
you bank account and routing numbers." Do I get to pull out my old, unused
voucher and demand and install disk and MS's bank info?
Now I'm not say that MS and Novell aren't finks and I wouldn't say this saves MS
in contracts that were signed after GPL3 was complete or that they are safe from
the implied obligations of GPL2.
I just think a court might find it reasonable to say they didn't not agree to
GPL3 specificly and that someone who was not a party to the contract with Novell
was trying to change the contract. (It has been stated several time that GPL3
has clauses that were a direct response to this deal. Courts have done far less
reasonable things than that in the past.)
The big mistake would be that the contract involved distributing software
without involving the licensors of the software, but that wouldn't have been a
problem if someone wasn't trying to be sneaky. MS wants to work with tose
developers, just not on fair terms.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: xtifr on Friday, July 06 2007 @ 03:22 PM EDT |
I hope the question remains entirely academic. Saying that giving out
vouchers for someone else's product counts as distribution
does seem like a bit of a stretch. On the other hand, saying that it's
clearly not distribution also seems like a bit of a stretch.
OK, I am not a lawyer, and I'm certainly not aware of what precedents might
apply here, but it certainly seems like a murky question to me, and I'd feel
uncomfortable betting either way.
If Microsoft is smart (another thing
I hate to bet for or against), they'll try to find a way so that the question
never comes up. Which may (I hope) mean sticking to their usual vague FUD
tactics instead of actually trying to sue anyone. Note that MS has never really
had a reputation as a particularly litigious company. I kind of get the feeling
that they're not big fans of the courts.
So my prediction is that
they'll continue to proclaim that the GPL does not apply to them, while doing
their utmost to ensure that the question never arises in a context where it
actually matters.
---
Do not meddle in the affairs of Wizards, for it
makes them soggy and hard to light. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- You are right. - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 06 2007 @ 05:55 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 06 2007 @ 04:06 PM EDT |
IANAL, so someone please help me understand: what would someone who wanted to
redeem one of their vouchers for GPLv3 software have to do?
Would they have to redeem it, then sue Microsoft for specific performance, or
what? I somehow doubt that Microsoft can add conditions to the voucher after
they sold them, but they get away with a lot of tricks I don't think they should
be allowed to get away with, so I don't even know.
Or are they just hosed from the get-go due to the GPLv3 terms? Would someone
sued by them (not that they'll ever sue anyone without some additional, and
probably stronger leverage, even if they do a SCO and bill it as a patent
infringement suit) just raise the GPL as a defense to begin with, or would they
have to prove that at least one voucher had been redeemed, or...?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 06 2007 @ 04:07 PM EDT |
|
The
Microsoft position is exactly what I predicted it
would be in two responses
to
previous
Groklaw article, "Microsoft will attack the
weak point, not the strong
point of free software
arguements!" and "Let's not forget the GPL v2
anti-patent
provisions". Microsoft is claiming that distributing
coupons is
not "distributing software" within the meaning
of
copyright law.
Another
Groklaw responder plaintively asks for some on
point case law:
How
can distributing a voucher to receive product support
from Novell be
construed
as licensing the product? P.J. -- isn't that a
stretch? It's at
least
arguable.. I am concerned that you are getting
sloppy. You used to
provide
links to case law or at least counter-argument,
but here you are just
making
claims without substantiating them.
But no response will be
forthcomming. I have repeatedly
asked anyone to provide such details. The
silence has been
deafening. The reason is clear, and it is the same reason
that Microsoft refuses to provide the details of its
patent claims. Nothing
remotely persuasive exists!
Eben Moglen is extremely smart, but he is
council for the
FSF. The FSF is in a FUD war with Microsoft. In any war,
the
first casualty is the truth. Moglen knows he is
bluffing on a busted flush, but
he also knows that his
bluff can never be called! In order for this bluff to be
called, Microsoft would have to attempt to enforce one of
its patent claims in
court! That will never happen.
The "Coupons=Distributing" argument is not
intended
for the courts, it is an attempt to reassure the suits who
are
worried about Microsoft's bogus patent claims. One
good lie deserves another,
and any stick is good enough to
beat a mad dog with. As such, it is a brilliant
tactical
move by Moglen. I call it counter-FUD.
I am concerned with the
long term effects of this move.
After all, truth and justice are on the side of
Free
Software. Free software advocates should not have to rely
on duplicitous
arguments. There are some who have the
discernment to see through such
arguments. The Free
Software movement looses creditability in the eyes of such
people. I believe that because of these long term effects,
these tactics
should not be used. But no one listens to
me.
It is not clear to me whether
P.J. is consciously involved
the counter-FUD scheme, or if she is so caught up
in pro
Free Software zeal that her mind refuses to consider the
possibility
that
the other side might of some strong arguments on some few
limited points.
Perhaps it is the same thing.
I still believe that if someone could research
the
caselaw on the "Coupons=Distributing" argument it would be
a good thing. I
have even written some lawyers I know, who
work in IP law, to find out what
they think, but they do
not want to comment.
No one has to do the hard work
of research to find out
the truth. It is much easier to dismiss replies like
this
on as a troll. Nothing to see here. Move along. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: darkonc on Friday, July 06 2007 @ 04:36 PM EDT |
As a background:
Vancouver, BC doesn't actually filter it's water. We have
some huge dammed lakes, and depend on the metre-thick moss in the old-growth
forests for primary filtration.
(and they're really good at that... Moss
was the prototype for HEPA filters, so consider the effects of a mile-thick HEPA
filter).
Unfortunately, the Greater Vancouver Water District (GVWD) has been
allowing some logging activity to occur in the watershed (much to the chagrin of
almost everybody who understands the side-effects). Not only does this degrade
the water filtration aspects of the forest, it also raises the possibility of
things like massive landslides ... Like one that occurred a number of years ago.
in the middle of a huge logging debate.
Immediately after the landslide
(which seriously impacted our drinking water quality for some weeks) the
GVWD Proclaimed that the landslide had nothing to do with any logging and, in
fact, had occured more than 100metres away from any logging-related
activity.
Well, a friend of mine hiked into the watershed, and found that
there was a logging road that cut across the mountainside , collecting the
rainfall (This area is officially classified as "rainforest) from a few
square miles of hillside above the road, and concentrated into one culvert. The
water output of this culvert was heavy enough to have cut a brand new creekbed
into the hilside. (My friend dubbed it 'Culvert Creek').
Culvert creek
flowed about 100 metres down the hill that the GVWD had asserted the public had
separated the landslide from logging activity, and abruptly ended .... At the
headpoint of the massive landslide.
The GVWD then had their foresters (read:
Logging Engineers without engineering degrees) write a report on the landslide.
The report asserted that the culvert had nothing to do with the
landslide. .... And also suggestd changing the design of the road culverting,
'to prevent any future problems'.
..... Kinda like Microsoft declaring that
the GPL doesn't affect their activities, but that they're only stopping all such
activities to make things look good (i.e. to their lawyers). ---
Powerful,
committed communication. Touching the jewel within each person and bringing it
to life.. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 06 2007 @ 05:29 PM EDT |
There's been a lot of discussion here about how MS can't be bound by the GPL v.3
because they are not a party to it. Unfortunately for them, that doesn't
necessarily absolve them legally in all cases.
Consider this. Company A has an NDA with employee Fred. Company B hires employee
Fred away from company A and puts him to work on a project that potentially
violates the NDA. Is company B legally liable? They were in no way a party to
the NDA, so how can it bind them? Yet Microsoft, for on, seems to think they are
liable (after all, they sued Google for essentially this issue).
PJ and others can correct me, but I think the term here is
"contributory". You don't have to be a party to a contract or a
license to be a contributory violator. If you know such an agreement is in place
and work to violate it, bingo, you deal yourself in to the liability.
Consider a web site that never, in any way, pirated music or software. Now
suppose that web site puts up friendly directions on how to find warez or pirate
downloads. Suppose it also charges a fee to access the directions and advertizes
the fact. Are they liable or not?
Now, MS can definitely avoid distributing GPL v.3 software, but if they enter
into an agreement which would cause the other party to violate it, especially in
a way that looks like they are paying the other party to violate on MS's behalf,
they could still be seriously liable.
Given all the broohaha about the GPL v.3, I doubt that MS can plead innocent
intent and lack of knowledge - and given this public statement, that becomes
even harder.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: charlie Turner on Friday, July 06 2007 @ 07:42 PM EDT |
I have often wondered if there was an attempt to force this down Jack Messman's
throat, and he saw the forest for the trees, and said: "No!" And that
was why he was forced out.
It would be interesting to know the time frame of the discussions which led to
this deal between MS and Novell, and who initiated those discussions, and who
was involved early on
wrt the Novell side. Did it start with the BOD and work downward? Did it start
with the Executive? And, if so and it didn't go anywhere, did it move up to
force it? That might be really interesting to know.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 06 2007 @ 08:10 PM EDT |
Microsoft is not a party to the GPLv3 license and none of its
actions are to be misinterpreted as accepting status as a contracting party of
GPLv3 or assuming any legal obligations under such license.
MS
argues that since they did not negotiate the wording of GPL3, and have
not
signed any paper accepting it, and are not knowingly or willingly
distributing
software subject to GPL3, then it doesn't apply to them. So far, so
good
Since the Novell deal there has been much sound and fury here on
GL, together with sufficient enlightenment to suggest that MS will not be in
trouble, unless and until
a) they distribute software subject to "GPL2 or
later", and
b) somebody (a MS customer??) modifies that software and
distributes it under GPL3.
MS protests vehemently that this cannot
happen to them.
Groklawers crowd about with pitchforks and flaming torches
awaiting the
fatal slip. Mr Moglen seems a nice man, well spoken, erudite, he
should know
what the letters NDA mean. What I want to know is why there should
be a
NDA on a coupon to supply a good or service. Until we have the full text
of
this coupon exposed to the cold light of day here on these pages, we are
just
whistling against the wind...
BTW I'm a Mac weenie, Gimp, OOo, and
I'd love to see MS get its
come-uppance, but clean and proper, even if they
don't deserve that.
--- [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 06 2007 @ 10:16 PM EDT |
A lot of MS-is-trapped theories revolve around the SUSE vouchers, yet no one
comes forward with one.
And now someone mentions that the vouchers might all been redeemed.
Did MS scramble to get all the vouchers back?
Are those holding vouchers smart enough to know that those tiny slips will be
worth a lot to MS one of these days?
One wonders...
No troll[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Wesley_Parish on Saturday, July 07 2007 @ 07:02 AM EDT |
Actually, the logic of various "Intellectual Property
Rights" cases
would operate against Microsoft at this
point.
According to this logic,
merely pointing to any given
web site, one that mayhap stores MP3s of some pop
star, say
like Smashing Pumpkins or MegaDeth, or Brittany Spears - at
which
the stars throw down their spears in horror and flee
the night sky; Brittany
Spears!?! - this merely pointing to
the infringing site, constitutes copyright
infringement.
Microsoft's vouchers constitute a pointing to, in that
sense. It may not be a very intelligible or intelligent
pointing to, but it
would be enough to establish
that Microsoft is in fact distributing
Novell SuSE Linux.
At that point, that Microsoft is distributing software
covered by the GPL, and if some of that software is covered
by the GPL version
3, that would be enough to bind
Microsoft to the patent provisions in
it.
That is what has got Microsoft so worried; but the long
campaign
they - and their coevals in the music and film
industry - have been waging
against online distribution,
finally has some payback. Too bad - for
them - that
it's not working out for them , at
all! ---
finagement: The Vampire's veins and Pacific
torturers stretching back through his own season. Well, cutting like a child on
one of these states of view, I duck [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 07 2007 @ 08:21 AM EDT |
"This means that Novell will support those technologies licensed under
GPLv3, he said, noting that for those customers who obtain their Linux via a
certificate from Microsoft in the future, Novell will provide them with a
regular SLES subscription, regardless of the terms of the certificate provided
by Microsoft."
Haven't we just had a very long discussion here on Groklaw on the terms of a
contract as opposed to what the business men wanted? Plain and simple,
Microsoft wants to bind people to a specific version of Linux in return for
payment. But they don't want to be bound by the obligations receiving that
payment incurred.
It makes me wonder, who has who's short hairs?
Was Novell taken in this time, or perhaps they ended up doing the open source
world a great favor? Do you think Novell did not know GPLV3 was not coming out
or that there was no expiration date on the certificates?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 07 2007 @ 08:27 AM EDT |
"Microsoft remains committed to working with the open source software
community"
If MS was really committed to working with the open source community,then they
would fully support ODF from MS Word.
The only support MS has for the community is how much they can get the community
to give to them for free, as in beer, not as in freedom.
TANSTAFL folks.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mcinsand on Saturday, July 07 2007 @ 09:33 AM EDT |
There is more irony in MS' claims of interoperability interests than there is in
their claims to respect others' IP. I would never have tried Linux if not for
Windows' poor interoperability with Windows. XP did not play the Win-98 games
that I liked, even with Win-95/98 compatability (supposedly) enabled. XP-Home
will not network with Win-98 or Win-95 (although I have gotten it to network
with Linux), which left me facing an issue of upgrading to XP-Professional or
just trying Linux on an old PC for free. If Microsoft Windows wouldn't
interoperate with the Microsoft Windows products that I liked, then my major
reason for not trying Linux evaporated.
To the trolls, go ahead and flame me, and point out that I would have had no
problems with XP had I been less ignorant. You only make the point for Linux
even more. If I am too incompetent for Windows but was happy with Linux
(Fedora) from the get-go, then just try to tell me that Linux is too much of a
'challenge to the driver' for the masses!
How can we take MS' claims of interest in FOSS interoperability, when their
efforts to interoperate with their own products are half-hearted, at best. If
you have any doubts, just Google a bit to see some of the problems Vista users
are having with pre-Vista (XP, even) products.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 07 2007 @ 01:29 PM EDT |
Man - have you looked at groklaw's sidebar and all the main IT press picking up
the statement.
they are all saying the same thing - how stupid they look.
betcha brad smith is kicking himself for not having a expiration date on those
certificates.
betcha chairs are flying in redmond. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 07 2007 @ 03:39 PM EDT |
| Micrsoft is claiming that their certificates don't apply to any software
licensed under the GPL. Novell, on the other hand is saying that they're going
to be providing a full software suite to all users of MS meal tickets.
In
other words, MS's so-called patent peace doesn't apply to customers using
Novell's GPL3-licensed software.
This leaves some MS customers in the weird
position of paying Microsoft for software, Receiving software as a result
of paying Microsoft, and then being sued by Microsoft for using that same
software.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 07 2007 @ 05:23 PM EDT |
"they think they can so declare, like an emperor, and it becomes
fiat."
This is true. Not exactly what I want, but still true.
The DOJ convicted them, and nothing happened. You think some little thing like
GPL3 is going to slow them down?
What are you going to do? Sue them? Make them pay a few million dollars?
They'll gladly pay, and laugh as they continue their illegal business
practices.
Its going to take more than a change from GPL2 to GPL3 to shake up Microsoft.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Jose on Monday, July 09 2007 @ 03:23 AM EDT |
http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2007-07-06-014-26-NW-LL-0015
http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2007-07-06-014-26-NW-LL-0016
OR
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Windows_Services_for_UNIX
http://tinyurl.com/33fw5g
[Discla.. I don't use those products but the above links look reasonable]
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 09 2007 @ 07:52 AM EDT |
For months you have been demanding that Novell extricate itself from the MS
patent deal. Now you accuse them of "backing out" of that same
deal.
Well, folks, how do you like dealing with companies that back
out of their commitments?
I would have thought that you would have
been sinfging novell's praises for backing out of the deal that you've been
hammering them about for these many months.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 09 2007 @ 09:39 AM EDT |
According to this article on Arstechnica:
"...the
vouchers sold by Microsoft are essentially for Novell service agreements rather
than software, which makes the FSF's claims somewhat questionable. There is no
evidence that the sale of vouchers for Novell service agreements constitutes
conveyance or propagation of software. There is also no evidence that Microsoft
has granted any party a license, since the agreement between Microsoft and
Novell states that "no licenses are being granted by the limited, personal
covenants provided under this Agreement."
If the claim about service
agreements rather than software is true, Microsoft may indeed be off the hook
of the GPL, any version
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: BassSinger on Monday, July 09 2007 @ 12:31 PM EDT |
"As always, Microsoft remains committed to working with the open source
software community to help improve interoperability for customers working in
mixed source environments and deliver IP assurance."
Yes, much in the way the man with the whip works with the slaves to build the
pyramid.
---
In A Chord,
Tom
"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created
them." -- Albert Einstein[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Get it right - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 09 2007 @ 04:00 PM EDT
|
|
|
|
