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
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

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


To read comments to this article, go here
FSF to Microsoft: "You Can't Declare Yourself Exempt from GPLv3"
Tuesday, August 28 2007 @ 11:05 AM EDT

The Free Software Foundation has now issued a press release in response to Microsoft's July 5, 2007 claim that it is somehow exempt from GPLv3. FSF's response is simple:
"Microsoft cannot declare itself exempt from the requirements of GPLv3....Microsoft cannot by any act of anticipatory repudiation divest itself of its obligation to respect others' copyrights. If Microsoft distributes our works licensed under GPLv3, or pays others to distribute them on its behalf, it is bound to do so under the terms of that license. It may not do so under any other terms; it cannot declare itself exempt from the requirements of GPLv3.

Microsoft has said that it expects respect for its so-called "intellectual property" -- a propaganda term designed to confuse patent law with copyright and other unrelated laws, and to muddy the different issues they raise. We will ensure -- and, to the extent of our resources, assist other GPLv3 licensors in ensuring -- that Microsoft respects our copyrights and complies with our licenses.

I'm just a paralegal, but I read that as saying they will litigate, if necessary.

Here's the press release:

*************************

Microsoft cannot declare itself exempt from the requirements of GPLv3

"Microsoft has engaged in anticompetitive conduct in the software industry for many years, and has sought to attack free software for almost as long," Free Software Foundation says

BOSTON, Massachusetts, USA--Tuesday, August 28, 2007--The Free Software Foundation (FSF) today released the following statement in response to claims by Microsoft regarding their obligations under the GNU General Public License version 3 (GPLv3).

Microsoft cannot declare itself exempt from the requirements of GPLv3 In its November 2006 deal with Novell, Microsoft attempted to use its patent portfolio to divide and conquer the free software community. It did so by extending narrow and discriminatory promises not to sue certain classes of Novell SUSE GNU/Linux customers for patent infringement, while leaving others vulnerable to attack, including noncommercial developers and users of other GNU/Linux distributions. Microsoft's ultimate aim in this scheme was the de facto proprietization of free software: it hoped that frightened users would be willing to pay one favored distributor just to be safe from lawsuits. Though the details and timing were a surprise, it was no isolated incident; Microsoft has engaged in anticompetitive conduct in the software industry for many years, and has sought to attack free software for almost as long.

We, the Free Software Foundation, responded to Microsoft's threat by revising the draft of version 3 of the GNU General Public License (GPLv3). In particular, we added a provision to ensure that, if any user receives a discriminatory patent promise from Microsoft as a result of purchasing a copy of a GPLv3 program from a Microsoft fulfillment agent, Microsoft would be bound by GPLv3 to extend that same promise of safety to all downstream users of that software.

In its press release dated July 5, 2007, Microsoft announced that it was withdrawing discriminatory promises of patent safety it previously made to certain Novell customers. We regard Microsoft's decision with satisfaction. FSF first requested the withdrawal of those discriminatory promises in a meeting with Microsoft's general counsel, Brad Smith, on November 9, 2006. (We have no opinion on Microsoft's legal obligations to the intended beneficiaries of the repudiated promises, or to Novell.)

We do not, however, agree with Microsoft's characterization of the situation involving GPLv3. Microsoft cannot by any act of anticipatory repudiation divest itself of its obligation to respect others' copyrights. If Microsoft distributes our works licensed under GPLv3, or pays others to distribute them on its behalf, it is bound to do so under the terms of that license. It may not do so under any other terms; it cannot declare itself exempt from the requirements of GPLv3.

Microsoft has said that it expects respect for its so-called "intellectual property"--a propaganda term designed to confuse patent law with copyright and other unrelated laws, and to muddy the different issues they raise. We will ensure--and, to the extent of our resources, assist other GPLv3 licensors in ensuring--that Microsoft respects our copyrights and complies with our licenses.

About The Free Software Foundation

The Free Software Foundation, founded in 1985, is dedicated to promoting computer users' right to use, study, copy, modify, and redistribute computer programs. The FSF promotes the development and use of free (as in freedom) software--particularly the GNU operating system and its GNU/Linux variants--and free documentation for free software. The FSF also helps to spread awareness of the ethical and political issues of freedom in the use of software. Its web site, located at www.fsf.org, is an important source of information about GNU/Linux. Donations to support the FSF's work can be made at http://donate.fsf.org. Its headquarters are in Boston, MA, USA.

About the GNU General Public License

The GNU General Public License (GPL) is a license for software. When a program is released under its terms, every user will have the freedom to share and change it, no matter how they get it. The GPL is the most popular free software license in the world, used by almost three quarters of all free software packages.

FSF Founder and President Richard Stallman wrote the version 1 of the GNU GPL in 1989, and version 2 in 1991. Since then, free software use has increased tremendously, and computing practices have changed, introducing new opportunities and new threats. In 2005, Stallman began writing version 3 of the GPL (GPLv3). In January 2006, the FSF began a systematic process of public review and feedback for this revision, concluding with the final publication of GPLv3 on June 29, 2007.


  View Printable Version


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 )