Microsoft States GPL3 Doesn't Apply to Them 509
pilsner.urquell writes "Microsoft yesterday issued a statement proclaiming that it isn't bound by GPLv3. Groklaw has a very humorous rejoinder to the company's claim. From that article: '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 ... 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.'" EWeek has further analysis of this proclamation.
Enlighten me... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Enlighten me... (Score:5, Insightful)
FTA -
I don't know all the details of this certificate deal with Novell, but it seems that Microsoft is just covering themselves by saying that their certificates don't cover GPL3, just software licensed under previous GPL's, but Novell is going to provide GPL3 software to Microsoft certificate customers anyway.
I can see issues brewing, but it's nothing like what the summary and headline on this story claim.
I liked this bit... (Score:2, Funny)
HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Re:Enlighten me... (Score:5, Informative)
I always thought the legal logic was a little weak, myself. However now that MS is publicly trying to retroactively change the meaning of already-distributed vouchers, I can only assume that their lawyers are actually afraid that this argument would stand up in court.
This statement by MS amuses me to no end, actually. It betrays how afraid they are of the growing power of Linux (in terms of both consumer acceptability and legal power).
Re:Enlighten me... (Score:5, Informative)
The GPLv3 contains explicit language which states (paraphrasing): "By distributing this software, you must also provide rights to use any patents you own which are in the software. If you do not extend this patent use, you are not allowed to distribute the code. Moreover, by distributing this software, you agree that this patent use right applies to anyone who might eventually get a copy of the code. That is, you extend a license to use the implicated patents to the community at large."
(Again, I'm paraphrasing this highly, the actual wording is much more precise.) Basically GPLv3 requires that anyone who distributes the software agree that they are distributing it without patent encumbrance. So when Novell distributes Linux (with GPLv3 code in it), it means that they are giving their users the assurance that they will not sue them for patent violations. So if MS were actually distributing GPLv3 code, then they could not sue Linux or Linux users for patent violations: they have given us a license to use their patents, as stipulated by the GPLv3. (If they claim otherwise, then they were in violation of the terms of the GPLv3 themselves, and can be sued for copyright infringement.)
Of course it really depends whether MS is actually "distributing" GPLv3 code.
People tend to forget that the GPLv2 had similar (but not as explicit) requirements: you were not allowed to distribute the software if there were patent restrictions. But the GPLv3 makes it much more explicit, and specifically states that patent rights are extended to the entire community (i.e. anyone who may eventually legitimately receive a copy of the code will have the rights extended to them).
Strict legalism isn't the most important thing (Score:5, Insightful)
The critical aspect of the vouchers controversy is not whether MS is definitely bound by the GPL to refrain from patent litigation against corporate Linux users;the critical aspect is, How does this affect the perceptions of the potential victims, er, customers? If you consider the potential for the voucher-and-GPLv3 combination to defuse MS' patent threats in any possible litigation, together with the refusal of most Linux distributors to play along with MS, the net FUD effect of MS' patent-threat campaign would seem to be significantly diminished. THAT, I submit, is the critical factor in this whole circus.
Re:Enlighten me... (Score:5, Informative)
Microsoft has bought Suse vouchers from Novell, and sold them to customers. The vouchers have no expiration date.
According to FSF lawyers, when someone hands one in for a copy of Suse, then at that moment Microsoft distributes that version of the software; if it contains GPLv3 code, then there you are.
See this Groklaw article [groklaw.net]. Eben Moglen knows copyright law.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
t's been 14 seconds since you hit 'reply'.
Re:Enlighten me... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Enlighten me... (Score:5, Informative)
The way I always understood it, using the "any later version" language is akin to saying "I beleive in free software, the FSF and I'm in it for the long haul".
Re:Enlighten me... (Score:5, Informative)
Software is not automatically subjected to GPLV3 with the default language of "or, at your option, any later version". All that means is that someone can choose to distribute a GPLV2 application with that language under either GPLV2 or GPLV3. It's each individual distributors choice.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Software is not automatically subjected to GPLV3 with the default language of "or, at your option, any later version". All that means is that someone can choose to distribute a GPLV2 application with that language under either GPLV2 or GPLV3. It's each individual distributors choice.
To make it even clearer, only the authors (not just any old distributor) of the work can exercise the option to distribute it under a later version of the license, and all the authors have to agree on it. For example, I can't download a GPLv2 linux kernel, add a couple of lines of new code, and then redistribute the whole thing under GPLv3.
Similarly, If Linus Torvalds decided tomorrow to change to GPLv3, anyone who has ever contributed to the kernel could challenge him (if his or her code is still in the
Re:Enlighten me... (Score:5, Informative)
No, absolutely not! Any redistributor gets to choose. This is the language that MOST GPL 2 programs use:
The Linux kernel is DIFFERENT. Its terms are:
In the case of the Linux kernel, it started out from the beginning as GPLV2 only.
In the case of most every other GPL application, the redistributor gets to decide which version of the license that he is using.
Not from the beginning (Score:5, Informative)
No.
Linux 0.01 was distributed under the following license:
This kernel is (C) 1991 Linus Torvalds, but all or part of it may be redistributed provided you do the following:
- Full source must be available (and free), if not with the distribution then at least on asking for it.
- Copyright notices must be intact. (In fact, if you distribute only parts of it you may have to add copyrights, as there aren't (C)'s in all files.) Small partial excerpts may be copied without bothering with copyrights.
- You may not distibute this for a fee, not even "handling" costs.
The Linux 0.12 release notes said:
The Linux 0.95 release notes said:
Linux-0.95 is NOT public domain software, but is copyrighted by me. The copyright conditions are the same as those imposed by the GNU copyleft: get a copy of the GNU copyleft at any major ftp-site (if it carries linux, it probably carries a lot of GNU software anyway, and they all contain the copyright).
The copyleft is pretty detailed, but it mostly just means that you may freely copy linux for your own use, and redistribute all/parts of it, as long as you make source available (not necessarily in the same distribution, but you make it clear how people can get it for nothing more than copying costs). Any changes you make that you distribute will also automatically fall under the GNU copyleft.
NOTE! The linux unistd library-functions (the low-level interface to linux: system calls etc) are excempt from the copyright - you may use them as you wish, and using those in your binary files won't mean that your files are automatically under the GNU copyleft. This concerns /only/ the unistd-library and those (few) other library functions I have
written: most of the rest of the library has it's own copyrights (or is
public domain). See the library sources for details of those.
Linux 0.99.2 was the first version that actually included the GPLv2 COPYING file.
Until Linux 2.4.0-test8 was released, no particular version of the GPL was actually specified for the kernel as a whole*, although it was clear that GPLv2 applied. Section 9 of GPLv2 states:
9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns.
Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.
The copyright status of Linux is a little more complex than most people would like (and than some people would like to believe.)
Footnote:
* This isn't true for individual files. To this day, some files in Linux are explicitly 'v2 or later', some are 'v2 only', some are BSD-licensed, etc. The only common thing is that (except for some disputed firmware files) they are all GPLv2-compatible.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Turn about is fair play, as far as I am concerned. I didn't purchare
Win2K under License 6. Why should I now be subject to your change
in license only because I needed a Service Pack to fix your crappy
software?
If there was truely justice in this world, Microsoft would have been
broken up into at least 5 different pieces (operating units) at the
end of the DOJ anti-trust trial. It was GWBush's "free enterprise,
but only for the really big c
Re:Enlighten me... (Score:4, Informative)
Unless they radically change the way they operate, the FSF can't go bankrupt because it doesn't carry any debt. Further, I believe that the GPL trademarks and copyrights are retained by RMS personally and he would have to have a *very* radical change of lifestyle to be in any danger of bankruptcy. He lives very cheaply, doesn't own a house, a car or a mobile phone, and doesn't borrow money for any purpose.
The situation you describe isn't impossible, but it's very, very unlikely. It's far more likely that ongoing updates to the GPL will continue on an as-needed basis in an effort to continue maintaining the four freedoms. Anything can happen, but I think the odds are that software developers who believe in the four freedoms are best served by the "or later" language.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The missing point is until he gets hit by a bus.
I haven't seen RMS' will, but I'm certain that he's made arrangements for his estate to be passed on to someone else who believes just as strongly in Free Software as he does.
The man is far from stupid, and he consistently demonstrates amazing foresight.
Re:Enlighten me... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
When you buy Vista (Score:2, Interesting)
Oh, and they can change the terms as they wish just by posting to their webpage.
Re:Enlighten me... (Score:5, Informative)
I am not a lawyer, but: (Score:5, Insightful)
MS have not distributed GPL3 code, no matter how much we would like them to have. They have offered a covenant not to sue Novell's customers, and vouchers offering support for Novell's product. This is very different. None of this makes MS a party to the GPL because MS do not need any kind of license or copyright provision just to say "I won't sue Joe Bloggs, and I'll help him with his technical issues". No matter what the FooBarSpecialLicense attached to the product Joe Bloggs happens to own says!
(And if you think otherwise ask yourself this: what part of copyright law would MS have broken by saying "I'm happy to assist with Joe's problem but I don't agree to your license agreement"? On what grounds could you sue them? Or if they say "Mr Novell, if you sell Joe a copy of product X, I'm happy to talk to him about any problems he has with it; but I don't agree to your license agreement" What would you sue them for? If there is no potential copyright breach, there is no license.)
What the Novell-MS deal could have impinged on was Novell's right to distribute SUSE at all. If they were unable to offer the equal patent cover required by the GPL (and clearly they are unable to extend Microsoft's offer of patent protection to non-customers without Microsoft's consent), then they would have been unable to meet the terms of the GPL3 and thus unable to legally distribute the software. Except that Eben Moglen kindly gave them a get-out clause at the end of paragraph 11 of the GPL.
In most countries, as I understand it, even if Novell hadn't been given a get-out clause, the only result would have been the Novell-MS deal being "frustrated". "Frustration" is where an unforseen circumstance prevents a contract from being possible to fulfill. This appears to me to have happened. An unforseen change (the FSF deliberately altering the GPL licensing terms to affect the deal) would have prevented Novell from being able to fulfill its end of the Novell-MS deal. It wouldn't have been able to distribute SUSE under GPL3 because it couldn't extend MS's patent provisions beyond what MS offered in the initial contract without asking MS first. Thus the Novell-MS deal would get terminated, and there might have been a little wrangle about "reasonable recompense for the services provided". (Novell would need to go along to a court to get the contract declared frustrated, however.)
But with the get-out clause in para 11, even that won't happen.
All up, Eben Moglen's grand plan doesn't seem to amount to a hill of beans.
Disclaimer: Once again, this isn't legal advice. It is based on an engineer's shaky memory of engineering law lectures, and has the potential of being utterly wrong.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Something I would like to add is that with the GPLv3 as I read it, it says that when you receive the code you are giving a license and rights from the copyright owners. then it goes on to describe the pate
Re:Enlighten me... (Score:5, Informative)
No they can't.
This isn't about code that MS has used. It's about the patents Microsoft has been threatening FOSS with.
- Microsoft is distributing certificates entitling their customers to support and updates to SUSE Linux Enterprise Server.
- When Microsoft customers who're entitled to updates on their SUSE Linux Enterprise Server installs get GPL3 updates, Microsoft will have distributed GPL3 code.
- GPL3 includes patent defenses which prevent a distributor suing for patent infringement in the software they're distributing.
The result of this nice little combo is that Microsoft has accidentally indemnified all Linux users against their own patent threats.Of course, since Microsoft has always said they only intend to use their patents defensively, they should have no problem with this interpretation of the situation, just accept it, get on with business, and stop the 235 patent FUD.
They're not doing that, instead they're dancing a two-step with Novell where Microsoft says they won't support their customers with GPL3 code. That would potentially leave them open to lawsuits for breach of contract, but Novell has stepped up to the plate and said they will support Microsoft customers with GPL3 updates, even if MS disavows it.
That's why PJ and others are so light-hearted about this. It's shown just how scanty the emperor's new suit is, and how complicit Novell is in it's ties to Microsoft's FUD.
Re: (Score:2)
"GPLv2, or later"
My emphasis. Microsoft is not bound by GPLv3 by distributing code marked GPLv2 or later, provided they keep their obligations re. GPLv2. However, I doubt that SuSE/Novel will stay non-GPLv3 for long when e.g. gcc starts being GPLv3 or later.
Re:Enlighten me... (Score:4, Interesting)
"GPLv2, or later" allows anybody, MS included, to chose "GPLv2" and ignore anything written in the GPLv3 license.
IANAL, but my guess is releasing your code as GPLv4 only would be the same thing as not releasing it till the GPLv4 was published.
The current conversation is based on the (highly likely) premise that Novel will put GPLv3 code in SUSE before MS shifts all their licenses. This is speculation but it is almost guaranteed given the amount of SUSE userland owned by the FSF.
Only if you want to (Score:2)
At your option, so please stop spreading misinformation. Thank you.
Guess Again (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, you can. "GPLv2, or later"
You are (intentionally?) misrepresenting what the GPL says. If Microsoft distributes GPLv2 then ***Microsoft*** gets to choose if they are bound by GPLv2 or GPLv3. Example, I downloaded Apache back when it was covered by GPL2. I can make changes to it and distribute those changes under v2 or v3 if I want to. The people who made Apache cannot force me to upgrade to v3. However, now that v3 is out, Apache will be distributed under v3. If I now download Apache, I'm stuck in version 3.
So the answer to grandparent's question, "can MS be bound by GPL3 if they avoided using GPL3ed code" is that yes, MS avoids being bound by it. Basically they would have to never update linux - or fork it - but what they have right now is GPL2 and GPL2 it shall stay.
read GPL2 for yourself [gnu.org]
If the Program
specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any
later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions
either of that version or of any later version published by the Free
Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of
this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software
Foundation.
Re:Guess Again...... NOT! (Score:4, Interesting)
This is a flawed assumption. Microsoft has inadvertently relinquished all say in WHICH version is distributed in their name, that lies in the domain of Novell who have jumped on this and said (likely to ingratiate themselves back into the open source community) that they will only distribute the most up to date version of SUSE regardless of whether it has GPL3 OR GPL2 code. This is what Microsoft is dreading and can do nothing about since they never stipulated in the patent covenant agreement which code they were giving covenant protection for, only that it was Suse enterprise linux. This is why Microsoft has turned pale and are trying to turn themselves inside out to vainly free themselves of this hideous situation they have gotten themselves into, and hideous indeed it is. Novell is not playing the puppet on this one and aren't doing what they are told (nor do they need to either since it isn't in their agreement).
Novell will provide versions of SUSE with GPL3 code to any person that shows a voucher branded with microsoft's consent to "distribute" a copy, the covenant protections of the microsoft/novell agreement AND the gpl3 terms of distribution will flow to the reciever, and then to any other person that the copy of SUSE is distributed to. Microsoft can do NOTHING about this, they've already done the hard work and passed out the vouchers, thousands and thousands of them, they have "distributed" SUSE linux to the masses essentially (with no expiry date I might add) which is stipulated in their agreement (in other words they MUST pass out all the vouchers according to their agreement with Novell), now all one has to do is wait for the Novell to integrate new GPL3 licensed code, which they have said they will do, show your shiny voucher, smile, pick up you shiny new novell cds/dvd and load the distro onto bittorrent, then laugh evilly as all of microsoft's carefully calculated effort goes up in smoke. This has essentially undone a decade of patent hoarding and scheming to put linux and all gpl code into microsoft's pocket. If it were not true then you wouldn't hear microsoft screaming so loudly that it isn't.
Re:Guess Again (Score:5, Insightful)
If Novell wants to update the bulk of the userland programs in SLES they will surely at some point need to embrace GPLv3. It's that or fork the v2 versions and maintain them on their own.
Re:Guess Again (Score:4, Informative)
IIRC, their whole raison d'etre is because they don't like the limitations of the GPL with respect to commercial software.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Quoting from GPL itself:
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's the complete section in question (emphasis added):
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
A license is a form of contract and lays its foundations on contract law. Which means that all the standard issues (e.g. consideration, acceptance, etc.) still apply. While consideration is usually built-in by the fact that the license provides you with rights to use something you wouldn't otherwise have, other standard contract issues still apply.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes sir. The GPL is a unilateral contract offer that one side has already agreed to. Thus it goes into effect as soon as the other side agrees. Since Microsoft has not explicitly agreed to the license (or explicitly distributed GPLed code, thus signifying acceptance or violation of copyright law) then Microsoft is not bound. That's my interpretation anyway. Providing a credit offer to pay for someone else's
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, that's not correct. The distributor made a copy and gave it to you. This is comparable to purchasing a book or CD. You don't "copy" the book or CD when you acquire it. The distributor made or otherwise obtained copies that he's providing you. This is what's known as the "first sale".
The GPL only kicks in when you make a non-backup copy of the copy you received. (Standard copyright law makes it legal for you to make backup copies
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Why would you ever use the "or later" clause? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I know I wouldn't do it, but it seems many software authors have. It's their call, of course.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And yeah, it does create a situation where you basically have to trust the FSF not to do something nasty. But I don't think this is a huge problem. What's the worst that can happen if I license my work under "GPL v3 or later"? They can write v4 which is so insane that nobody wants it; in which case, people would just choose to distribute my software under v
Re: (Score:2)
I hereby declare... (Score:5, Funny)
kooky is as kooky does (Score:4, Informative)
No, no-one has ever suggested that GPLv3 somehow permits the unauthorized distribution of proprietary software. This is your own kooky reading of the debate.
What has been claimed is that by participating in the distribution of GPLv3 programs via the SUSE certificates, MS will be forced to comply with GPLv3 with respect to the software *in the SUSE distribution*. If true, this means that they forfeit their right to sue anyone, whether or not they are using SUSE, over any patents they claim are violated by the GPLv3 software that MS distributes.
I can't comment on whether or not this interpretation will hold up in court, and of course SUSE doesn't include any GPLv3 code *yet*. But your suggestion that RMS is somehow hoping to use GPLv3 to gain access to MS software is just plain wrong.
yp.
Turnabout is fair play... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Now, if MS servers were hosting software licensed under GPLv3, that would be an issue. But that's not happening. MS isn't even granting people access to software on Novell's servers, or handing out vouchers that Novell will exchange for such permissions. So the GPL
No EULA applies anywhere, ever. (Score:3, Informative)
Note that IANAL and that this is not valid legal advice not an endorsement of any practices explictiely forbidden by EULAs.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
CU
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
When you buy something from a store, a contract exists between you and he store to supply goods in exchange for payment. Microsoft is not a party to this contract.
The EULA imposes a whole bunch of additional restrictions in return for access to the software which the store contracted to supply to you. Seeing as by agreeing to the EULA you gain nothing to which you werent already entitled to (under the contract with the store) the EULA isn't worth the paper its pri
Has it ever been tested? (Score:4, Interesting)
Serious question here:
Has there been any successful court action enforcing any version of the GPL?
Not settlements. I'm talking about an instance where a court in the U.S. has upheld GPL against a violator.
Re:Has it ever been tested? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
O.k., to simplify what I read, a company placed their open development under GPL and the SAE wanted it closed so they could charge fees. Further they said it was derivitive of their owned work. The company won against the SAE. I don't see this as the test. It is a test, and an important baby step to the full test, but still not the difinitive one.
Is there one where Company A releases code under GPL, Company B releases a derived projec
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Is there one where Company A releases code under GPL, Company B releases a derived project under a closed license and the case went to court?
If the GPL has never gone to court in this way, it's for the same reason that continental ballistic missiles have never been used in combat. No one doubts that continental ballistic missiles could blow the face off half the planet, so it never escalates that far.
The threat of copyright law (because if you don't have the GPL, all you have is someone else's IP and no license to use it) it is substantial enough that anyone who actually consults a lawyer will try to avoid taking it to court.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Has it ever been tested? (Score:5, Insightful)
Jesus Tapdancing Christ, please read the fine article:
The GPL wasn't ruled on. It's never been tested by an actual ruling in the United States. Personally I think that GPL2 is a completely valid and applicable license (i.e. it terminates if it's breached, leaving you violating copyright), but there's no case law to directly support that, and all the wishing in the world won't make it otherwise.
Re:Has it ever been tested? (Score:5, Informative)
No. There have been cases of infringement, but a case has never been necessary - some diplomatic talk by a FSF lawyer has always been enough to let infringers see the error of their ways.
There's no real need to "uphold" the GPL, it is utterly rock solid. Anybody is free to choose whether they want to accept its terms or not, if you accept it only gives you extra options you didn't previously have (like being allowed to distribute software that contains other people's GPL code, under the GPL).
The bite is: if you don't accept the GPL, then you have no license to the software at all, and default copyright law situation applies - you're not allowed to modify or distribute software relying on GPL'ed parts at all!
Fighting the GPL would mean arguing that you voluntarily accepted its terms (how else did you get the right to modify / distribute), got extra options without any payment or anything in return - but still you're not actually bound by those terms. Good luck.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice sentiment but I'd like to see it tested in court. Related, but different, those that thought the "shrinkwrap" license was rock solid found out otherwise.
I think "the lawyers" need to find a good solid case to take to court. They need to stop accept
Re:Has it ever been tested? (Score:5, Informative)
By default, under copyright law, you DO NOT have the right to copy/modify/distribute someone else's code. If the GPL is invalid, or you don't fully accept its terms, then if you copy/modify/distribute code that was licensed to you only under the GPL, then you are violating copyright law. (Which no one on the proprietary side of the camp is going to do anything to weaken)
The only way anyone gets the right to copy/modify/distribute code that was licenses under the GPL is by accepting the terms of the GPL. And from there its simple contract law.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There's an interesting aspect to this in regard to the RIAA.
If Microsoft can argue in court that selling vouchers redeemable for a thing is not the same as distributing the thing itself, then that surely opens the way for web sites to legally sell
Re:Has it ever been tested? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you want to distribute code, you need a license, or you are in violation of copyright law. So if the GPL is invalid, you don't have a license, since the GPL is the only thing giving you such a license to begin with. This simple logic has kept the GPL out of the courts, since (except for SCO) lawyers and the people that pay for them generally do not like unwinnable cases.
This current matter with Microsoft and the GPL3 is a completely separate issue, though. Microsoft aren't directly distributing code; they are just handing out vouchers for said code (or will be, if they continue handing out vouchers after Novell starts to distribute GPL3 code - which will be soon). That is Microsoft's defense - they aren't distributing the code themselves. Yet, if a major lawsuit should ensue between Microsoft and a Linux vendor, the issue may arise nonetheless: Even if Microsoft are not distributing the code, they are helping a partner to distribute it. This implies that they are tacitly not contesting certain claims in that code, or that the basic business model implied by that code is not seen as illegitimate by Microsoft. I am sure the lawyers can argue this for a few years.
Re:Has it ever been tested? (Score:4, Interesting)
Every IP lawyer I know (and I know several) advises their clients to stay away from writing or contributing to GPL projects, especially if the client sells closed source products as well. If their client's business model revolves around selling services based on those GPL projects, it's probably ok, but if the any part of the client's business model involves selling licenses to software products, it's not clear how wide the GPL can spread.
Let me give you a hypothetical example. Consider an open source product that has a plugin model (could be Gimp, could be Firefox, whatever). In order to write a plugin for that product, I need to include a GPLed header that describes the plugin interface. By including that header, does it mean that I'm required to open source my plugin?
The answer is that nobody knows, because it's never been adjudicated. Lawyers have opinions about it, but until a judge has ruled on it, they're just opinions[1].
Given that nobody knows, if there's important intellectual property behind that plugin (maybe it's a 3d rendering algorithm, some nifty DSP for audio, whatever), any competent lawyer would advise their client to stay away from authoring that plugin - it's safer to stick with products that have non viral licenses, otherwise you run the risk of being forced to open source your entire product just because you included a public header.
[1]To a lawer, an "opinion" is a statement of their understanding of the law (whereas an "opinion" to a lay person is a statement of belief).
Re:Has it ever been tested? (Score:4, Informative)
Well, yeah, but you're saying the opposite of what the post you're replying to is talking about. You're saying that many lawyers worry the GPL is TOO viral, and that may well be the case -- who knows how the courts will interpret it should someone push it that far? But that's a far cry from saying the GPL may not be valid at all, since copyright law already restricts any redistribution and therefore no GPL violator would have the right to redistribute in the first place unless they agreed to the license.
Re:Has it ever been tested? (Score:4, Insightful)
We just don't know, and won't until it's adjudicated.
OTOH, as Eben Moglen is fond of pointing out, it's unlikely that there are any lawyers foolish enough to take the GPL to court, so that will probably never happen. Even the fools at SCO aren't dumb enough to try seriously arguing that the GPL is invalid.
The reason no one wants to try to invalidate it is very simple: If you successfully invalidate the GPL, all you've achieved is to prove yourself guilty of copyright infringement. Doh! What you have to do is to argue that the GPL is valid, so that you actually have permission to distribute the software you don't own, *but* that the rather clear and mild stipulations attached to that permission somehow shouldn't apply to you.
That's a really hard argument to make. So hard that no one wants to try. Especially when they know that someone of the caliber of Eben Moglen is just waiting to slash through their necessarily tortuous logic.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you realize how stupid that just sounded:
Unless a contract, a license, or other document has stood up under court testing, it will remain in questi
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like (Score:2, Insightful)
Twister (Score:5, Funny)
That's the most bass-ackwards mangling of Twister I've ever heard. Didn't these people have childhoods!?
Wait a second (Score:5, Informative)
The core of Linux, for example, is pretty much guaranteed to stay at GPLv2 (not just for "Linus didn't like it" reasons, but also pretty big logistical issues like "getting every copyright holder to agree on the change").
I'm guessing the bits and pieces that make up any distro will gradually contain more and more GPLv3 software -- then they basically have to deal with it (accept the v3 license to redistribute those parts, or not accept it and NOT distribute the new versions of that software).
If they (or anyone) wants to fork software based on the last GPLv2 version and maintain the fork themselves, they're welcome to, of course.
But are they even distributing at all? Can someone clarify the certificate thing for me?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There are two arguments being brought up with regards to this:
1 - The GPLv2 license has an option to specify that code is licensed by "GPL version 2 or later". If this is the case then the argument goes that many of those who wrote code under GPLv2 could simply say "well now my code is licensed under GPLv3".
2 - People who have those vouchers from MS For copies of SUSE may hold on to them until parts of the linux kernel and other related
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Sure, they can say that, but that only applies to those who accept the code from that point on or those who redistribute it with GPLv3.
You can't retroactively change a license agreement. I can license *you* my code under the BSD license and then license *Microsoft* t
Re: (Score:2)
They can say that, but the code originally distributed under the GPL2 can still be used and redistributed under the GPL2, even if the original author republishes it as GPL3. (Of course, the republished version is bound by v3).
The purpose of the "or later" cl
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What, they're going to revoke my existing GPL2 installations?
From the article (Score:4, Insightful)
How very interesting. The Novell support certificates that Microsoft distributes don't entitle the recipient to get support for GPLv3 code. So why would anyone buy one of these things from them?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Most the time those things from big companies are printed in high quality glossy paper and look so nice! Maybe they could be framed and set up for display.
They're clearly party to the distribution of.... (Score:4, Informative)
GNU/Linux to anyone with a Microsoft voucher. After this deal, Microsoft
recommended Novell's GNU/Linux distribution and distributed those vouchers
to anyone who wanted one.
So they are basically contracting Novell to distribute GNU/Linux on their
behalf. In legal terms, they're "procuring the distribution of" GPL'd
software, and that's covered by copyright.
I think it's clear that Microsoft and Novell are together distributing GPL'd
software, and the GPLv3 project's team of lawyers are convinced that
Microsoft is indeed distributing GPL'd software.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
MS for copyright reduction? (Score:3, Insightful)
Good news - GPLv3 not viral! (Score:3, Interesting)
What did we get?.. (Score:3, Interesting)
It will have worked, when a piece of Microsoft's code is opened for all to see. Wake me up then...
Re:What did we get?.. (Score:4, Interesting)
And saying 'GPL3 doesnt apply to us' is disingenious, becuase it may, or may not. It applies, if they accept some GPL3 code from someone or somewhere, that they dont have any other license to use (incorporate into their own code and/or modify, and distribute - not just 'run it'), then it does in fact apply to their use thereof.
Presumably, MS' lawyers are smart enough to recognize that, but even more so, they are smart enough to use GPL3 for as much FUD as they can, to try and scare people (who dont already understand what the GPL is really abouyt) away from GPL3 (or even 2) software.
Does GPL allow for source in 'dead tree' format? (Score:2)
END COMMUNICATION
A little to declare victory, IMHO (Score:2)
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.
I translate this as the following:
GPL Team: We just released GPL3.
MS: It doesn't apply to us.
GPL Team: We win!
I'd wait until a little more time has passed and lawyers on both sides hash it over a bit more before declaring victory. Especially against MS.
Pointless Microsoft Bashing... (Score:4, Insightful)
With the Support certificates, microsoft was deliberately having a competitor actually handle the support and touch the GPL code. Which is all fine and good under GPL2.
The GPL3 patent covenant is even more toxic, especially to a company like Microsoft which has a lot of patents. So they are simply saying "our certificates will not support anything on GPLv3".
In many ways, this is Microsoft's paranoid overreaction, as they are not by any means a contributor to the code, even if the certificats were valid for GPLv3, but it is an understandable conservative reaction.
Since Microsoft has never and WILL NEVER contribute or distribute GPLv3 code, yes, the statement is perfectly correct.
it probably, effectively, does not (Score:3, Insightful)
What do all these have in common. It uses current cash to cover up misdeeds and protect future profits. Who in this world has a billion dollars to sue MS for violating the GPL. Do I see any hands? Then it does not apply to them right now. Perhaps in 5 or 10 years, if someone actually finds the money to sue, it will. But then it probably won't make difference.
I hate to admit this, but MS may be correct... (Score:3, Informative)
To all those who doubt this... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Correct - It most probably doesn't (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For one thing Novell does contribute a good bit of code that most to things like X and like it or not Mono.
I know some people don't like the Mono project but things like Beagle, Banshee, and F-Spot are very popular.
SAX which I think is about the best X configuration program around is also GPL. More distro's should use it.
How much code has Suse/Novell put into Linux? My guess is a lot. Then you have Novell as one of the heroes in the SCO case or has everybody forgotten that?
I wish people w
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"because most large corporations are sick to death of the hoops they have to jump through for the GPL"
Who do you think was in the bi-weekly meetings with Eben Moglen et al. for the past 18 months working on the GPL drafts?
I refer you to part of a transcript from a recent speech that Moglen gave at the Scottish society for Computers and Law annual lecture for 2007:
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you mean in terms of raw sales, it's OsX, not Linux. If you mean in terms of percentage userbase growth, it's QNX, not Linux. Please stop citing factoids that are actually just guesses. Linux is neither the fastest growing nor the most pervasive unix on the market, and it's unlikely that it ever will be (before OsX put BSD in that seat, it was Solaris.)
Re:Buhuhuhuhu. (Score:4, Informative)
Try googling my nick some time. When you realize that the several thousand dollar bounty I arranged for the Nintendo DS TCP stack has no use to me, since you can't use it in the commercial kit and since I'm a commercial developer, maybe you'll start to understand why I find it so offensive that you all assume I don't give back. I give back a hell of a lot, and I dislike being insulted by people who almost certainly don't do anywhere near as much for their communities as I do just because I find the paranoid limitations of the GPL distasteful, and just because I point out what a tremendous amount of work those limitations throw away.
Please stop being such a bigot.
Re:Buhuhuhuhu. (Score:4, Insightful)
If and when you can show me a company where GPL is a significant asset over BSD/MIT, great, please fill me in. Until then, I respectfully disagree, as a businessman who's had to deal with these things. Making the statement is easy. Defending it isn't.... what?
Dude, when did I ever say anyone didn't have the right to GPL? You're ranting about correcting something I didn't actually say. At no point did I ever imply that people didn't have the right to release their own source under whatever license they wanted. I respect that people have that right, and with all due apologies to Voltaire, "sir, I may disagree with your choice of license, but I shall defend to the death your right to choose it."
That doesn't mean I can't explain why I disagree with it. Please stop putting words into my mouth. All I said was that the limitations that the GPL imposes have significant costs to projects which use it, and that I find the ramifications thereof sad. At no point did I say any of the things you just attempted to shame me for.
Why is it that any time I speak on behalf of the BSD, GPL people start arguing with fantasies and blaming me for what their imaginations said?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Combine that with that those same people - again, maybe this is chance - finally realizing that corporations aren't j