Microsoft's SUSE Coupons Have No Expiry Date

mw13068 writes "In a recent article in the Seattle Post Intelligencer FSF General Council Eben Moglen points out that the Microsoft SUSE coupons have no expiration date. The result? 'Microsoft can be sure that some coupons will be turned into Novell in return for software after the effective date of GPL 3. Once that has happened, patent defenses will, under the license, have moved out into the broad community and be available to anybody who Microsoft should ever sue for infringement.' Groklaw is also covering the story in it's inimitable way."

Expirey?

[nlitement]

Why doesn't anyone at least proofread the title? What's "expirey" anyway?

Just one.

[WarlockD]

Linus says "You know what, GPL3 is where I like it, so 2.8 is going to be it"
Heck, what about GNU? Can't have linux without GCC or the lib. Unless Novel wants to fully fork their distro, they don't have much of a choice. Someone is going to use GPL3.

Re:Just one.

[stinerman]

Linux will never be GPLv3 because quite a bit of code in it is GPLv2 only (rather than GPLv2 or later). In order to release the entire kernel under GPLv3, all contributors would have to be contacted and asked if the code can be licensed as such. Anyone who can't be reached or does not agree to the license change could derail the entire thing. If Linus was still staunchly for it (which all signs point to that he doesn't like it), he'd have to strip out GPLv2 code and rewrite it with GPLv3 code.

Re:Great,

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, forgot the blog link - http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/blog [columbia.edu]

Re:This doesn't make any sense...

[dAzED1]

you're missing the point.

MS (effectively) bought a bunch of coupons for SuSE. MS is who will be handing out those coupons.

So either MS just shrugs its shoulders, and counts the money they paid to Novell as a loss (meaning - they don't give away the coupons), or they somehow give away all the coupons before anything in SuSE uses GPL3 (which is the only way what you're saying would matter), or..., and the point of the GP, MS uses the coupons realistically, and by so doing sanctions the GPL3 as it is Microsoft giving out the coupons, not Novell.

Re:Great,

[trianglman]

Like the person above you quoted, Microsoft wouldn't exactly be a "distributor", they would be a "conveyor" by giving access and patent litigation protection to a distribution of a GPLv3 piece of software. Thus every other copy of that software would then be protected from patent litigation, no matter who is using it. Thus the paper itself doesn't have to be under GPLv3 to make MS subject to the license. Mind you this would still have to be upheld in court, if Microsoft thought it could fight it. IANAL, but from everything I've read MS is either going to have to cancel this Novell deal completely, and revoke those coupons (don't know if that is possible in the Novell deal or not), or bend over and say thank you, either now or 3+ years of litigation from now.

Re:Great,

[maxume]

The deal is apparently for a few hundred million dollars:

http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS3470257929.html [linuxdevices.com]

To put that in context, Microsoft, each month, has more than a billion dollars in profits. Microsoft sees the deal as a cheap hedge, and probably doesn't mind that it stirs the waters a bit.

Not true, 1 year expiration!

[Anonymous Coward]

Not true...the subscriptions are one-year agreements... agreement [novell.com]

Under the business collaboration agreement, the companies will pursue a variety of joint marketing activities to promote the adoption of the technologies they are collaborating on. In addition, Microsoft will purchase a quantity of coupons from Novell that entitle the recipient to a one-year subscription for maintenance and updates to SUSE Linux Enterprise Server. Microsoft will annually make available approximately 70,000 of these coupons to customers, with a mix of priority and standard support services. By providing its customers with these coupons, Microsoft is enabling companies to benefit from the use of the new software solutions developed through the collaborative research effort, as well as a version of Linux that is covered with respect to Microsoft's intellectual property rights

Re:GPL v3 - Patents - Kernel - Linus

[MichaelSmith]

protection against MS-expected-patent-infringement will be available only if kernel is released under GPLv3

The GNU part of the userland will definitely go to GPLv3, and that is as much a part of linux as the kernel.

Re:This doesn't make any sense...

[thomas.galvin]

No, it's too late already. The GPLv2 explicitly grants the right to redistribute the software under GPLv2 or ANY LATER VERSION. If any coupons have already been handed out, then Microsoft has effectively distributed GPLv3 software and the game is over.

The GPL does not contain this clause. What you're referring to is this (from the GPL HOWTO [gnu.org]):

This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.

This is not a part of the license: it is just the text that most people use to apply the GPL to their code. Many people, however, including the distributors of the Linux kernel, do not include the "any later version" clause. The reasons for this are many and varied, but in the end it generally comes down to not wanting any organization, including the FSF, to be able to re-write the license for your code on the fly. If you include the "any later version" clause, and the GPL is changed to read like the BSD license, or the Apache license, you're out of luck. If, however, you leave out that clause, it is at the author's discretion as to whether or not a new version of the GPL should be applied.

not an issue

[nanosquid]

If Linus was still staunchly for it (which all signs point to that he doesn't like it), he'd have to strip out GPLv2 code and rewrite it with GPLv3 code.

AFAIK, GPLv3 and GPLv2 code can be linked, so nothing needs to be stripped. If they can't track down the author for some old piece of code, they can just leave it under GPLv2.

So, they could probably put a large chunk of the existing code under GPLv3 plus all new code, making the kernel effectively GPLv3 in its entirety (of course, you're free to use the GPLv2 bits under the GPLv2).

Re:GPL v3 - Patents - Kernel - Linus

[slash.duncan]

Five points.

1) I'm skeptical this will force MS into anything in regard to the GPLv3, except /maybe/ if MS continues to distribute coupons after something critical goes GPLv3, in part because I think it likely a court will hold that the agreement was made before the license change and MS can't be held to an ex pos facto license change, and in part because it's really still up in the air whether what they are doing would legally be distribution or not -- it may not be, and no opinions posted here are likely to matter when it comes time for a court to rule on that.

2) With draft-3, Linus has said he's actually quite pleased with how it turned out, now. It remains to be seen whether he'll like the legally binding final version or not, but it's looking rather better than it did. Of course, he's not going to change the license all on his own, either, but his opinion will make a big difference, and even if it didn't, if his opinion on it has changed that much, others may have as well.

3) It'd be a long process, but the kernel /could/ change to GPLv3, regardless of what many say, /if/ most/all of the current major contributors were to agree to it. It'd be quite a long journey, several years, but if all the major contributors agreed that's a lot of code that could be switched first to GPLv2 or 3, and later to v3 only, without any rewriting at all. Given the existing rate of code turnover, within three years or so I'd say a good 2/3 to 3/4 of the code could be GPLv2/GPLv3 dual licensed with little effort at all. After another couple years of more concentrated effort, culminating in a seriously focused coding marathon much like the Bitkeeper>GIT transition (which many thought couldn't be done either, at least and keep the same productivity), the remaining code should have been rewritten, and the GPLv2 side of the dual license could be dropped.

The license couldn't be turned on a dime, and it WOULD take the agreement of nearly all current and former major contributors, but it COULD be changed, given a time frame of several years and sufficient motivation to do so.

4) I've not yet read the Groklaw article (I will), but the point you quote about the patent protection only applying if the kernel is GPLv3 is valid -- for the kernel, not for Novel/SuSE. IOW, for the patent protection to apply to /the/ /kernel/ the kernel will have to be GPLv3 licensed. The protection in the license can only apply to something licensed under it, so of course, it could only apply to the kernel if it's so licensed. However, as you point out, that could be a VERY good reason to switch to GPLv3, quite apart from any other reason. The way patents are going, it may be that the kernel will ultimately /have/ to switch, or lose the momentum it currently has to something else (say Sun's Solaris kernel, if they license it GPLv3 as they are making noises saying they might do). It could well be that within a few years, few businesses will risk deployment of a GPLv2 kernel due to perceived (note that word, perceived, they may or may not have been legally validated) patent issues, and the money now funding all those full time Linux kernel devs will be funding something else (Solaris development?) if the Linux kernel isn't in the process of going GPLv3 by then.

5) During the dual GPLv2/GPLv3 license period, and this applies to anything licensed GPLv2 or later as well, the license says at YOUR option, meaning each user/distributor can choose the version they wish. Some have claimed that such would allow users to force distributors to the v3 terms if they wished. That isn't so, and the FSF doesn't hold it to be so either. It simply means that anyone downstream can redistribute with only one of the licenses if so desired, rather than both. It does NOT mean anyone can hold a specific distributor to the terms of one or the other licenses if they choose to be held to the other one. Thus, MS (if it is held to

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

I for one welcome these helpful explanations...

[vorlich]

at least it makes the whole thing almost as exciting as the pirates v ninjas posts on the treasure ship story and it reminds me of this helpful explanation of the offside rule: (citizens of countries where football is called soccer should stop reading at this point.) http://www.boreme.com/boreme/funny-2006/offside-4- girls-p1.php [boreme.com]

Re:This doesn't make any sense...

[gregorio]

Yes, you can. It's Fry's responsibility to make sure that you can get the source code for any GPL'ed software they have on their shelves (usually fulfilled with a download site that's on the software package).

No he can't. Fry is not distributing software, it's distributing a physical media. You people are all insane if you think that software licensing terms can be applied to retail stores. They're in the business of selling boxes, not in the software licensing market.

Anyone with half a brain already knows that Fry's will never have anything to do with whatever wording is written in the box or inside the box. From a retail store (legal) perspective, it's just a box with someone else's product inside.

What's next? Nerds writing "if you distribute this product you're allowing me to buy anything for free" inside their submissions, so they can get free stuff at Fry's?

Even the patent clause, it's weaker than most EULAs. In fact, stuff needs to have little strenght at all to be weak, so that makes the patent clause null instead of just weak. Expecting a judge to drop patent litigation rights because of product distribution is beyond stupid.

Re:Great,

[Ajehals]

Nope. The only person who decides on the license that a piece of software is licensed under is the copyright owner, not the distributor, that is true for software licensed under the BSD, GPL, a Proprietary or any other license.

With the GPL the idea is that the distributor is only allowed to distribute the software (modified or unmodified) if it is distributed under the same terms as it was received under. If the distributor doesn't like that license then they simply cannot distribute, the license cannot change without permission from the copyright owner. This is obviously better than proprietary software which usually cannot be distributed nor modified.

What the distributor can do is take GPL v2 code and fork it to keep it GPL v2, obviously that code would need to be maintained, and any updates from the original code base would not be usable if it was changed to GPL v3.

As for forks, even if you fork a project and modify it a lot, if it is a derivative you must still distribute it under the license you received the original code under, to get out from under the license you need to rewrite it.

Its sensible really; I couldn't grab a load of GPL code and release it as BSD, or as closed source, nor could I grab the source of MSWord 2007 fork it and GPL it.

Emacs 22

[yankpop]

Emacs 22 is vaporware

Not so much: http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2006/06/shiny-and- new-emacs-22.html [blogspot.com]

yp.