...making Linux just a little more fun!
Rick Moen [rick at linuxmafia.com]
This is a small excerpt from the discussion thread at Linux Weekly New, in response to LWN's news story about a "statement" posted at Microsoft Corporation's Web site, claiming they are not, and never will be, subject to the provisions of the GNU General Public License v. 3.
LWN is subscriber-supported, and well worth the minor expense.
http://lwn.net/Articles/240822/
*They're involved in the distribution*
Posted Jul 6, 2007 14:31 UTC (Fri) by guest coriordan
Microsoft arranged for Novell to give GNU/Linux to anyone with an MS voucher, and then proceeded to distribute those vouchers. Sounds like distribution to me (with a middle man which isn't legally relevant).
According to the GPLv3 lawyers, they're "procuring the distribution of" GPL'd software, and that requires permission from the copyright holder. So Microsoft are either distributing under the permissions which the GPL grants them, or they are violating copyright.
And, as I understand it, there's no time limit on those vouchers. Novell might have to declare the deal non-applicable (and thus the "protection" too) when they distribute GPLv3 software, or maybe Microsoft will have to make that declaration.
*They're involved in the distribution*
Posted Jul 6, 2007 15:09 UTC (Fri) by guest moltonel
In an eWeek article, they have a quote from "Bruce Lowry, a Novell spokesperson" saying "Customers who have already received SUSE Linux Enterprise certificates from Microsoft are not affected in any way by this, since their certificates were fully delivered and redeemed prior to the publication of the GPLv3".
So it sounds like Microsoft does not plan to be "distributing" GPL code in this manner anymore, and that what has already been distributed is protected the GPL's grandfather clause.
Well, that may not be a huge victory (Did anybody expect Microsoft to suddenly give up on its patents or start GPL'ing its code because of GPLv3 and the Novell deal ?), but it's something. It'll be interesting to watch the GPLv3 / Novell deal interpretation match in the next few weeks.
*They're involved in the distribution*
Posted Jul 8, 2007 0:47 UTC (Sun) by subscriber rickmoen
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
> According to the GPLv3 lawyers, they're "procuring the distribution of" > GPL'd software, and that requires permission from the copyright holder. > So Microsoft are either distributing under the permissions which the GPL > grants them, or they are violating copyright.
Quite. Moreover, this does affect preexisting software covered by the Novell-Microsoft patent-shakedown agreement, too (not just future releases under GPLv3), because a great deal of existing software in both Novell SLES10/SLED10, per upstream licensors' terms, can be received by users under GPLv2 or, at their option, _any later version_.
For that matter, Microsoft Services for Unix (nee Interix) is affected in exactly the same fashion, because it, too, includes a great deal of upstream, third-party code that users may accept under GPLv2 or any later version.
So, this is not a consideration that could apply if Novell (and/or Microsoft) distributes GPLv3 software in the future. They've both already done it.
Anyway, Microsoft's uncredited "statement" is not for consumption by judges, but rather by business partners, stock analysts, and the IT press. You may recall this sort of fatuous and logically defective tactic popping up frequently in Darl McBride's SCO Group playbook, too, and the fact that it took a long time for the Laura DiDios of the world to cease repeating it uncritically.
The correct response is to calmly point out that Microsoft Corporation has, in fact, already distributed third-party GPLv3 code, irrespective of the firm's dealings with Novell -- and ask whether Microsoft has suddenly decided to rip off other people's copyright title, and ignore their licensing terms, whenever it's convenient.
Rick Moen rick@linuxmafia.com