Microsoft tries evading new GPL grasp
"Microsoft on Thursday took steps to avoid entanglement with a new version of the General Public License, the most widely used license in the free and open-source software domain."
""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," the company said in a statement. "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.""
In short this means that no matter what Microsoft says, GPLv3 actually does have an effect on what they do as they are now trying to make sure they don't distribute GPLv3 covered software.
"The Free Software Foundation said that despite Microsoft's assertions, its behavior suggests the company is party to GPLv3.
"If they truly believe that GPLv3 presents no obstacle to their patent arrangements with free software distributors, why won't their coupons be good for GPLv3-covered programs?" said Brett Smith, the foundation's licensing compliance engineer. "It looks like they're spooked to me."" -- Read more
Copyright © 2004 - 2008 Libervis Network - Some Rights Reserved :: Advertise :: Privacy Policy :: Contact
I bet they'll renege on the
I bet they'll renege on the coupons, limiting them to non-gplv3 to avoid becoming a "conveyor" under gplv3 and losing their fud stick.
reply quote
Paragraph 7 of section 11 of
Paragraph 7 of section 11 of the Gnu GPLv3 states:
A patent license is “discriminatory†if it does not include within the scope of its coverage, prohibits the exercise of, or is conditioned on the non-exercise of one or more of the rights that are specifically granted under this License. You may not convey a covered work if you are a party to an arrangement with a third party that is in the business of distributing software, under which you make payment to the third party based on the extent of your activity of conveying the work, and under which the third party grants, to any of the parties who would receive the covered work from you, a discriminatory patent license (a) in connection with copies of the covered work conveyed by you (or copies made from those copies), or (b) primarily for and in connection with specific products or compilations that contain the covered work, unless you entered into that arrangement, or that patent license was granted, prior to 28 March 2007.
(my emphasis)
So doesn't this mean that on the MS-Novell front MS don't have to worry about giving out more coupons, as the coupons basically give indemnity for the purchasers on the patent front? Though I'll state that I am not a lawyer, and may be speaking bunk.
reply quote
Well that's a good question
Well that's a good question and I was a bit curious myself now that you asked it as well. There must be a catch. Skimming through the transcript of RMSs GPLv3 launching speech I found something that gives hints to the answer:
However, instead of simply saying that Novell can't distribute GPL version 3 covered programs under their deal, we found a cleverer thing to do with it. When Microsoft updates to versions that are covered by GPL version 3, GPL version 3 will extend this patent protection from the customers of Novell to everybody who uses those programs. Effectively, we found a way to turn that deal against Microsoft and make it backfire. So, it's extremely important for free software to upgrade the license to GPL version 3. So that, Novell, in the course of time, will put in the new versions, and thus our community will get this benefit. It has to be done fairly soon, because if we wait too long, Microsoft may distribute all its coupons and then we won't be able to turn the deal against them anymore. So, get your programs relicensed soon, it's very important. We expect all the maintainers of GNU software to relicense in the next few months—it's important. But, other free software developers should also relicense.
And then, since I was still a bit insecure about the whole thing, I went to ask a question about this on #gnu channel on freenode. Modulus there gave a simple answer. That date was put in they didn't want to forbid agreements retroactively. They basically let the deal go on as is without voiding the license, because there is an even better and for the community potentially more beneficial way of turning the deal in our favor. So the deal isn't illegal under GPLv3, it simply makes all GPLv3 covered software that MS will convey or propagate "protected" by Microsoft's patent covenant, removing the base that they had for their FUD. It pretty much disarms Microsoft completely.
That's probably also why they're afraid of it. But it seems that for now it is true that MS isn't affected. As long as they don't distribute programs under GPLv3 they wont be affected.
They basically face a choice, as far as GPLv3 is concerned: remain in our playing field and play by our rules, or stay out of it completely. By distancing themselves from GPLv3 covered software Microsoft would rather do the latter, meaning we don't get the "protection" from them, but they don't get to FUD about it either. They can't make such deals anymore and they can't (or don't want to) stay in existing of such deals for GPLv3 software either.
In other words, Microsoft was the virus and GPLv3 is an anti-virus doing its job as we speak - cleaning MS out of our system OR turning it into non-malicious code.
reply quote
I gotta say, when I step
I gotta say, when I step back and think about this, I'm quite amazed by the way GPL has always been working and the way GPLv3 continues to work.
It basically "assimilates" as much of non-free into free as potentially possible by simply manipulating certain interests (not in a way of controlling anyone's actions, but simply providing incentives or disincentives that would likely result in favor of Free Software. It's viral form acts as a shield, but it is so perfect that it ends up being even more than just a shield. To go deeper into some scifi analogy, GPLv3 is a shield which wont merely bounce energy blasts that hit it, it will in most cases suck all the energy of those blasts up and make the defendant of that shield (in this case the Free Software community) even stronger.
In other words, as long as Free Software is protected by a license like the GPL, it will be very hard if not impossible for anyone to attack it without ending up making it even stronger. This is what's happening to Microsoft here. They hoped to make FS weaker, but the opposite is happening. They helped close a loophole in the GPL with a patch that makes Free Software even more resistive to patent threats.
I feel like emphasizing it. GPL is not just a permissive license. It is a permissive license that shields those permissions. But, it is not even just that. It is a permissive license that shields those permissions and rather than bouncing threats to these freedoms, it turns these threats into beneficial forces for the cause.
Absolutely brilliant!!!
reply quote
Ah, thanks for the
Ah, thanks for the explanation, this is a much cleverer way of protecting Free Software than just retroactively ban patent deals.
reply quote
Post new comment