Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 18th Jul 2007 22:09 UTC, submitted by Kishe
Microsoft Microsoft says software that's licensed under a new version of a popular open source license isn't covered by the patent protection deal it recently signed with desktop Linux distributor Linspire. In a posting on its Web site, Microsoft said the Linspire client software protected by the patent deal doesn't include any parts of the distribution that "comprise or include Foundry Products, Clone Products, GPLv3 Software, or Other Excluded Products." The document was published on July 5, three weeks after Microsoft struck a deal with Linspire through which Linspire's customers are indemnified against Microsoft's patent claims against Linux users.
Permalink for comment 256331
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: And so it continues...
by lemur2 on Thu 19th Jul 2007 01:07 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: And so it continues..."
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

So, I don't think this will harm Microsoft in any real way: they aren't beholden to GPLv3 with the deal they made, if only because you can't change terms of a contract after the fact in US law without all parties agreeing to it, and that's what anyone that's had any real experience in US law and business will tell you: it may not matter much about the other details, because that one trumps them all.


This is not the way it works. Microsoft have no contract with the authors and copyright holders of FOSS software. Microsoft has no contract with, for example, the GNU Foundation, which is the copyright holder for about a quarter of the code that goes into any Linux distribution.

So, Microsoft are giving out vouchers for copyrighted works (parts of the Linux distribution called SuSe). What gives Microsoft the right or permission to do that? The GPL gives them the permission (not the right) ... provided Microsoft stick to the terms of the GPL.

If Microsoft do not stick to the terms of the GPL, then they are, without permission of the authors, giving out vouchers for copyrighted works which they do not own.

That is a nono. There are laws against that. Microsoft are criminally liable if they do that.

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 5