Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 18th Jul 2007 22:09 UTC, submitted by Kishe
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 256333
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:
2006-05-26
I believe that how Microsoft will argue it is that the vouchers aren't exactly for a distributed copy of the works in question that they distribute (that's what the companies that signed this deal do, not Microsoft, exactly), so much as it is a piece of paper saying "As long as you've gotten your software with this piece of paper, we will not go after you legally for patent infringement or anything we might claim is ours" or in otherwords, it can be thought of as a patent/IP rights licensing deal.
I also can see Microsoft arguing "Not only did we not agree to the terms the GPLv3 would force on us, but we can't be forced into violating the law by such an agreement being forced on us: thus, the agreement does not have any legal enforceability" and thus neatly stepping out of that with that escape clause. This is the sort of thing that in the US is explicitly stated in Landlord/Tenant laws as regards leases: nothing can be placed in a lease that would otherwise violate the laws, as that is unenforcible.
I say, break out the popcorn, and see if this patent cold war continues in much the same way the Cold War between the US and Russia went for so long: it was predicated on the concept of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) whereby the building of all the weapons was intended to only be used only if the other side stepped over the bounds expected, ensuring that even if they offensively attacked first, they could be sure that there would be no value in their "victory" that they wiped out their enemy. That's how I think this is likely to go long-term.