Microsoft cleared the air July 5 on its obligations to GNU General Public License Version 3 support, declaring it will not provide support or updates for GPLv3 under the deal it penned in November with Novell to administer certificates for the Linux distribution. Microsoft also said July 5 that its agreement with Novell, as well as those with Linux rivals Xandros and Linspire, were unaffected by the release June 29 of GPLv3 by the Free Software Foundation.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-07-15
Member since:2007-01-29
Member since:2006-12-07
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2006-08-18
Microsoft isn't bound by the GPLv3 but the distributors who wish to succeed in their Linux buisness will be. Forking is a major blow and will only prove to be supported by the small number of patent covenent companies.
If the distributors sign a patent deal for GPLv3 and LGPLv3 software, they will be unable to posses the right to distribute the software.
Member since:2007-02-17
That has actually yet to be legally determined, but on the face of it your assertion (and Microsoft's) is not correct.
Microsoft's giving out of SuSe certificates falls well within the definition (in the GPL v3 text) of an act that means that the "conveyor" (in this case, Microsoft and Novell both) is indeed bound by the GPL v3 license.
Edited 2007-07-06 15:59
Member since:2005-07-24
The code falls under the license it was released with, if Novell has to agree with GPL3 and the code is not compatible with another license, then Microsoft must, in turn, be held accountable to the original code's license.
Failure of Novell to ensure that Microsoft would adhere to the license requirements of any software that they have licensed would be tantamount to Novell violating the GPL3 by using any code released under it.
Microsoft playing the 'I didn't sign anything' card would be a bad move, nobody signs their EULA's either. But trying to say that Product Y from Team/Company C, being used by Team/Company B means that Company A can get Product Y from Team/Company B without the need of adherence, or a prevailing predicate, to licensing agreements between Team/Co C and Team/Co B is the exact opposite of the law and reality.
If Sun licenses something from IBM, and Microsoft uses it, the IBM-Sun agreement must specifically permit said transaction. Failing to permit it, is denial of permission.
Or, in the only way MS understands: If we wanted to use some of that special GPL-licensed code you so recently licensed and "improved upon," all we need is a single lawyer to file a motion for release of records from Microsoft.
The code, in this case, would be argued as the only true record, and a program would be written to detect GPL-licensed code ( by actual code base similarity ). This would take some time, and the computing time would be on the "accuser." However, Microsoft would have to release ALL code, in its full build-able form(so an MD5 can be done with the original binaries from a distributed copy), which is believed to infringe, and upon finding that code, demonstrate the largest violations ( such as the new Vista audio system (not sure if GPL, probably Haiku )).
We just need a lawyer willing to spend some time in a couple letters, and some FSF people to spear-head it.
--The loon
Of course, then, we wouldn't want developers to see the MS code, for freight of stroke at the mutilations occurring within, so we would keep it at a mathematical comparison, under observation, with MS intellectual property carefully guarded. I will need 10 SWAT teams.
Edited 2007-07-06 16:16
Member since:
2007-01-29
we will see if you are 'not affected' by the GPLv3...
You _wished_ that statement was enough to protect yourself from the implications of GPLv3 - don't count on it. It might rather hit you big... guess where *chuckle*