Star Microsoft Says It Is Not Bound by GPLv3
Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 6th Jul 2007 11:05 UTC, submitted by WillM
Microsoft 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.
E-mail Print r 0   251 Comment(s) http://osne.ws/e21
Thread beginning with comment 253605
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

Microsoft is giving out certificates (coupons) but not actual source code itself.


This doesn't matter.

By giving out coupons (which act is a "prorogation" of coupons), Microsoft have "enabled" the recipient of each coupon to get a copy of GNU/Linux code.

This falls under the definition of "convey" in the GPL v3 license. Large chunks of SLES/SLED today, right now, are in effect licensed under GPL v3.

Ergo, Microsoft are bound by the provisions of the GPL v3 by the act of giving out coupons for Linux.

Edited 2007-07-07 02:08

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 4

elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

This doesn't matter.

By giving out coupons (which act is a "prorogation" of coupons), Microsoft have "enabled" the recipient of each coupon to get a copy of GNU/Linux code.

This falls under the definition of "convey" in the GPL v3 license. Large chunks of SLES/SLED today, right now, are in effect licensed under GPL v3.

Ergo, Microsoft are bound by the provisions of the GPL v3 by the act of giving out coupons for Linux.


http://www.novell.com/linux

Follow the links and you can download a copy of SLES.

Oh, snap! Guess I'm now bound by the GPL for conveying a protected work, right?

Aside from that, has Novell actually stated that they're distributing the "GPL v2 or later" licenses under v3? No? Then guess what, they're still v2.

Oh, snap! You're wrong, but then that simply comes from failing to understand your own arguments. Don't feel bad, judging from this whole thread, you're not alone.

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 3

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Guess I'm now bound by the GPL for conveying a protected work, right?


Yep. If you have any patent interest in the code you conveyed, then you have said that you approve all downstream recipients may use the software you conveyed without threat of lawsuit from you.

You're wrong, but then that simply comes from failing to understand your own arguments.


Bzzt. I do understand what the plain words of the license say.

Aside from that, has Novell actually stated that they're distributing the "GPL v2 or later" licenses under v3?


Here is where you don't understand. It is not Novell who get to say ... it is the authors and copyright holders of the FOSS code which Novell distributes who get to decide this point.

The FSF holds the rights to decide the license conditions for GNU software. Not Novell. It doesn't matter what Novell say ... GNU says its software is now licensed under GPL v3.

Edited 2007-07-07 06:27

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 3

Read more of this thread... >
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

If I build a computer for someone (and they pay me for it obviously) who did not have access to a computer before, and I tell them how and where to get GPL software.. does that mean I'm conveying it and I am obligated to follow those provisions?

I'm willing to bet the courts would say NO.

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 2

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

If I build a computer for someone (and they pay me for it obviously) who did not have access to a computer before, and I tell them how and where to get GPL software.. does that mean I'm conveying it and I am obligated to follow those provisions?

I'm willing to bet the courts would say NO.


If you give out coupons for someone to get software which you did not write, which you do not own, and for which you hold no copyright, then your are obligated to have a valid license for the software which lets you distribute your coupons.

That is the law.

I'm willing to bet the courts will back that up 100%

Of course, Microsoft do have a valid license to issue coupons for software if they simply stick to the terms in the GPL which the software is licensed under, so all would be sweet.

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 2

Read more of this thread... >