Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 6th Jul 2007 11:05 UTC, submitted by WillM
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.
Thread beginning with comment 253616
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2007-02-17
GPL v3 is invoked by the conveying of GPL v3 licensed works, of which linux is NOT.
You score a minor point there. Linux (the kernel) itself is not GPL v3, but GNU certainly is. It is GNU/Linux which Microsoft are propagating coupons for.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html
0. Definitions.
...
To “convey” a work means any kind of propagation that enables other parties to make or receive copies.
...
To “convey” a work means any kind of propagation that enables other parties to make or receive copies.
Does Microsoft propagate coupons "that enables other parties to ... receive copies (of GPL v3 licensed code)"? Why yes, Microsoft does do exactly that.
I did look it up, couldn't find anything credible beyond some random babbling on Groklaw
You didn't look very hard. It is in the plain text of the first few paragraphs of the license itself, which in turn is posted very prominently on the site of the authors of the license.
Ergo implies a rational conclusion to a logical argument, so it's a bit inappropriate to use that particular word here.
Au contraire, ergo is the exact word appropriate for the place where I used it.
Edited 2007-07-07 06:28
Member since:2005-08-26
To “convey” a work means any kind of propagation that enables other parties to make or receive copies.
Person A gives person B the FTP address and path to a GPLv3 covered work on a public FTP site run by C.
Does A have to agree to GPLv3 to do that? No.
Does A convey the work? Yes.
You see any problem there?
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2005-07-13
The GPL v3 is no longer "invoked" by distribution of Linux, it is invoked by the act of "conveying" Linux.
Er, no. GPL v3 is invoked by the conveying of GPL v3 licensed works, of which linux is NOT.
I did look it up, couldn't find anything credible beyond some random babbling on Groklaw and a bunch of anti-MS/Novell sites. How exactly are you convinced this is the case? And more to the point, can you provide references that correlate to actual copyright law? No, I suspect not.
Ergo implies a rational conclusion to a logical argument, so it's a bit inappropriate to use that particular word here.