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 253692
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.
RE[8]: More things change, the more they stay the same
by sappyvcv on Sat 7th Jul 2007 17:15
in reply to "RE[7]: More things change, the more they stay the same"
Member since:2005-07-06
No shit the software is not mine. I am simply giving someone INFORMATION on how to get the software. That is not illegal. The software is free, so I am not telling them how to do anything illegal either.
From the GPLv3:
To “convey” a work means any kind of propagation that enables other parties to make or receive copies. Mere interaction with a user through a computer network, with no transfer of a copy, is not conveying.
Edited 2007-07-07 17:18
RE[9]: More things change, the more they stay the same
by lemur2 on Sun 8th Jul 2007 09:06
in reply to "RE[8]: More things change, the more they stay the same"
Member since:2007-02-17
No shit the software is not mine. I am simply giving someone INFORMATION on how to get the software. That is not illegal. The software is free, so I am not telling them how to do anything illegal either.
Yes it is illegal, if you do it against the terms of the license. It is illegal in exactly the same way that a Bittorrent site providing a tracker to download copyrighted music is illegal if the site does not have the permission of the copyright holder.
The authors of the FOSS code offer anyone a license to their work, and the terms of that license include the ability to give out copies of it to downstream recipients, or to aid distribution of it in a Bittorrent tracker - like fashion, as long as you keep to the terms of the license.
One of the terms of the license is that you promise not to sue anyone (anyone at all) who receives the same software for patent interests that you might think you have in the code.
If you choose to ignore these terms, then you have no rights to distribute it or facilitate its distribution. Hence you are in violation of copyright law in exactly the same way that a Bittorrent site offering illicit music files is in violation even though the Bittorrent site does not have any actual copyrighted music files on the site and the Bittorrent site has not charged anyone for the downloads.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2007-02-17
Yes, you do, if the software is not yours and the copyright holder has said you do need a license. This is the law.
Charging for it or not is irrelevant. P2P streams don't charge for music downloads for which the copyright holder has not given permission ... yet the P2P streams are still in trouble ... in the case of most P2P systems (especially Bittorrent) the trackers do not actually hold a copy of the music, they merely point to a place where it can be copied from. This is still enough to get Bittorrent P2P tracker sites taken down where the P2P tracker site is not the copyright holder.
This is the law.
Edited 2007-07-07 14:41