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 253915
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[16]: More things change, the more they stay the same
by sappyvcv on Mon 9th Jul 2007 07:16
in reply to "RE[15]: More things change, the more they stay the same"
Member since:2005-07-06
What don't you understand? It's reaching BEYOND distribution/copying. No distribution or copying is going on by Microsoft. The "conveying" part was added because they wanted to reach beyond distribution/copying, else they wouldn't have even added it. THAT is the gray area.
RE[17]: More things change, the more they stay the same
by lemur2 on Mon 9th Jul 2007 08:56
in reply to "RE[16]: More things change, the more they stay the same"
Member since:2007-02-17
What don't you understand? It's reaching BEYOND distribution/copying. No distribution or copying is going on by Microsoft. The "conveying" part was added because they wanted to reach beyond distribution/copying, else they wouldn't have even added it. THAT is the gray area.
What don't you understand? This would not have been necessary had not Microsoft tried to find a way around the GPL v2 in the first place.
The GPL license's clear intent, chosen by the authors of the software, is to preserve the four freedoms. This is now and always has been the intent.
Microsoft is desperate to try to find a way divide the FOSS community and to find a way to make FOSS users liable for a license fee for Linux payable to Microsoft. Microsoft are dead keen to utterly ban all of the four freedoms.
All the while Microsoft have been consistently throwing every obstacle in the way of FOSS, trying to hinder and destroy FOSS, trying to slow its adoption through attempts to smear its name, and trying legal lobbying to get it banned, and mounting third-party lawsuits to try to throw a spanner in the works.
Microsoft offer no product for FOSS, they refuse to inter-operate with FOSS, they avoid open formats like the plague and they try their best to prevent wide adoption of any open format, and they try to insist that their closed formats be the standard and that everyone owes them money to use said formats.
Yet Microsoft want us to pay them?
Fat chance.
What don't you understand? Microsoft are out to destroy FOSS. Payback is a bitch.
Edited 2007-07-09 08:57
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2007-02-17
Well, the license really is only setting the conditions under which the software may be distributed or copied. Copyright law gives the authors/copyright holders broad discretion to set those conditions. I can't see why Microsoft's EULA should get a right to set very onerous conditions yet the GPL does not get a right to set most reasonable conditions.
I really don't understand this comment? Why is it bad the the GPL should reach to stopping Microsoft's attempted extortion attempts over software that does not belong to Microsoft, yet it apparently is quite OK for Microsoft to write a EULA that completely ignores legal concepts such as "invasion of privacy"?
It is Microsoft's EULA that reaches way too far, not the GPL. Clearly.
It is more than that. It stops Microsoft from having to endure a RICO extortion investigation and an anti-trust investigation also.
Edited 2007-07-09 04:47