OSNews

yes, it does effect MS. the relevant quote is

"To “propagate” a work means to do anything with it that, without permission, would make you directly or secondarily liable for infringement under applicable copyright law"

MS's voucher scheme is covered under the 'secondarily liable' bit

To boil it down, all a copyright license could say would be, you may not act as a distribution proxy for a third party.

I'm going to use this as an excuse to attempt to explain FSF and friends' point of view to the best of my knowledge (not that I necessarily agree with it). Others don't quite seem to get where they're coming from because, frankly, they're being confusing. Using loopholes to close loopholes can never be simple.

In giving out the vouchers, Microsoft is supposedly acting as a distribution proxy, i.e. they are effectively distributing SLED/SLES because the vouchers are used for the sole purpose of getting the product. And those vouchers include updates and support, so people are hoping that GPLv3 code will worm its way into SLED/SLES updates.

Luck is on their side right now, since Novell won't agree with Microsoft not to use GPLv3 code, and Microsoft can neither force them to do so nor modify the contents of the existing vouchers. Furthermore, Novell said it will redeem existing vouchers, and there is nothing Microsoft can do to stop it, AFAIK. Once one of those vouchers gets used, Microsoft can't sue for patent violation, assuming those unnamed patents actually exist.

At least that's what the FSF and Groklaw thinks. While all of that seems logical on the face of it, I think they're really grasping at straws here--we don't even know if any voucher redeemers will speak up when they wind up with GPLv3 software. A FSF victory could somehow happen, but it's not as likely as the the FSF and Groklaw would have you think.

I think there's a better chance of litigation happening because of the Xandros and Linspire deals. They're more clear cut (You have a patent deal; under the terms of our agreement you must share with us or stop using our code.), but who's not to say Linspire or Xandros won't just not use GPLv3 code? Not a wise thing to do for the sake of their products, but that doesn't mean it won't happen.

PJ's feminine charm and marvelous storytelling skills are getting to everyone's heads. I don't hold it against her, though--I don't think she intentionally spreads lies or FUD, and I don't quite think she's crossed the fangirl line yet, as she's still putting forth an effort to make sense and correct her mistakes. Then again, I've always had a soft spot for her; she's adorable in a naive-little-girl sort of way.

All of this is like a soap opera, except it's actually interesting to watch unfold. No less melodramatic or over-the-top, however.

Edited 2007-07-10 22:01

That seemed fairly reasonable up to the part where you made out that people were 'hoping' for gpl3 code to worm anywhere or that Novell accepting vouchers from a deal that MS would no longer be a party to would somehow rope them into complying with GPL3 conditions and this was a desired outcome espoused by PJ, Novell or anyone else.

The intention of this part of the GPLv3 is to clean up the situation where by one entity can distribute GPL code with implicit conditions patent protections that another entity could not. If the MS deal falls apart and everybody is back on an even footing then that is desired outcome. If MS chooses to be a party to the distribution of GPLv3 code and therefore extend patent protection to everyone who distributes that code then that is also a desired outcome.

The hope is to restore a level playing field, not to 'steal' anything from MS or anyone else

Let me be a little more clear. The provision cannot "trigger" broad indemnification. All that can happen is that Novell cannot accept the vouchers if THEY distribute, the current dealt would have to cease and be modified.. meaning the grandfather clause would no longer protect Novell.

As far as the bit torrent comparison, it doesn't fit because tracker sites have NO right to distribute the work. With the GPL, you can given you follow rules A through Z.

The GPL3 creates definition for what it considers to be secondary liability, which so far is really defined as helping someone else infringe who didn't need you to help them infringe in the first place.

On top of that definition, the GPL3 then asserts the constraints for a distributor apply to what they consider to be secondarily liable party.

This reminds me of those cartoons where some guy builds a bridge by nailing several planks together.