"Now that Microsoft has declared itself untouched by any GPLv3 terms, everyone is trying to figure out if they have a leg to stand on. There is a whole lot of analysis going on, with some wondering if Microsoft is a distributor of software under GPLv3 by means of the voucher distribution and others wondering just what those vouchers included."
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-04-04
you are wrong on nearly every point. MS will be effected if they either distribute directly (extremely unlikely) GPLv3 code or if they are 'secondarily' involved in it's conveyance which is what they would be under their current arrangement with novell and others if/when those others start shipping gplv3 code.
Now, as usual with this same parasitic FUD and GPL is not freedom, doing what ever I want with other people's work is freedom FUD, if you don't like the license, don't release code under it. If you don't like the 'price' others have set for their work (in this case, that you comply with the terms of GPL) find someone else's code to use with a price you are prepared to pay.
Calling the GPL the most restrictive license around is just pure fantasy. Try taking MS' code, modifying it and redistributing it and see how well you do without complying with their license terms.
Member since:2005-12-15
I'm not a legal expert, but from what I have read across the Internet's many sites discussing the GPLv3, I am completely turned off releasing anything I've written under any GPL license.
It seems as a funnel trap - once you're in, you cannot get out.
I'm pro-Linux and open source, but the GPL license seems to be one big trap whereby you loose control.
Member since:2007-01-20
Member since:2006-02-01
While I mostly agree with your first paragraph, I'm afraid the rest of the post is, to put it politely, completely wide of the mark.
I presume that by "truly free licences", you mean BSD/MIT/X11 style licences. But you're wrong: the GPL has always been compatible with the (non-ad-clause) BSD licence, and always will be. In fact, any licence which contains *fewer* requirements than the GPL is GPL-compatible -- the FSF even give a list of such licences on their website.
GPLv3 says that if you've got patents on a piece of GPLv3 software that you're distributing, then you're not allowed to sue anybody who uses that software for patent violation. This does not, as some have misunderstood, equal granting an instant patent grant to the entire universe: it only applies to the GPLv3 software being distributed. This is merely an extension to the central principle behind this and earlier versions of the GPL: that anyone and everyone should be able to use the software without restriction (or fear of legal reprisal).
Of course not. No-one is suggesting that they can. Bits of software that have been released under the GPLv2 will remain distributable under that licence for the rest of time.
And here, you just take the biscuit.
The *only* thing the GPL restricts is redistribution. That's it. Once you've got your hands on a piece of GPL software, you're entitled use it to do whatever the hell you like. How this can possibly be seen as "more restrictive" the proprietary EULAs which specify what you're allowed to do with the programme once you've got it (how many processors you're allowed to run it on, no disassembly, that sort of thing) is beyond me.
Member since:2006-10-03
While it is true that you can include free-er code in a GPL project, it does not work the other way around. I can not choose to use GPL code in a BSD project and release it as BSD, this is a clear violation of the GPL.
The guiding philosophy behind the GPL is that the code is to always be made available for free charge (as in beer) - if 1% of your project is GPL (not written by you) then you have to make the other 99% available for free and keep it open. You can not release your modifications to the 1% and keep your other 99% private. The goal of the FSF with GPL is to make all code open. This is a philosophical choice that they made - it is only good or bad relative to your desired use.
More free licenses, like BSD, MIT etc., permit you the freedom to use and contribute back all that you can, but still maintain a closed application. You have more freedom. This freedom allows some to abuse open-source by taking and not giving back, but this is the price of freedom. But many more resources will be brought to the open source community as it makes sense to keep the libraries up to date and bring new improvements. Most companies will like to see the libraries advanced so will share their improvements. There are probably 10-100 times more commercial developers as there are Open source developers. That is a lot of manpower that can be made available for Open Source development and will make the movement stronger.
My point here was that the GPLv3 is choosing to limit the rights of some to seek indemnification from patent violations so they could choose to move away from Windows and adopt linux. They are willing to pay a fee to MS to guarantee that they will not be sued for any patents that linux may violate. It chooses to limit their right to obtain such indemnification unless it is granted to those not willing to pay as well. It is an attempt to bypass patent law. I doubt that is in anyway legally binding - but it will force MS not to offer the indemnification to people that want it, just in case it is found to be legal.
Patents represent a real threat to linux/open source as they may well make it technically illegal. FSF believes that patents are wrong and wants to eliminate their power. This would be bad for society, even more that the current abused system. What they/we need to do is require patent reform. Patents should only be binding if they represent a truly unique and new way of doing things and also that there is a clear cost to having developed the concept. Not "Use of a tree menu to catalog a music library." The Zen patent (mentioned above) is a prime example of a bad patent - it didn't do anything new and took no more than an hour to develop the concept - it should not be patentable. Most software patent's should be vacated. In my lifetime, I can only think of two items that were worthy of a patent - but those should have been granted. We do not need to see licenses trying to counter the law which may risk voiding the entire license, but we need to see people lobbying for sanity in the patent office.
Member since:
2006-10-03
I think software patents have become absurd and the government needs to bring common sense back to things. However, until they do the patents stand however bad they are for business. I do not know much about what these vouchers offer, but I have heard it described as MS offering patent indemnification to Novell for any patents that they may be violating in shipping Linux. We can argue as to weather any such violations exist and if they do if the patents are defendable in court. But Novell saw a big enough risk that they want to offer their customers this indemnification.
This HELPS linux gain further acceptance. The GPL has always been parasitic in that it is incompatible with truly free licenses, thus hindering it's acceptance in the mainstream. GPLv3 seems to want to extend this nature from copyright to patents. They can't grandfather old code that was provided without this restriction.
However, in this case Novell and MS agreed to terms that allows their customers to use linux with out fear and the FSF is killing it with GPLv3. This is odd because of two things:
1. If linux violates no patents then there is no need for indemnification so why insist that MS extend this protection to every one - they don,t need it.
-or-
2. Linux does contain Patent violating code and is therefore illegal and no amount of GPL verbage can address that.
As for Microsoft, they can't be bound to a license that did not exist when they made their deal. That would be like a bank doubling your mortgage rate after you signed at a given rate - you can not amend a contract without the consent of BOTH parties and in the US at least with out consideration. If Novell starts to release GPLv3 code, then MS could rightly sue that the indemnification does not apply to any but those that signed it even though the new license says they must extend it.
Once again those that tout freedom stand in the way of freedom.
We all hate MS because of their business practices, but it is the Free Software Foundation that has the most restrictive license on the planet and is still trying to make it more so.