Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 10th Jul 2007 18:12 UTC, submitted by deanlinkous
GNU, GPL, Open Source "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."
Thread beginning with comment 254337
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: The real issue
by Googlesaurus on Tue 10th Jul 2007 21:20 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: The real issue"
Member since:

"The issue of secondary liability is mentioned in the wording of GPL3."

Not a single word of GPLv3 has anything to do with MS. They ain't touched it with a ten foot pole via any means. This whole unexpiring voucher thing is in a word "nonsense".

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[5]: The real issue
by borker on Tue 10th Jul 2007 21:26 in reply to "RE[4]: The real issue"
borker Member since:

Of course MS aren't mentioned by name, but they currently have a business arrangement with Novell and couple of other GNU/Linux distributors who will eventually find themselves in need of conveying software covered by the GPLv3. When this happens and if MS still has the same arrangement with theses companies then that it does now, they will be 'secondarily liable' for releasing GPLv3 software. At this point, they will have to either abide by the terms of the license that software was made available under or be in breach of copyright.

Reply Parent Score: 3