"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 view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-08-04
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.
Member since:2007-02-17
That is all fine and well, except when you try to use this line of argurement as a reason why rules A through Z don't apply to you.
From the lead-in to this thread: ""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."
http://www.osnews.com/story.php/18217/Microsoft-Says-It-Is-Not-Boun...
In short, Microsoft are not correct here, because Microsoft has NO RIGHT to give out vouchers for GNU/Linux unless they have the permissions granted by the GPL license, and to get those permissions Microsoft must be bound by the terms in the GPL.
Or, in even less words ... the Bittorrent comparison fits exactly.
Edited 2007-07-11 02:43
Member since:
2007-02-17
If this were true, then by the same arguement RIAA/MPAA could not touch Bittorrent sites either, because Bittorrent sites are not distributing and Bittorrent sites host no infringing files.