Microsoft says software that's licensed under a new version of a popular open source license isn't covered by the patent protection deal it recently signed with desktop Linux distributor Linspire. In a posting on its Web site, Microsoft said the Linspire client software protected by the patent deal doesn't include any parts of the distribution that "comprise or include Foundry Products, Clone Products, GPLv3 Software, or Other Excluded Products." The document was published on July 5, three weeks after Microsoft struck a deal with Linspire through which Linspire's customers are indemnified against Microsoft's patent claims against Linux users.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-06-03
Erm. How is this good for Microsoft? As projects start to move to v3 (if they do). Then the value of the Microsoft patent deal will drop, If Gnome, KDE and the Kernel all move to v3, then the majority of the Operating System will not be covered by this covenant and MS will be forced to actually show their hand of patents and start sueing if they want to continue to profit from free software. At that point, all manner of hell will break loose in the corporate American world.
This is effectively an admission by MS that their computing tax will not stand up to the GPLv3.
Member since:2006-05-26
It's largely a high stakes game of poker. I would be surprised if Microsoft didn't show at least one patent they were confident they could win on, perhaps something they've already tested in court, to the people that matter that they made the deals with. At least, that's how I would go about it. Granted, software patents aren't respected everywhere, but if they're respected enough in a large enough portion of the market for software, does it matter all that much?
Thus, I strongly suspect that this will come to legal blows, and it won't be pretty. I won't try to predict who would win, as I don't have enough information (I'm speculating in the previous paragraph, but it makes enough sense that it could be truth) but I do know with certainty that in US law (which is at least one major market where software patents are respected) you can't be forced into new terms of a contract that you didn't sign up for, and it may even be possible that Microsoft won't have to disclose all of their patent claims in court, as it would only require a single patent that the court doesn't knock down for the whole arrangement to have meaning.
So, I don't think this will harm Microsoft in any real way: they aren't beholden to GPLv3 with the deal they made, if only because you can't change terms of a contract after the fact in US law without all parties agreeing to it, and that's what anyone that's had any real experience in US law and business will tell you: it may not matter much about the other details, because that one trumps them all.
Member since:2007-02-17
We are already at this point. The largest chunk of any Linux distribution is actually GNU software. Up to about a quarter of the code in a Linux distribution, maybe a bit more, is GNU software.
The GNU foundation is the author of the GPL license.
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
The GNU foundation has just gone through the process of writing the GPL v3 license, so you can bet their own software will go under than license.
GNOME is GNU software. It doesn't matter about the kernel or KDE, we are already at the point where it is just not possible to make a functional "Linux distribution" without GPL v3 software making up a large chunk of it.
Edited 2007-07-19 00:58
Member since:2005-07-08
I wouldn't be surprised if this is what Microsoft was expecting to happen.
Well, it's not. Microsoft envisioned an "intellectual property bridge" to certain blessed Linux vendors. The rationale being that they can "compete" with anyone they can get to bend over the negotiating table. They don't want to compete with infinite community projects and vendors that proudly stand behind their products.
But now their vaunted creation looks like a fragile rope bridge with missing planks and patent lawyers poised to strike at either end. Nobody wants to cross the bridge. The bridge seems more dangerous than other ways of mitigating IP risks associated with Linux, like buying an insurance product or simply accepting the risk.
When Linspire gives their pitch, and they explain about the bridge, the prospective customers think, "well, I really hope I won't be needing that bridge..." It makes all of the involved parties look disingenuous and more than a bit silly.
Member since:
2006-05-26
I wouldn't be surprised if this is what Microsoft was expecting to happen.
At least in US law, you can't be dragged into new terms of a contract unless both parties agree ahead of it going into effect.
Thus, say what you will, but this is likely to have been an interesting ploy by Microsoft, countered by one of the FSF, and something to be determined in a court room in a more binding way, assuming one of the parties find things worth the time, effort, money, and possibly bad PR of such a move.