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 view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-05-26
I believe that how Microsoft will argue it is that the vouchers aren't exactly for a distributed copy of the works in question that they distribute (that's what the companies that signed this deal do, not Microsoft, exactly), so much as it is a piece of paper saying "As long as you've gotten your software with this piece of paper, we will not go after you legally for patent infringement or anything we might claim is ours" or in otherwords, it can be thought of as a patent/IP rights licensing deal.
I also can see Microsoft arguing "Not only did we not agree to the terms the GPLv3 would force on us, but we can't be forced into violating the law by such an agreement being forced on us: thus, the agreement does not have any legal enforceability" and thus neatly stepping out of that with that escape clause. This is the sort of thing that in the US is explicitly stated in Landlord/Tenant laws as regards leases: nothing can be placed in a lease that would otherwise violate the laws, as that is unenforcible.
I say, break out the popcorn, and see if this patent cold war continues in much the same way the Cold War between the US and Russia went for so long: it was predicated on the concept of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) whereby the building of all the weapons was intended to only be used only if the other side stepped over the bounds expected, ensuring that even if they offensively attacked first, they could be sure that there would be no value in their "victory" that they wiped out their enemy. That's how I think this is likely to go long-term.
Member since:2007-02-17
Copyright law is certainly enforcible. Very much so.
How will Microsoft argue that they do have the required permission (under copyright law) to give out vouchers for someone else's copyrighted works, while at the same time violating the clear terms of the only license for those same works?
Microsoft can do one or the other ... they can challenge the GPL license and make patent deals, or they can give out their vouchers. They cannot do both at the same time.
If Microsoft successfully challenge the validity of the GPL v3, all that would mean is that Microsoft still do not have any permissions to give out vouchers for someone else's copyrighted works.
Member since:
2007-02-17
This is not the way it works. Microsoft have no contract with the authors and copyright holders of FOSS software. Microsoft has no contract with, for example, the GNU Foundation, which is the copyright holder for about a quarter of the code that goes into any Linux distribution.
So, Microsoft are giving out vouchers for copyrighted works (parts of the Linux distribution called SuSe). What gives Microsoft the right or permission to do that? The GPL gives them the permission (not the right) ... provided Microsoft stick to the terms of the GPL.
If Microsoft do not stick to the terms of the GPL, then they are, without permission of the authors, giving out vouchers for copyrighted works which they do not own.
That is a nono. There are laws against that. Microsoft are criminally liable if they do that.