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: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:2006-05-26
(quote)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. (/quote)
This is where the issue lies, most certainly: Microsoft has no interest in the copyright per se, and that's not at all what Microsoft's issue is: the issue is that the copyrighted software also happens (Microsoft claims) to violate 235 of their patents, so the copyright issue is a non-issue, and Microsoft is NOT giving out rights to copyright in any way, shape, or form, to GPL'ed work, but by making this deal with the various distributors of the GPL'ed work that's claimed to infringe, they are giving permission (for a price) for them to keep on distributing work that they state violates their patent portfolio.
Copyrights and patents are two similar animals in some respects, but are different in others, and one could be considered a zebra while the other is a regular horse (an imperfect analogy, granted) and they are not tied together: it is possible to (in the case of software patents) to violate patent claims without violating copyright, though it could also be that, if the work is large enough, you could violate both copyright and patent rights at the same time, but Microsoft isn't claiming copyright violations in this case (AFAIK). The massive copyright violation claim against GPL'ed software (mostly linux kernel) is something we can leave to SCO 
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.