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
(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:2007-02-17
Correct.
The copyright violation that is occurring here is a violation by Microsoft of FSF's copyright.
The claims of copyright violation is this case would go against Microsoft.
Oh, and BTW, if Microsoft are silly enough to make patent claims against FOSS software, there is an array of patent counter-claims ready to be made against Windows.
http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/
http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/patents.php
http://www.patent-commons.org/
So if Microsoft challenged the GPL, they would end up in a positions where:
(1) they have no permissions to give out vouchers for copyrighted works, which they have been doing, and
(2) a raft of patent counterclaims would be made against Microsoft, and
(3) In discovery, Microsoft would have to show all of their code to the FOSS side, who would doubtless find a lot of FOSS code buried within Microsoft's codebase ...
This is not a winning position for Microsoft to get themselves in to. This is the "mutually assured destruction" scenario. The FOSS side could be in a position in this scenario to stop anyone in America from running Windows ...
Microsoft are far better off taking either of two alternatives:
(1) drop all "patent deals" with Linux vendors, or
(2) take the deal offerred by OIN and the Patent Commons, and cross-license each others patents, and drop all patent threats against FOSS.
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.