Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 18th Jul 2007 22:09 UTC, submitted by Kishe
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.
Thread beginning with comment 256358
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[8]: And so it continues...
by sappyvcv on Thu 19th Jul 2007 03:24
in reply to "RE[7]: And so it continues..."
Member since:2005-07-06
I should create something and release a license with it that states that anyone can distribute it under only certain conditions and that if any third parties that communicate with those distributors, those third parties may never mention, whether verbally or in text, my product. And if they do, I can sue them for violating my copyright.
Hell yeah!
RE[9]: And so it continues...
by lemur2 on Thu 19th Jul 2007 03:49
in reply to "RE[8]: And so it continues..."
Member since:2007-02-17
I should create something and release a license with it that states that anyone can distribute it under only certain conditions and that if any third parties that communicate with those distributors, those third parties may never mention, whether verbally or in text, my product. And if they do, I can sue them for violating my copyright.
What exactly has this strawman got to do with anything?
If there is nothing worthwhile in your creation, why would any third party even mention it?
If your creation is trivial in IP terms, then you cannot extort people over it. (Eg. look at what happened to Microsoft when they tried to have a court case against Linspire, when it was called Lindows, over the common word "Windows").
If your creation is worthwhile enough so that third parties want to include it in deals they make, why should you not have a say in the terms of said deals?
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
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.