Covenants, licenses, and GPL virality [LWN.net]

Covenants, licenses, and GPL virality

Posted Nov 10, 2006 1:33 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954)
In reply to: Covenants, licenses, and GPL virality by BrucePerens
Parent article: On Novell and Microsoft

I must be missing something very basic in your argument or in the Microsoft-Novell arrangement. Because of the Microsoft-Novell agreement, a SUSE customer gets all the GPL liberties, courtesy of a copyright license from Novell and every other Linux copyright holder, plus the liberty to use any Microsoft patents that might be involved in using SUSE, plus doesn't even have to worry about defending those rights because Microsoft promises not even to sue.

The patent license example in GPL is inapplicable, since any patent rights Microsoft might have had to stop a Novell customer from distributing SUSE are unconditionally waived by Microsoft.

Where is the spirit or letter of GPL offended here?

Even if the agreement used a conventional patent license from MS to Novell, sublicensed by Novell to Novell customers, I don't see any problem. So what's being circumvented?

(Log in to post comments)

Covenants, licenses, and GPL virality

Posted Nov 10, 2006 2:10 UTC (Fri) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link]

Where is the spirit or letter of GPL offended here?

The spirit of the patent language in the GPL is that we all hang together lest we each hang separately.

Any patent rights in connection with the software must be granted to everyone, not to one party while excluding another party. This is done with the strategic goal of making GPL software usable by everyone, using the tactic of prohibiting anyone from negotiating a patent solution that applies only to their business. If you want to benefit from the work of the community (in the GPL software), anything you do about patent rights must help to protect the entire community from patents.

The agreement between Novell and Microsoft that is mentioned in the form 8K appears to have the intent of circumventing that language of the GPL. If it did not, the two companies would not have used this odd structure of directly granting covenants to each others customers and not licenses to each other.

The premise of the use of covenants in this case is that when party A agrees not to exercise its rights against party B, we're supposed to believe a legal fiction that this is not a grant of any rights to party B.

Bruce

Covenants, licenses, and GPL virality

Posted Nov 10, 2006 2:16 UTC (Fri) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link]

Just to make sure you're clear about this: The covenant might allow a SuSE customer to redistribute, but it does not apply to the person to whom the SuSE customer redistributes. That's important - if one SuSE customer could pass the patent right granted by the covenant to everyone through a chain of distribution and redistribution, the GPL objection we are discussing would not apply.

Bruce