Novell's IRC session on the Microsoft deal [LWN.net]

Novell's IRC session on the Microsoft deal

Posted Nov 27, 2006 20:56 UTC (Mon) by pzb (subscriber, #656)
In reply to: Novell's IRC session on the Microsoft deal by madscientist
Parent article: Novell's IRC session on the Microsoft deal

Richard Stallman said:

> What has happened is, Microsoft has not given Novell a patent licence,
> and thus, section 7 of GPL version 2 does not come into play. [...]
> It turns out that perhaps it's a good thing that Microsoft did this now,
> because we discovered that the text we had written for GPL version 3 would
> not have blocked this, but it's not too late and we're going to make sure
> that when GPL version 3 really comes out it will block such deals
(from http://www.fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/tokyo-rms-transcr...)

While this is not Eben speaking, I presume that RMS has spoken with Eben, and this is the official opinion of the FSF.

(Log in to post comments)

Novell's IRC session on the Microsoft deal

Posted Nov 27, 2006 21:56 UTC (Mon) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]

Looks like their goal is to setup the GPLv3 that if your going to offer patent protections it is going to cover all uses of the GPLv3'd software including redistribution and reuse by third parties.

That is it's ok for Novell to offer indeminification for their customers, but it's also going to have to cover their customer's end users etc etc. That it can't be exclusive to people that pay you money.

indemnification != patent license/covenant

Posted Nov 28, 2006 4:37 UTC (Tue) by stevenj (subscriber, #421) [Link]

Indemnification is a promise that they will fight the patent for you, or at least cover the fines if they lose and have to stop distributing under the GPL. This is quite different from purchasing a restrictive patent license (excuse me, a "covenant not to sue"), since the latter means that they are not going to fight the patent but want to distribute the GPL software anyway.

I'm assuming Moglen is working on a wording for GPLv3 that will allow indemnification, for a fee, in the same way that warrantees may be offered for a fee, but prohibits restrictive patent licensing by any name.

Novell != Novell's customers

Posted Nov 28, 2006 8:27 UTC (Tue) by niner (subscriber, #26151) [Link]

Novell itself is NOT covered by any license or covenant. So how could they not fight the patent and distribute the GPL software anyway?

It's customers don't have to fear Microsoft, but Novell does, same as ever. So Novell still has every reason to avoid Microsoft's patents.

Novell != Novell's customers

Posted Nov 28, 2006 12:51 UTC (Tue) by lmb (subscriber, #39048) [Link]

Exactly. It is Novell's policy to never ship infringing code. Never has been, never will be. SUSE, Ximian and the rest of the Novell OSS engineering will never introduce "patent bombs"; we're still the same good guys as we've always been. We'll treat any known "infringement" a bug and fix it.

I really don't get how people come up with this strange idea. Gedankenexperiment time: Don't you think, even if it _were_ true, it would be kinda obvious if suddenly MS sued someone for a patent infringement introduced by a Novell engineer from now on? Do you really think this would stand _any_ chance in court? With those anti-trust and conspiracy guns focused on MS/Novell right now?

Nothing has changed. Code from Novell engineers is not unsafe; if anything, it is safer than before. And we got a lot more cash to spend on development of OSS code now.

Software patents are still bad and need to disappear, or at least radically reformed (and I think you'll eventually see even more activity in this direction as well); because the real threat are still the patent troll companies.

A patent troll injecting code via a malicious or even unsuspecting independent developer is much more low-key; that's the much better conspiracy theory, you know.

And even then: The code would simply be ripped out and rewritten. Linux goes on.