Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||||
Microsofts Linux Woes (Red Herring)
Red Herring
considers the effect of the GPLv3 license on Microsoft and Novell.
"The new license, if accepted, could isolate Microsoft, as well as Novell, from the rest of the open-source community.
What it means it that Novell and Microsoft would have to stay with the GPLv2 license since it would be in violation of the GPLv3 licenseand the duo would not be able to take advantage of new developments made under GPLv3.
Microsoft reacted to the proposal with concern. It is unfortunate that the FSF is attempting to use the GPLv3 to prevent future collaboration among industry leaders to benefit customers, said Horacio Gutierrez, Microsofts vice president of intellectual property and licensing, in an email."
(Log in to post comments)
Microsofts Linux Woes (Red Herring) Posted Mar 29, 2007 21:15 UTC (Thu) by cjb (guest, #40354) [Link] Could someone tell me why the second to last para of Section 11 of GPLv3-3 ("You may not convey a covered work if you are a party to an arrangement..") exists?
I understand section 10.6 as "If you try to give a patent license to a subset of people, it applies to all of them, which makes your tactic backfire". Given the presence of 10.6, I don't understand why Section 11 needs to ban such deals outright. Shouldn't we *encourage* deals that result in all of us automatically gaining free access to lots of patents, rather than forbidding them? ;-)
patent diffusion Posted Mar 29, 2007 21:54 UTC (Thu) by undefined (guest, #40876) [Link] because you might be party to an arrangement, but not the owner of the patent(s) covered in the arrangement (which is addressed by 10.6).
if party A & B have a patent licensing agreement, then you cannot force party A to freely license their patents because party B is distributing a work covered by party A's patent. you can only restrict party B's actions and keep them from distributing the GPL works that infringe on party A's patents (but that they did under the protection of the licensing agreement).
Microsoft could fix the problem Posted Mar 29, 2007 22:00 UTC (Thu) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] Microsoft says it wants cooperation. OK. All they need to do is arrange to grant all recipients of the Linux kernel, or any other Novell-shipped code that is GPLed, the same patent guarantees that they grant to Novell's customers. To make it nicer for them, they could join OIN, and then they'd have access to the OIN patents for their own proprietary code as well.
Microsoft could fix the problem Posted Mar 30, 2007 8:46 UTC (Fri) by grouch (guest, #27289) [Link] Microsoft has an even easier path to cooperation than that of meddling with (dubious) patents. All they really have to do is adhere to open standards. Interoperability is obstructed only by their use of deliberately obscured, proprietary methods instead of open, industry-standard protocols and file formats. Once they cooperate with the rest of the world, and end their spoiled brat tantrums, the patent issue becomes simple or even moot.
Microsofts Linux Woes (Red Herring) Posted Mar 29, 2007 22:09 UTC (Thu) by alspnost (guest, #2763) [Link] "...isolate Microsoft ... from the rest of the open-source community"? I didn't realise they were a member of the community.Those poor things, being prevented from engaging in future collaboration to benefit customers. I guess they'll just have to stick to their lonely, solo mission to screw customers to hell and back instead. Let's just hope Novell doesn't start helping them out with that.
Microsofts Linux Woes (Red Herring) Posted Mar 30, 2007 1:59 UTC (Fri) by hugh (guest, #928) [Link] 'Microsoft reacted to the proposal with concern. It is unfortunate that the FSF is attempting to use the GPLv3 to prevent future collaboration ... " '
It's unfortunate that Microsoft and Novell want to subvert the GPL. What did they think was going to happen.
Microsofts Linux Woes (Red Herring) Posted Mar 30, 2007 5:13 UTC (Fri) by Ed_L. (guest, #24287) [Link] Good question Hugh. And Microsoft/Novell seemed so pleased with themselves when they anounced they'd finally found a loophole in the GPL, as if they honestly thought that was 'zactly what the Whole World was Waiting for. Didn't they bother to read Sun's CDDL? Or realize that the even-longer standing IBM Public License is essentially LGPL with patent teeth? (ATT/Lucent has something very similar btw.) Like the only (major) grief even the major industry players had with GPLv2 is it isn't explicit enough about patents?Indeed, what were they thinking?
Microsofts Linux Woes (Red Herring) Posted Mar 30, 2007 11:18 UTC (Fri) by smitty_one_each (subscriber, #28989) [Link] >Indeed, what were they thinking?$
Microsoft’s Linux Woes (Red Herring) Posted Mar 30, 2007 11:35 UTC (Fri) by macc (subscriber, #510) [Link] more like:all your $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ belong to us!
G!
Microsofts Linux Woes (Red Herring) Posted Mar 30, 2007 12:56 UTC (Fri) by citibob (guest, #34285) [Link] "It is unfortunate that the FSF is attempting to use the GPLv3 to prevent future collaboration amongindustry leaders to benefit customers,
Poor Microsoft... It's unfortunate that MS has consistently used anti-Copyleft "shared source"
Microsofts Linux Woes (Red Herring) Posted Mar 31, 2007 10:55 UTC (Sat) by netfarming (guest, #44352) [Link] A important point:Microsoft can earn more money.
Microsofts Linux Woes (Red Herring) Posted Apr 1, 2007 14:06 UTC (Sun) by lmb (subscriber, #39048) [Link] If that happens indeed, it would be my personal best guess that the deal would not remain as it is today - but either changed to exclude GPLv3 code explicitly or in some other way to accomodate the changes and allow Novell to ship, develop, and contribute to GPLv3 code.
It further remains to be seen how other parties react to the current language in the draft (think OIN and other patent defense setups), and how this continues to change the GPLv3.
Also remember that it does not need to be extended; the interoperability work can continue independently of said questionable covenant. It would be my personal assumption that the desire to remain part of the Open Source community is stronger and more important.
Personally, I believe that the right way to address the fundamental problem is not to attack this or that single deal - but to kick the damn (US and elsewhere) patent/IP system into the head a few times in the hope of making it sane. As it stands, what is happening is not surprising at all.
|
|||||||||||||