| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Xandros signs up with MicrosoftXandros signs up with MicrosoftPosted Jun 4, 2007 16:24 UTC (Mon) by drag (subscriber, #31333)In reply to: Xandros signs up with Microsoft by cjb Parent article: Xandros signs up with Microsoft
It doesn't condem as in it does not have any thing which would make a Novell-Microsoft-style patent agreement illegal or against the license.
What Novell and Microsoft did would still be perfectly legal under GPLv3. The difference is that the 'covenant-not-to-sue' would eventually extend to non-customers.
(Log in to post comments)
Xandros signs up with Microsoft Posted Jun 4, 2007 19:03 UTC (Mon) by dmantione (guest, #4640) [Link] Note that Microsoft is only required to share patents if they arerequired to accept the GPL, which is not that obvious. Copyright law requires you to have permission from the copyright holder in case you multiply a work, or make it public (European definition). In the case of Novell/Microsoft, Novell creates SLES boxes, Microsoft buys them from Novell and gives them to customers. This is not an action you require permission from the copyrigth holder from, and therefore Microsoft would not need to accept the GPL.
Xandros signs up with Microsoft Posted Jun 4, 2007 19:27 UTC (Mon) by khim (guest, #9252) [Link] In the case of Novell/Microsoft, Novell creates SLES boxes, Microsoft buys them from Novell and gives them to customers. This is not an action you require permission from the copyrigth holder from, and therefore Microsoft would not need to accept the GPL. It may be true, but it does not matter: to claim this will be suicide for Microsoft. It'll mean that it can not stop transfer of OEM licenses and that means it forced millions of people to buy Windows licenses by illegal means. Backlash will be total disaster.
Xandros signs up with Microsoft Posted Jun 4, 2007 20:52 UTC (Mon) by dmantione (guest, #4640) [Link] It is widely believed this requirement void:http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/05/08/selling_oem_windo... Microsoft also lost a court case about this in Germany. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2000/07/11/german_ruling_loo... Instead of changing their license they tell people that they never allowed selling OEM licenses and that "the view of a German" is not binding in other countries. Further, in addition to their license, Microsoft has a contract with their OEM dealers, which also probits reselling OEM licenses, and this is legally valid.
Xandros signs up with Microsoft Posted Jun 5, 2007 6:01 UTC (Tue) by khim (guest, #9252) [Link] It's one thing to have court decision in Germany (mostly irrelevant to the discussion anyway: Microsoft don't need to accept terms of GPLv3 there but 235 patents do not apply to Germany as well - Microsoft itself helped to establish it), it's completely different to raise this issue in U.S. Of course if Microsoft is willing to accept transferability of OEM licenses in U.S. then the plot thickens...
Xandros signs up with Microsoft Posted Jun 5, 2007 6:26 UTC (Tue) by dmantione (guest, #4640) [Link] Well, the question still is, what action Microsoft does perform thatrequires accepting the GPL3 (by US law, if you wish so)? What is the legal base behind the inability to sell OEM licenses in the US?
precure the distribution of Posted Jun 6, 2007 12:02 UTC (Wed) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] According to USA lawyer Richard Fontana, MS are "procuring the distribution of" GPL'd software. (From this article)
precure the distribution of Posted Jun 7, 2007 15:31 UTC (Thu) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link] Whether Microsoft is "procuring distribution" is something that could only be determined in court. Fontana's opinion has to be taken in the understanding that he might be a party to such a case and is presumably stating his client's position in such a case. So, I wouldn't consider it any more useful than an opinion from one of Microsoft's attorneys...
|
|
||||||||||||