Last call for GPLv3 [LWN.net]

Last call for GPLv3

Posted Jun 11, 2007 18:39 UTC (Mon) by hingo (guest, #14792)
Parent article: Last call for GPLv3

If this reasoning holds up, any Microsoft patent which can be said to be infringed by GPLv3-licensed software distributed by Novell will, in essence, be licensed to the free software community. It seems too good to be true, but the people who are arguing this point should know what they are talking about.

Is there an easy way to explain why this is true? I have been trying and trying to understand this reasoning, yet every time it seems like something RMS would have come up with, not something a real lawyer would claim. What is the argumentation behind this claim? (Links to a place where this was explained, anyone?)

There is another logical followup question: If indeed the Novell-Microsoft deal is good for us now, why have this clause at all. Why not let Microsoft make even more such deals?

(Log in to post comments)

Last call for GPLv3

Posted Jun 14, 2007 12:13 UTC (Thu) by forthy (guest, #1525) [Link]

Is there an easy way to explain why this is true?

Unfortunately, no. Microsoft has a non-license for its patents, and they are also non-distributing SuSE. It's like the emperor's new clothes, they are not naked, but have some expensive invisible clothes on, which only lawyers can see. Therefore, it is by no ways clear it Microsoft is "conveying" the software, or if it's still Novell.