Weekly Edition
Return to the Press pageSponsored link
Vyatta –
Linux & Open Source
Alternative to Cisco –
Advanced Routing,
Firewall, VPN, QoS..
Free Download ->
| |||||||||||
Microsoft disses GPLv3 (Computerworld)
Computerworld's IT Blogwatch column
follows
a trail of articles on Microsoft's GPLv3 position.
"It all began, when Microsoft last week "clarified" its position on the GPLv3: Microsoft is not a party to the GPLv3 license and none of its actions are to be misinterpreted as accepting status as a contracting party of GPLv3 or assuming any legal obligations under such license."
(Log in to post comments)
Microsoft disses GPLv3 (Computerworld) Posted Jul 13, 2007 10:05 UTC (Fri) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] You know you've done well when MS can't even find a sockpuppet which will spread it's FUD.
Actually, from reading the linked article, is there any new info from MS about GPLv3? I don't know the affiliations of all the quoted people, but the only clearly MS statement I see is the old news about "GPLv3 doesn't touch us".
other good news Posted Jul 13, 2007 10:14 UTC (Fri) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] Another good marker of success is InformationWeek's recent slice of post-GPLv3-release FUD, for which the only source they have is an email from Linus from *before* GPLv3 was published. Of course, they don't mention that. In other news, here's an MP3 of Jeremy Allison on why SAMBA went GPLv3, as well as the goals for future SAMBA versions.
other good news Posted Jul 15, 2007 4:13 UTC (Sun) by sbergman27 (subscriber, #10767) [Link] Of what significance is the fact that the email was from 9 days before the final release? GPLv3 final is essentially the same as the previous draft. None of the chages were of any great significance.
other good news... and some BAD Posted Jul 15, 2007 6:50 UTC (Sun) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] The usual...
But the real FUD is expected "if" or when GPLv3 will be tested in court
IANAL, but the problem i foresee is not about license terms that explicitly state "this code is distributed under GPLv3" (emphasis mine) which Microsoft repudiates and precludes any of its associates in distribution to do so, but about license terms that explicit " under GPLv2 or later ".
In this " later " word, encompassing code that find their home in the large majority of OSS/free projects, in whole or in parts, from the most varied sort of authors around the world, not eager with the dispute of legal entanglements, and i believe to be correct to assume so, will be a word facing authors dilemmas, if by example a downstream distributor assume that the ' later ' word means the GPLv3 and therefore patent covered by a non-fee clause, and Microsoft, an upstream distributor holding patents directly related to that piece of code, treats or even actually sues that downstream recipient conveying him all rights of GPLv2 except patent coverage .
Eventually it is up to the author to decide as copyright holder, at least that is my reading of GPLv3, and is up to the FSF to came in defense of GPL rights.
Whatever the author decides, Microsoft will plea not bound about their patents. And i can foresee as logic, though not a lawyer, that a part without knowledge or not willing of what a later wording will be, finds itself bound to whatever written clauses even if in those clauses are reasonably demonstrable against their interests.
That is where Novell, Xandros, Linspire... patent deals enter. They are particular deals covering themselfs and their clients but excluding everybody else in a clear attempt to break GPL and destroy as much in the OSS/free world as possible.
As patents were conveyed to those OSS operators by Microsoft and the ' later ' word presumption an automatic transition to GPLv3 by the authors or by the legal nature of the license, then will not only be Microsoft that may find itself in violation, but also Novell, Xandros, Linspire..., if Microsoft will be suing downstream distributors about patents in the same pieces of code that Novell, Xandros, Linspire... are distributing for vouchers, and all of them will have their GPL licenses terminated, about those pieces of code, and or Novell, Xandros, Linspire... will have to restrain themselfs from distributing those pieces of code * everywhere and to anybody *.
If the ' later ' word does not presumption an automatic transition and neither the authors agree to, just to avoid the legal battle, then Microsoft has found a good weapon of fear against GPLv3, and the FSF will have a tough live in the USA territory and in some other places.
In the end it will not kill OSS or the GPLv3 not by far, but the funny thing that what i cannot stop thinking as logic, is that it will most hurt precisely Novell, Xandros, Linspire... though i may be clumsy in expressing it.
Because of the global bounding nature of Microsoft patent deals if it sues about patents in some pieces of code, that end up distributed by vouchers, in a national territory where those patents are aplayable, it will may end up forcing Novell, Xandros, Linspire... to restrain themselfs from distributing those pieces of code * everywhere and to anybody *, or face GPL termination because they cannot convey exclusive rights to anybody by any means under it.
If pieces of code that are crucial to Novell, Xandros, Linspire... as central marks of their viability as business, end up distributed by vouchers, and it happens that Microsoft as patents covering them in parts or in whole, then Microsoft has the perfect tool to absolutely kill them , if it starts suing about precisely those parts of code.
other good news... and some BAD Posted Jul 16, 2007 13:35 UTC (Mon) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link] A couple of observations:
The only way the question of whether the GPLv3 terms can be read as applying to Microsoft would be if they chose to take somebody to court for patent infringement for using GPLv3 code. To the best of my knowledge, Microsoft has no particular history of such suits. So the question may be largely moot, except for the cloud of uncertainty.
"...excluding everybody else in a clear attempt to break GPL and destroy as much in the OSS/free world as possible." I want to avoid the use of loaded words here, but there is a certain lack of perspective in the OSS world - a tendency to see OSS as the center of the universe and everybody else's actions as primarily driven by their relationship to that world. It's completely possible to see these deals as busines incentive relationships rather than as attacks on those who are not parties to the arrangement. And, in fact, that view is completely consistent with Microsoft's historical public stance of not taking a lot of notice of OSS.
other good news... and some BAD Posted Jul 16, 2007 19:55 UTC (Mon) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] "" It's completely possible to see these deals as busines incentive relationships rather than as attacks on those who are not parties to the arrangement. ""
Yes its possible.
"" And, in fact, that view is completely consistent with Microsoft's historical public stance of not taking a lot of notice of OSS.""
Here i don't agree at all.
The track record shows clearly that in many cases they operated by proxys, not that i intend to imply some dark sinister conspiracy, but their business model is strongly influenced by the means of propaganda, such is the case of ' Linux(?) infringing 25x of ours patents ', but that most of times don't came directly from their headquarters press releases.
Their track record of visits to courts of law, is also but nothing of a 'modus operandi' that could be completely trustworthy and reliable.
other good news... and some BAD Posted Jul 19, 2007 5:55 UTC (Thu) by malor (subscriber, #2973) [Link] The 'or later' clause applies at the time of distribution, and it is chosen by the person invoking the GPL to do something that would otherwise violate copyright law.
Microsoft has said that they are not distributing under GPL3, period, end of report. Their patents do not, therefore, transfer.
It's that simple. This is not a story. Microsoft's patents are not in danger.
Microsoft disses GPLv3 (Computerworld) Posted Jul 13, 2007 23:45 UTC (Fri) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] "" ...but the only clearly MS statement I see is the old news about "GPLv3 doesn't touch us". ""
Than they have to ditch the vouchers... i try to compensate those that have already accepted them.
Their simple statement "GPLv3 doesn't touch us" is enough to bind them with knowledge of GPLv3 terms. " So don't convey or distribute or you are in violation" is the answer to MS... or else...
Novell as to pledge and verify that they don't ever distribute or develop GPLv3 software.( a sure certificate of dead to them in the medium/long term... and a big smile in the face of Microsoft)...
... that is the way that M$ likes to do business.
Microsoft disses GPLv3 (Computerworld) Posted Jul 14, 2007 6:30 UTC (Sat) by zorro (subscriber, #45643) [Link] > You know you've done well when MS can't even find a sockpuppet which will spread it's FUD.
They say they are not a party to the license and that the license does not apply to them. Sounds reasonable to me. The only one spreading FUD is the FSF claiming that Microsoft will be bound to GPLv3.
Microsoft disses GPLv3 (Computerworld) Posted Jul 14, 2007 9:24 UTC (Sat) by Los__D (subscriber, #15263) [Link] So FSF is spreading FUD because it sounds reasonable to you?
And since when do FUD have anything to do with _not_ making users uncomfortable?
Or do you expect Windows users to go "MS will loose it's patent rights to Linux, we are DOOMED!"?
Microsoft disses GPLv3 (Computerworld) Posted Jul 14, 2007 18:06 UTC (Sat) by zorro (subscriber, #45643) [Link] When Microsoft says, without proof, that Linux violates hundreds of Microsoft patents then Microsoft is spreading FUD.
When the FSF says, without proof, that Microsoft will be bound to the GPLv3 because of their deal with Novell then the FSF is spreading FUD.
Clear now?
Microsoft disses GPLv3 (Computerworld) Posted Jul 14, 2007 18:09 UTC (Sat) by Los__D (subscriber, #15263) [Link] "Fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) is a sales or marketing strategy of disseminating negative (and vague) information on a competitor's product."- Wikipedia
Clear now?
Microsoft disses GPLv3 (Computerworld) Posted Jul 14, 2007 18:23 UTC (Sat) by zorro (subscriber, #45643) [Link] Can you spell out the point you are trying to make? Are you saying that the FSF is not spreading FUD because of a definition of the term FUD you found on Wikipedia?
Microsoft disses GPLv3 (Computerworld) Posted Jul 14, 2007 18:31 UTC (Sat) by Los__D (subscriber, #15263) [Link] You mean the quite common definition, that FUD is about trying to scare users away from competitors products? Yes.
Microsoft disses GPLv3 (Computerworld) Posted Jul 14, 2007 18:56 UTC (Sat) by zorro (subscriber, #45643) [Link] OK, thanks for the correction. The FSF is not spreading FUD, just BS (IMO of course).
Microsoft disses GPLv3 (Computerworld) Posted Jul 14, 2007 19:07 UTC (Sat) by Los__D (subscriber, #15263) [Link] Now that is something a little more reasonable...
Not that I agree, but at least it's not 100% out of the question.
Apparently it's not completely BS, since it made MS limit the vouchers.
(That line of thought could of course be extended to take it that Novell and the boys somehow agrees with MS' FUD).
I think we'll find out who's in the right in some time. I'm no lawyer, so I'll not completely dismiss that it's BS, but we'll see.
Microsoft disses GPLv3 (Computerworld) Posted Jul 16, 2007 17:12 UTC (Mon) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link] You've got to be kidding. The FSF spends a lot of time and effort on exactly the kind of disparagement of Microsoft that they call FUD when Microsoft does it to them. The whole "The Novell deal is aimed at killing Linux" line is FUD - unprovable claims of motive for others' activities. FUD is, of course, a time-honored competitive tactic in every field of human endeavor.
My personal belief (IANAL] is that there is a higher probability that Linux infringes some unknown number of Microsoft patents than that Microsoft will decide to sue someone for infringement of one of its patents by GPLv3-licensed software.
Microsoft disses GPLv3 (Computerworld) Posted Jul 17, 2007 11:19 UTC (Tue) by Los__D (subscriber, #15263) [Link] I have no idea where these new definitions of FUD comes from.
FUD is ONLY about scaring a competitor's potential customers away from him.
It was coined from that, and it has been maintained like that. I this really turning into the new "hacker"?
You can call FSF's BadVista campaign for FUD if you like.
Again, I don't really judge if it's BS or not, I'm no lawyer, but it is not FUD.
Microsoft disses GPLv3 (Computerworld) Posted Jul 17, 2007 14:47 UTC (Tue) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link] Perhaps you're only reading the lede of the Wikipedia article. Quoting from further on, "the term has become generalized to refer to any kind of disinformation used as a competitive weapon". Also note the last section of the article, about non-computer uses.
Ideas compete as well as products.
Microsoft disses GPLv3 (Computerworld) Posted Jul 17, 2007 15:27 UTC (Tue) by Los__D (subscriber, #15263) [Link] The first is taken out of context, the whole section talks about using disinformation to _scare_ people away from a product. (And, although I have no reason to believe this is one of the articles he destroyed from the original, it still is attributed to ESR's twisted version of the jargon file)
The second also talks about utilizing fear, to drive people away from competitors (Just for the "throne").
Microsoft disses GPLv3 (Computerworld) Posted Jul 15, 2007 3:42 UTC (Sun) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] "" They say they are not a party to the license and that the license does not apply to them. Sounds reasonable to me. ""
As long as they are a part in distributing and conveying, even if its by proxy, by means of vouchers, they are indeed bound, and its not reasonable to assume otherwise at all.
Of course GPLv3 doesn't apply to their code, but they signed a patent deal with Novell, Xandros, Linspire,... and GPLv3 says that patents must be equal non-fee to everybody... or to nobody.
3 things can happen:
1.- Novell, Xandros, Linspire... distributes on behalf of Microsoft, to voucher holders, GPLv3 code like Samba 4...
a) With knowledge from Microsoft, they are propagating all MS covered patents in that code as non-fee... Then MS can do nothing... (which hardly will ever happen).
b) Without knowledge from Microsoft, they are by distributing, propagating all MS covered patents in that GPLv3 code as non-fee. That most certainly will trigger a law suit against them, by Microsoft, as breach of contract, misrepresentation, undue appropriation of IP, other?... (and the FUD that that will generate! )
2.- Novell, Xandros, Linspire... abstains from distributing to voucher holders any GPLv3 code. Then they must pledge and certify that that will never happen.
a) They will loose a lot of money, because they have to maintain old source trees of GPLv2, by undefined amount of time, correcting, bug-hunting and applying tons of patching to many different voucher holders implementations... and hopping that Windows Automatic Update don't trigger a spree of phone calls from voucher clients, reporting troubles and make Novell, Xandros, Linspire... programmers run wild for very little modifications required. In short, they will be doing Microsoft support IT integration for very cheap in a crazy way... and that for an undefined amount of time.
b) They will drop any kind of serious support for voucher holders... like in a zeal strike. Then Novell, Xandros, Linspire... are in risk of losing clients, being prosecuted in court of law for not delivering, being horribly slammed in the press by influence of MS FUD machine.
I really don't like to slam any of them specially Novell, because i really like them... but is hardly to expect that Microsoft interoperability will ever came cheap... to others.
3.- Novell, Xandros, Linspire... will never engage in GPLv3 code developing and distribution at all... ever...
Then for various reasons including obsolescence and a large world somehow hostile, they will be signing their own sure certificates of dead in a medium to long term. period.
"" The only one spreading FUD is the FSF claiming that Microsoft will be bound to GPLv3. ""
Not at all. One of FSF jobs is to see to it, that GPL is not violated.
I know it may sound rude and unfair and apologize to many good people with responsibilities in various organizations. And insult me anyone with better arguments. But i believe that M$ was not naive in their intentions. The 250(?)... patents slander was only a temporally distraction and a form of coercive drafting. What M$ wanted was a direct attack upon the GPLv3, by divide and conquer among OSS community operators, and in a way that their new 'innocent contracted soldiers' will not get unharmed from the clash, *die* if possible or kill as many of others in the process.
Luckily they didn't mange to do much damage
... for making shorter... sorry for linking to myself in another article(though i like to believe i'm much less clumsy and emotional than it might look) http://lwn.net/Articles/240822/
One last remark about how virtual machines can work with M$ in a legal point of view without much annoyances http://lifehacker.com/software/how-to/turn-a-windows-part...
And finally a point about Vista, that has not seen much success in the enterprise, but the usual way for world domination has been * arranged * a long time ago,... as usual... http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=35679
|
|||||||||||