| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
FFII: EU tells open source to start paying MS patent taxFFII: EU tells open source to start paying MS patent taxPosted Oct 23, 2007 22:57 UTC (Tue) by dmantione (guest, #4640)In reply to: FFII: EU tells open source to start paying MS patent tax by ipes Parent article: FFII: EU tells open source to start paying MS patent tax
I agree Microsofts promises cannot be trusted too easily, but as I read it has agreed to make the license "compatible with open source". In such case it would have to violate the current agreement and therefore put itself vulnerable to further intervention by the DG Competition.
(Log in to post comments)
Open Source != GPL Posted Oct 24, 2007 13:05 UTC (Wed) by khim (guest, #9252) [Link] Three-clause BSD license is compatible with almost anything - and it's open source. Microsoft can (and probably will) construct the license to specifically exclude GPL - Microsoft did so in the past and also claimed that "it's compatible with open source licenses"... Take a look on SenderID fiasco...
Open Source != GPL Posted Oct 24, 2007 18:13 UTC (Wed) by dmantione (guest, #4640) [Link] Hello?? Who was withness in court against Microsoft? Samba's Andrew Tridgell. What license does he use? Why wanted the DG Competition to make the terms open source compatible if they were already compatible with the BSD license? You can be confident that the DG Competition means "interoperability" it has compatibility with Samba in mind and will consider anti-GPL constructions as "not compliant" with the law.
Open Source != GPL Posted Oct 24, 2007 22:58 UTC (Wed) by rahvin (subscriber, #16953) [Link] The deal was negotiated in a back room with no presence of any of the plantiffs, of which SAMBA is the sole remaining. This was a brokered deal between Balmer and an EU politico. The license that has already been released requires the patent license to get the interoperability info, you can't disclose source and you around bound to audits and other incomprehensible terms that completely exclude GPL software. The EU Politico that negotiated the "settlement" bent over and snatched defeat from victory while listening to the soft promises of Steve Balmer. Just like the US anti-trust was destroyed by political involvement so was the EU case. Mark my words, Samba will issue a statement saying the settlement offers them nothing.
Open Source != GPL Posted Oct 25, 2007 4:56 UTC (Thu) by dmantione (guest, #4640) [Link] There is no "deal" or "settlement" in the sense of a document with a signature of Mrs. Kroes below it. There is a "verdict" from DG Competition, and a "verdict" from the EU Court of First Instance, which requires Microsoft to publish interoperability information, not patent licenses. Now: * DG Competition interprets providing the "information" to competitors means any competitors, including open source competitors. Therefore open source compatible terms. * DG Competition interprets tying patent licenses with the purchase of the "information" as not complying with the verdict, especially as DG Competition considers the Microsoft protocols not innovative, and therefore has serious doubts on the validity of the patents. However, are outside the scope of the "verdict". * As the current situation is Microsoft has agreed with this interpretation. DG Competition has not agreed with Microsofts terms (as of yet).
|
|
||||||||||||