Open Source != GPL [LWN.net]

Open Source != GPL

Posted Oct 24, 2007 18:13 UTC (Wed) by dmantione (guest, #4640)
In reply to: Open Source != GPL by khim
Parent article: FFII: EU tells open source to start paying MS patent tax

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.

to post comments

Open Source != GPL

Posted Oct 24, 2007 22:58 UTC (Wed) by rahvin (guest, #16953) [Link] (1 responses)

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).