Conspiracy?

Posted Mar 5, 2009 19:15 UTC (Thu) by ncm (guest, #165)
In reply to: Conspiracy? by zotz
Parent article: Linux companies sign Microsoft patent protection pacts (LinuxWorld)

By definition, a conspiracy involves collusion to violate a law. Are you suggesting a law is being violated? If, in fact, one signatory to these agreements is distributing GPL code in violation of the license, that doesn't imply that they are involved in a conspiracy with MS. If more than one company does it, that doesn't imply they are conspiring together.

In aggregate, the pacts might imply a pattern of MS encouraging, or even extorting, violations of the law.

Pretty small take-up rate

Posted Mar 6, 2009 3:12 UTC (Fri) by dmarti (subscriber, #11625) [Link]

Look at the number of vendors selling some kind of an embedded system with Linux on it -- and they've only sold licenses to 18? If LWN had that fraction of people pay up, we'd all be reading Advogato or something.

Conspiracy?

Posted Mar 6, 2009 17:26 UTC (Fri) by MattPerry (guest, #46341) [Link] (1 responses)

> By definition, a conspiracy involves collusion to violate a law.

If the companies involved are not adhering to the terms of the GPL, then the terms of the GPL are void. Distributing the software then becomes copyright infringement which is illegal. Conspiracy appears to be the appropriate word to use here.

Conspiracy?

Posted Mar 6, 2009 20:50 UTC (Fri) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link]

It may be necessary to prove that Microsoft knew that the software would be distributed in violation of its licensing terms. Otherwise, there is no second party for "collusion". IANAL.