On last.fm: Lollapalooza 2009
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 1 of 19:
Next »
The FSF has never before been interested in money damages
The history of the FSF and other supporters/users of the GNU GPL has been compliance, not money damages. Seeking money damages would simply open a can of worms given you then have to figure out the value of the hundreds and sometimes thousands of copyright holder contributions to a given program, and remit the damages accordingly. And at the end of the day, compliance is far more valuable than damages.

Since the FSF will be seeking compliance, the question should be what this compliance will look like? If Microsoft is seen by a court to have been distributing GPLv3 covered software (IE: are then covered by the license unless they wish to be found guilty of infringement), then compliance with the license will include them granting a worldwide non-revocable royalty-free license on the patents they hold that they might otherwise claim were infringed by the GPLv3 covered software.

Note: Their ability to sue based on alleged patent infringements in the Linux Kernel is safe, given this project won't be under the GPLv3 any time soon. It is only the GPLv3 covered components (and not necessarily entire programs, but specific recent patches) that Microsoft distributes that come into play.

This isn't a financial loss for Microsoft given these patents weren't likely of any monetary value to them anyway. Given the quality of software patents granted by the USPTO, there is an extremely high likelihood that any patents they tried to enforce would be invalidated.

By coming into compliance with the GPLv3 they are really only saving them and some of their competitors legal fees. They may loose some respect in the business community for loosing some of their bullying-power, but I don't get the impression they really have much respect to loose at this point anyway.
Posted by: russell@...   Posted on: 08/30/07 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

The FSF has never before been interested in money damages  russell@... | 08/30/07
They may not be ENTIRELY interested in compliance, either.  dave.leigh@... | 08/30/07
Version of software distributed..  russell@... | 08/31/07
RE: Version of software distributed  GreyGeek | 08/31/07
The GPL license doesn't superceed copyright law  russell@... | 09/03/07
The GPL license doesn't superceed copyright law  Ole Man | 09/03/07
Given time, we will see just how smart Richard Stallman and Eben Moglen  DonnieBoy | 08/30/07
Doubt it will get that far  TripleII | 08/30/07
Little upside for legal action by FSF/SFLC  Savio.Rodrigues | 08/30/07
GPLv3 sounds like a scam  andycher | 08/30/07
It may not have needed to exist.  dave.leigh@... | 08/30/07
Rethinking this.  dave.leigh@... | 08/31/07
RE: Rethinking this  GreyGeek | 08/31/07
Not suggesting that.  dave.leigh@... | 09/02/07
Not true  TripleII | 08/30/07
Some fuzzy thinking here  TtfnJohn | 08/31/07
EULA sounds like a scam  Ole Man | 08/31/07
If I were Billy...  jgisme2@... | 08/31/07
You are not crazy  silvergeek | 09/01/07

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement
advertisement
Click Here

IT Solutions for 2010

  • Get cost-effective strategies and roadmaps on the most important issues facing IT leaders in 2010! Learn how to easily cut costs and deliver greater efficiency starting with your database, IT compliance management and data center. Visit the IT Leaders Dashboard. Visit the IT Leaders Dashboard.
  • Read about top issues IT decision-makers face every day, plus get cost effective solutions to real life IT problems. Oracle Topline