On MovieTome: The 10 worst movies of 2009 so far!
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 3 of 27:
Next »
« Previous
Loverock Needs To Read Groklaw
...if only to understand what he's FUDding about.

No one is required to distribute GPL software and/or code. But once one does so, one becomes subject to its terms. To do otherwise is copyright infringement, pure and simple.

A plausable argument can be made that Microsoft IS distributing GPL software by proxy--Novell is their proxy.

It's not unlike when a few years ago I ordered something from Provantage (I think it was Provantage, anyway) and the order was filled by the distributor Ingram Micro. Who did I order it from? Provantage. Who would I have gone to with problems concerning the order (in fact, I did have problems)? Provantage. Ingram Micro was just the delivery boy, so to speak. The true "distributor" of the product was Provantage, not Ingram Micro.

When Deutsche Bank bought their SUSE vouchers, who did they get them from? Microsoft. Who will they be going after if there are problems? Microsoft. Follow the logic. To make it clearer, Google on "Microsoft reseller SUSE" (w/o the quotes). Microsoft is a reseller (distributor) of SUSE Linux Enterprise, which is in a large part GPL software. Period.

GPLv3 did not void the "Microvell" deal; there's a grandfather clause that allowed it, so Novell is not forced to fork any GPLv2 software that goes GPLv3 in new versions and try to maintain it themselves. It also allows Novell to continue to distribute SUSE Linux (bottom line: if you have a conflict between distribution of GPL software and some other commitment, you may not distribute at all). However, if and when someone receives GPLv3 software via a license obtained from Novell THAT THEY BOUGHT FROM MICROSOFT, the "patent peace" protection of the Microvell deal is extended to ALL users of that GPLv3 software under the terms of GPLv3.

Microsoft does not have to participate in the distribution of GPLv3 software. They can declare void all outstanding vouchers (offering a refund would be a wise thing to do, too) and abrogate their agreement with Novell. The agreement basically lets MS bail at any time they wish, so they can do that WHILE ALL SUSE CODE IS UNDER GPLv2. But if they continue to participate in the distribution of SUSE Linux Enterprise, knowing that GPLv3 code is going to be included at some point (Novell's already made that clear), they are accepting the terms of GPLv3 as soon as that first piece of GPLv3 software is included in the distribution and delivered to one of their customers. To clarify and repeat; the act of distribution (presumably even by proxy) of GPL software is either an act of distribution under the rules of the GPL (and the version of the GPL the software is licensed under) or it is copyright infringement (piracy).

BTW, as far as MS trying to pull a Darth Vader ("I have altered the deal. Pray I do not alter it any further.") by saying that their vouchers are only good for GPLv2 software in SUSE and won't cover GPLv3 software once it's included, that may be for a court to decide once Novell redeems a SUSE voucher for a version including GPLv3 software. I'm not a betting man, but if I were, I wouldn't put my money on Microsoft. They have some pretty sharp lawyers, but the ones involved in drafting GPLv3 are no dummies, either.

We could argue here until we're blue in the face as to whether MS' distribution of SUSE Linux via proxy is technically "distribution" as defined by the GPL (after a lot of thinking and reading, I believe it is), but that would generate a lot of heat and very little light. Let's just see how it works out.
Posted by: dumptux   Posted on: 07/08/07 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

Microsoft tries evading new GPL grasp  Loverock Davidson | 07/06/07
Haven't done your homework, eh Loverock?  Tony Agudo | 07/06/07
Loverock Needs To Read Groklaw  dumptux | 07/08/07
No need to  Loverock Davidson | 07/09/07
Sounds like what we always say! happy  DemonX | 07/09/07
How original  Loverock Davidson | 07/09/07
Nothing too much original here  PeterPilot | 07/10/07
" re-read their license?"  Ole Man | 07/09/07
Microsoft is NOT subject to the GPL?  ruped24 | 07/06/07
Yup  Tim Patterson | 07/08/07
It's all BSD and GPL 2.0 only  orcmid | 07/09/07
Re: Microsoft tries evading new GPL grasp  none none | 07/06/07
MS don't like you, and you don't like MS  Boot_Agnostic | 07/07/07
Rep has shown me the legal framework...  Mike Cox | 07/07/07
Funny to wath Billy and Stevie squirm. They would love to sue the snot out  DonnieBoy | 07/07/07
This "Legal Framework" May Have Consequences for MS  dumptux | 07/08/07
RE:This "Legal Framework" May Have Consequences for MS  joe6pack_z | 07/11/07
Microsoft Services for UNIX Discussion  stephe | 07/09/07
you'd think it were politics....  fireman949 | 07/09/07
oops.. see Loverocks posts for clarity (NT)  fireman949 | 07/09/07
Yep  pshannonwatts@... | 07/09/07
Microsoft/Novell would then violate GPLv3  PhilippeV | 07/09/07
For all practical purposes  Ole Man | 07/09/07
$ooooo very simple...  Media-Ted@... | 07/09/07
Microsoft's plans for you  Ole Man | 07/10/07
MISSING THE POINT  tomam | 07/10/07
Sooner than later, MS or Novell or whoever will  tek_heretik | 07/13/07

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement

Meet Doc