Microsoft tries evading new GPL grasp

TalkBack 22 of 27:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

Microsoft/Novell would then violate GPLv3

if microsoft tries to evade from GPLv3, then it will have to stop using ANY software licenced only starting with GPLv3. This will include LOTS of code, including newer versions of the many GPLv2 components.

If Microsoft and Novell try to reuse the GPLv3 new code to relicence it under GPLv2, it will VIOLATE the terms of the GPLv3 that FORBIDS returning back to a previous version.

I expect that all new patches and updates for existing GPLv2 code will soon be licenced only with GPLv3, for use in code that was licenced in GPLv3 or compatible (but not in GPlv2, unless the original GPLv2 package is relicenced by its original authors for GPlv3 explicitly.

It should be noted that according to GPLv2, the GPLv3 code looks compatible given that GPLv2 theoretically allows to be used in "later versions of the GPL". However, given that GPLv3 adds new restrictions to the GPLv2, it could be interpreted as being uncompatible with it (except that GPLv2 contains such exception for GPLv3 exactly as published by the FSF exclusively). So GPLv3 code is compatible with GPLv2.

A good question is then: can a patch made to update a GPLv2 code be licenced exclusively for GPLv3 and not GPlv2? It seems that this is OK, but ONLY if the authors of the GPLv2 original package DO agree the use of additional restrictions by relicencing their original GPLv2 package explicitly with GPLv3.
This will be most probably the case of all FSF-supported GPL-licenced code, and notably, some very important components of EVERY Linux distribution : the GNU compiler suites, the Linux kernel (it seems that Linus Torvald has supported the change and that it will release future kernels only with GPLv3).

So the Novell/Microsoft agreement will not survive very long, given that newer code will not be part of this agreement.
Note however one thing: for berdering cases, where the agreement would still be considered valid for GPLv3 licenced code, you must know that GPLv3 fixes an explicit date, before which such Novell/Microsoft agreement will remain valid. What this means is that Microsoft can no longer sign any further agreement with other distributors, and Novell now may have a significant commercial advantage face to other distributors of Linux systems, by being allowed to offer a coverage against Microsoft claims.

So what will happen next? Microsoft will most probably start suing against many other Linux distributors that are not part of the MS-Novell agreement. And, in case of legal turmoils, these other distributors may surrender and sell their assets to Novell, meaning that Novell would finally dominate the Linux distribution, without any possible competition. If this happened, this woul seriously damage the fair competition, something that was against even the spirit of GPLv2.

One way for other distributors to avoid this situtation will be to jointogether in an effort to remove from their distros anything that is concerned by the costly Microsoft claims. This means rewriting the code, and not writing a simple patch. They will not accept to licence such new code under GPLv2, but only in GPLv3. The Novell-Microsot agreement will not cover this new code whose importance will never stop growing over time.

In other words, the Novell-Microsoft agreement will have a competitive advantage only for a limited time. Lots of packages will be made by the Linux community to replace the ones covered by GPLv2. What will then happen at Novell? Will it accept to distribute new versions of Linux packages covered with GPLv3 only? How will Novell be able to contribute to GPLv3 packages without according t the same time a non-exclusive and transferable licence for the additional permissions that it could get from Microsoft?

Everyone sees the Novell-Microsoft agreement as a major split from Linux distributions. To make this really visible, the generic term "Linux" should no longer be used to designate the two branches. As the FSF owns the trademark for "GNU", the GPLv3 branch should be termed "GNU/Linux". The Novell branch should be termed "Novell/Linux" (but can Novell still use the term "Linux" if linus Torvald specifies that its newest kernel should be named Linux only if it is licenced inder GPlv3?)

Will there be a new name for Linux to avoid the confusion within users? (Threenux, 3nux, Trinux, Ternux...) Or simply "Linux v3"?

Or is there a way to forbid Novell to continue naming its distrib with "Linux" (something that should be the best option, given that Novell does NOT own the trademark "Linux" used under authorization by all other distributors)?

Posted by: PhilippeV   Posted on: 07/09/07 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• Why Isn't Server Virtualization Saving Us More? A Few Small Changes May Dramatically Increase Your Efficiency VMware Companies have rapidly adopted server virtualization over the past few ... Download Now
• The Impact of Virtualization Software on Operating Environments VMware Today's use of virtualization technology allows IT professionals to ... Download Now
• Busting the myths about QuickBooks Enterprise Solutions and IBM Smart Business IBM So you already know there aren't actually any alligators in the New York ... Download Now