How Microsoft dealt with GPLv3

This attempt at a sidestep means absolutely nothing.

Sheesh, maybe talk to some lawyers who have some clue next time. Look up Brendan Scott for starers.

By issuing coupons for Suse Linux which have no expiration date, Microsoft have locked themselves into a scenario where any GPL3 licenced code within Suse, and more and more will enter Suse, will come under the patent indemnification covenent available under that licence.

Yes, this happens even if Microsoft doesn't explicitly re-distribute code themeselves.

This is all courtesy of the wonderful 'new' extensions to copyright which were pushed into existence thanks to DMCA-style legislation, whereby even 'pointing' to software is considered a form of propagation., and thus falls within the aegis of copyright law and thus the GPL, which rests atop copyright law.

More here:

http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20070529151256367

» Report offensive content

Things are not so easy. When f.ex. your friend put your car in the car park, your car is a legal warrant that the fee will be payed - even when you not would have agreed, but much more when you agreed and put your friend to do so.

Here, MS$ software is that warrant.

It's a well-known rule that, something connected with the public domain, generally it becomes part of it. When you build a house or a wall on the area of your neighbour, it will become his ...

MS$ or other proprietary software, mixed with open-source software, becomes public domain, too.

But also in another sense, MS$ is bound on the GPL, no matter if MS$ is 'part' of it or not. There has no true other 'part` ...

Everybody can determine for whose benefit he prestate gratis work. Programmers can declare, that they stay with their copyrights and all other rights, but that under certain conditions, their software can be used free. When it is used/copied under other conditions, have to be paied a fee, or it's even forbidden.

A part of the GPL3 is nothing else than a 'help of formulation' for programmers which want to declare this.

It's clear that this is not depending on the 'agreement' or 'be part' with/of that declaration. Whom uses the program in any other manner than expressively permitted, violates the programmers/owners intelectual property, and is subjetc to license fees and to be forced to abstain heself from doing this.

According to the GPL3, permitted is only the divulgation of open software free from licensed software. Whom transmit/divulge it mixed with that, a) transmit the open software outside of the GPL/authors permission and thus irregular; b) put the annexed license software in the public domain. For b) M$ would have to demand indemnization from Novell etc --- but only when MS$ would not themselve have partcipated with b)

Things are not so easy.   When f.ex. your friend put your car in the car park, your car is a legal warrant that the fee will be payed - even when you not would have agreed, but much more when you agreed and put your friend to do so.



Here, MS$ software is that warrant.



It's a well-known rule that,  something connected with the public domain, generally it becomes part of it.  When you build a house or a wall on the area of your neighbour, it will become his ...



MS$ or other proprietary software, mixed with open-source software, becomes public domain, too.



But also in another sense, MS$ is bound on the GPL, no matter if MS$ is 'part' of it or not.  There has no true other 'part` ...



Everybody can determine for whose benefit he prestate gratis work.  Programmers can declare, that they stay with their copyrights and all other rights, but that under certain conditions, their software can be used free.   When it is used/copied under other conditions, have to be paied  a fee, or it's even forbidden.



A part of the GPL3 is nothing else than a 'help of formulation' for programmers which want to declare this.



It's clear that this is not depending on the 'agreement' or 'be part' with/of that declaration.  Whom uses the program in any other manner than expressively permitted, violates the programmers/owners intelectual property, and is subjetc to license fees and to be forced to abstain heself from doing this.



  According to the GPL3, permitted is only the divulgation of open software free from licensed software. Whom transmit/divulge it mixed with that,   a) transmit the open software outside of the GPL/authors permission and thus irregular;  b) put the annexed license software in the public domain.    For b) M$ would have to demand indemnization from Novell etc --- but only when MS$ would not themselve have partcipated with b)  

» Report offensive content

err....silverlight/moonlight has nothing to do with either accepting or rejecting GPL3.

Moonlight will likely be integrated with mozilla, which has a much broader license and has nothing to do with the GPL or GPL3.

As a standalone piece of software, Moonlight or even silverlight can be anything they want ....even...gasp ... closed source commercial software....and still run on Linux.

» Report offensive content

(quote)
It appears that the standard operating procedure for Microsoft will be to send open sourced partners into the GPLv3 car park.

It's a good strategy for Microsoft, it gets their platforms onto systems it would otherwise not enter, it avoids any legal pitfalls and the hard work is done by somebody else.
(unquote)

You haven't understood GPL2 or GPL3 right. The issies are mor complex than that. A more representative analogy is given below:

GPL2 says you can park in the service station car park free, but you cannot operate a vehicle clamping scam within the free service station car park where a rouge clamper sells a clamping protection license sticker which users have to display on their windscreens, in order to avoid the threat of being wheel clamped by the rogue clamper. This wheel clamping extortion scheme is prevented in the GPL2 free car park by denying use of the car free park to any car with a clamping protection license sticker that offers selective protection from clamping within the free car park in return for payment to a clamping company.

The rogue clamper Microsoft has circumvented the intent and spirit of GPL2 by creating it's own clamping protection license which it sold to agent Novell, in a license deal. Novell sells it's "clamping protection scheme" to the vehicle owner, but since Novell itself isn't threatening to do the the clamping, the GPL2 anti-clamping provision is likely to be interpreted in a court as technically not circumvented by this arrangement.

In the GPL3 free car park, use of the car free park is denied to any car with a license sticker that offers selective protection from clamping within the free car park in return for payment which is procured in any way. Hence Microsoft can't circumvent GPL3 - Microsoft can license it's clamping protection license to anyone it likes (that is Microsoft's right), but the vehicles that are licensed in this way cannot use the free GPL3 car park on free GPL3 terms and conditions (although there is nothing to stop such vehicle owners or Microsoft reaching agreement with the owners of the carpark for parking under alternative conditions satisfactory to the car park owners) .

The problem for Microsoft is that it has signed an agreement with Novell for it's clamping license to cover all GPL free car parks, but nobody wants to just buy licenses for only GPL2 car parks, so Novell is issuing a GPL clamping protection licenses which cover GPL2 and GPL3. Microsoft cannot comply with both GPL2 and GPL3 without allowing cars into combined GPL2 and GPL3 car parks without clamping cars not displaying the anti-clamping protection stickers. It doesn't want to abandon it's clamping protection scheme. It doesn't want to breach GPL3 and end up being sued in court, so it has decided to houour the GPL3 but breach it's contract with Novell and pay compensation to Novell or renegotiate the terms in favour of Novell if Novell threatens to sue.

» Report offensive content

I agree...the EULA makes sense....but unlikely..

» Report offensive content