Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Microsoft Excludes GPLv3 From Linspire Deal

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 7 years ago | from the v3-is-a-hard-sell dept.

Microsoft 342

rs232 writes to tell us that Microsoft is excluding any software licensed under the new GPLv3 from their recent patent protection deal with Linspire. "Microsoft has since been treating GPLv3 software as though it were radioactive. 'Microsoft isn't a party to the GPLv3 license and none of its actions are to be misinterpreted as accepting status as a contracting party of GPLv3 or assuming any legal obligations under such license,' the company said in a statement released shortly after GPLv3 was published on June 29. In addition to excluding GPLv3 software from the Linspire deal, Microsoft recently said that it wouldn't distribute any GPLv3 software under its SUSE Linux alliance with Novell, even as it maintains in public statements that the antilawsuit provisions in the license have no legal weight. "

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

The GPLv3 works (3, Interesting)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 7 years ago | (#19903861)

Microsoft has since been treating GPLv3 software as though it were radioactive.
Great news!

Re:The GPLv3 works (4, Funny)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 7 years ago | (#19904421)

You say that now, but wait until Microsoft gets bitten by a radioactive license and turns into SuperEULA. You won't find it so funny then.

Re:The GPLv3 works (4, Funny)

Dracos (107777) | more than 7 years ago | (#19904957)

SuperEULA: able to transform customers into pirates with a single click!

(Ninjas of the world, beware)

re: SuperEULA (1)

macraig (621737) | more than 7 years ago | (#19905097)

Somebody's been playing a bit too much Nuclear War. I don't think I have that card in my decks....

Re:The GPLv3 works (5, Interesting)

kripkenstein (913150) | more than 7 years ago | (#19905093)

Great news!
As you and others said, if Microsoft is so worried about the GPL3, then the GPL3 must be on the right track. However, that isn't the real story here, as I see it.

The real story is how Microsoft changed its patent covenant, after the deal with Linspire was already finalized. Is Microsoft free under that deal to alter the patent covenant however they want - making it useless?

Not that the deal was useful for anything previously either. It doesn't cover 'clone products' - which perhaps includes OpenOffice and Wine, and it doesn't cover 'video game applications designed to run on a computer', nor 'unified communications', nor a long list of other things. Does it cover anything at all?

Stallman (3, Insightful)

timeOday (582209) | more than 7 years ago | (#19903879)

he must be doing something right if Microsoft is shunning it.

Re:Stallman (1)

AndyCR (1091663) | more than 7 years ago | (#19904581)

Exactly. If it "carries no legal weight", why are they so afraid of it?

So what? (4, Insightful)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 7 years ago | (#19903881)

Look, Microsoft is not an "Open Source" software company. Neither they, nor anyone else (including "Open Source" software companies), are obligated to distribute software under GPLv3. Indeed, contrary to popular beliefs, GPL is not the only real "Open Source" license.

Re:So what? (4, Interesting)

RiffRafff (234408) | more than 7 years ago | (#19903969)

True, but it would seem to me to undercut much of the Novell deal if a large percentage of the software in the distribution went to GPL3.

Re:So what? (-1, Flamebait)

rwven (663186) | more than 7 years ago | (#19904665)

That probably won't happen. Linus has publically stated that the GPL3 is utter crap. I think that sends a pretty large message to a great many software projects. The linux kernel isn't going to GPL3 anyway...

Re:So what? (4, Insightful)

mikelieman (35628) | more than 7 years ago | (#19905105)

SAMBA. Not being able to package Samba is the kiss of death.

Re:So what? (2, Informative)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 7 years ago | (#19905313)

Old versions of samba exist. It'll just fork. There's already a fork - samba-tng - and we don't know what's happening to that yet.

Re:So what? (3, Insightful)

shura57 (727404) | more than 7 years ago | (#19905245)

What good is the naked kernel? For any user, kernel is a must, but so are the applications. If applications all go GPLv3 then good luck selling naked kernel.

Re:So what? (3, Interesting)

Ohreally_factor (593551) | more than 7 years ago | (#19904079)

GPL 3 is going to be "radioactive" to a lot of companies. Hell, even the main Linux Kernel guys consider it malignant. Developers that want to see their code adopted and used by the mainstream, whether they are in it for profit or not, might want to avoid GPL 3, especially if their software has runs on specialized or proprietary hardware. GPL 3 creates what in essence is a walled garden. If you GPL 3 your code, you're putting it into that garden. It might be a very beautiful garden, but your code will never get out.*

*Assuming others are contributing to it. If you're the sole copyright holder for your project, you can always do whatever the hell you want.

15 years ago: (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19904387)

The GPL is going to be "radioactive" to a lot of companies. Hell, even the main BSD guys consider it malignant. Developers that want to see their code adopted and used by the mainstream, whether they are in it for profit or not, might want to avoid GPL, especially if their software has runs on specialized or proprietary hardware. GPL creates what in essence is a walled garden. If you GPL your code, you're putting it into that garden. It might be a very beautiful garden, but your code will never get out.*

*Assuming others are contributing to it. If you're the sole copyright holder for your project, you can always do whatever the hell you want.

Re:15 years ago: (4, Interesting)

Em Ellel (523581) | more than 7 years ago | (#19904725)

The GPL is going to be "radioactive" to a lot of companies. Hell, even the main BSD guys consider it malignant. Developers that want to see their code adopted and used by the mainstream, whether they are in it for profit or not, might want to avoid GPL, especially if their software has runs on specialized or proprietary hardware. GPL creates what in essence is a walled garden. If you GPL your code, you're putting it into that garden. It might be a very beautiful garden, but your code will never get out.*

*Assuming others are contributing to it. If you're the sole copyright holder for your project, you can always do whatever the hell you want.
Yep thats pretty much explains why BSD is the product of choice over Linux in many of the above cases. 15 years later BSD made it into mainstream products from large manufacturers (F5, OS/X and iPhone, etc) And the companies that try Linux (Tivo, Cisco) are treated as the enemy by GPLv3. Has GPL been like GPLv3 from the get go, would Tivo or Linksys ever consider using Linux or would those be BSD products?

-Em

Re:15 years ago: (3, Informative)

ahxcjb (942661) | more than 7 years ago | (#19904813)

Sorry, but I have to correct you. F5 BigIP now runs, and has for quite a while now, RHEL 3. That's GNU/Linux for the avoidance of any doubt - not BSD.

Re:15 years ago: (1)

Em Ellel (523581) | more than 7 years ago | (#19904843)

Sorry, but I have to correct you. F5 BigIP now runs, and has for quite a while now, RHEL 3. That's GNU/Linux for the avoidance of any doubt - not BSD.
Really?? Guess its been a while since I used latest F5 gear. Last I used it it was BSD. Sorry, I stand corrected.

-Em

Re:15 years ago: (5, Insightful)

vux984 (928602) | more than 7 years ago | (#19904795)

It might be a very beautiful garden, but your code will never get out.

Not quite. You can take code out of the garden and modify it for personal/internal use, and you don't have to share those changes. You only have to put your modifications back into the garden if you redistribute them, and putting them back in the garden is the only way you are allowed to redistribute those changes.

This ensures that changes that are redistributed are available to the original authors, and the community at large. That 'walled garden' is always open, and anyone can use it.

Other licenses allow you to take code improve it, and then redistribute it in proprietary walled gardens that may restrict who can use it. Why would I want to contribute code to be used in someone elses proprietary walled garden... where one day I might be required to pay a license covering the code I wrote and contributed.

copyright and license (1)

falconwolf (725481) | more than 7 years ago | (#19905285)

Why would I want to contribute code to be used in someone elses proprietary walled garden... where one day I might be required to pay a license covering the code I wrote and contributed.

Legally if you write code for yourself you own the copyright. Nobody can force you to pay a license fee to use that code unless you sell the rights to the code. Now you might of noticed I said "write code for yourself". That's important because if you write the code on someone else's (the owner's of that walled garden) dime, it's work for hire, then whoever hired you owns the code unless otherwise specifically stated in a contract.

Falcon

Re:So what? (5, Informative)

BlueParrot (965239) | more than 7 years ago | (#19904469)

GPL 3 creates what in essence is a walled garden. If you GPL 3 your code, you're putting it into that garden.
That is exactly the point. If you don't like it you can always use a license like the X11 license and permit anyone to do whatever they want with your code. The GPL is all about protecting the rights of the user by limiting the restrictions a developer may impose. This includes copyright, DRM, patents etc... The restrictions apply only if you choose to accept the license, which you only have to do if you want to modify or redistribute the program. In fact, the license explicitly gives you the permission to use the program without recognising the license.

9. Acceptance Not Required for Having Copies. You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program. Ancillary propagation of a covered work occurring solely as a consequence of using peer-to-peer transmission to receive a copy likewise does not require acceptance. However, nothing other than this License grants you permission to propagate or modify any covered work. These actions infringe copyright if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or propagating a covered work, you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so.
The bottom line is that if you want other developers to be able to prevent users from doing this or that with the program, the GPL is not for you. The GPL is NOT about giving developers the greatest freedom possible ( that would be public domain or BSD-style licensing ) the GPL is about defending the USER. In particular it is about defending his/her right to run, study, modify and redistribute the program. Patents and DRM-style lockdowns are attacks against these rights, which is why they are dissalowed.

Re:So what? (2, Insightful)

Ohreally_factor (593551) | more than 7 years ago | (#19904907)

I think you're mixing up GPL 2 and GPL 3 there. Admit it, they are two very different licenses. GPL 2 is a quid pro quo license. You get, but you have to give back (if distributing binaries; if a user wants to modify the code for private use, there is nothing protecting other users from this "stinginess").

GPL 3 reaches past this (some would say overreaches), and controls attempts to control the hardware designs of the user. The GPL 3 is much more focused on the rights of certain users, shifting those rights away from other users and developers.

I totally agree with you that any given developer should careful examine all his licensing options and choose the license that is right for his or her project. GPL 3 is not going to be the right license for some GPL 2 projects and vice versa. For some, neither will be right, and perhaps the BSD is better suited.

Also, perhaps calling the GPL 3 a walled garden is unfair of me. A garden sounds like it's going to be small no matter what, and the GPL 3 doesn't and won't have any such physical constraints. Yet there is a wall there between it and GPL 2. A GPL 3 fork cannot be merged back with GPL 2 code.

Re:So what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19905023)

This is just FUD.

GPL 3 is going to be "radioactive" to a lot of companies. Hell, even the main Linux Kernel guys consider it malignant. Developers that want to see their code adopted and used by the mainstream, whether they are in it for profit or not, might want to avoid GPL 3, especially if their software has runs on specialized or proprietary hardware.

Why are you using "specialized or proprietary hardware" as a justification for the mainstream avoiding the GPLv3? By definition, the mainstream doesn't use specialized hardware, and proprietary hardware is extremely rare too. Even if you ignore that, specialized and proprietary hardware aren't incompatible with the GPLv3.

GPL 3 creates what in essence is a walled garden.

Nonsense. The GPLv3 is compatible with a hell of a lot of different licenses. In some respects, it's more compatible than previous versions of the GPL.

It might be a very beautiful garden, but your code will never get out.*

Not true. Are you at all familiar with copyright law?

Re:So what? (2, Interesting)

FinchWorld (845331) | more than 7 years ago | (#19904161)

True, but it was my understanding (which may be wrong), that small, yet important parts of say the Linux Kernel will be emerging under GPLv3, which isn't going to play nice with the likes of Novell or certain proprietry software, which shafts them when it comes to upgrading.

Re:So what? (3, Insightful)

Ohreally_factor (593551) | more than 7 years ago | (#19904285)

Unless there's been a radical change in the last week, the Linux Kernel developers are eschewing GPL 3, saying it's a much worse license than GPL 2, which they consider to be a pretty good license. Most of their objections are due to the GPL 3's attempt to control hardware design and usage. The FSF has sent some squads to the LKML (Linux Kernel Mail List) to argue why the kernel developers "misunderstand", but so far I don't think they've convinced anyone, made any solid arguments, or overcome the kernel developers objections.

All the FSF can do is take the GNU/ userland GPL 3, but all the GNU/ tools up to that point are still GPL 2 and can be forked. On top of that, the BSD userland can be adapted to the Linux kernel. So I really don't see Linux going GPL 3, in whole or in part.

Re:So what? (1)

petrus4 (213815) | more than 7 years ago | (#19904397)

So I really don't see Linux going GPL 3, in whole or in part.

Give it time. Alan Cox has been chipping away at Linus about it more or less ever since the GPL 3 was first thought of, and the FSF sends its' minions to apply pressure on a fairly regular basis, as well.

Re:So what? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19904405)

The GNU/ tools up to that point are still GPL 2 and can be forked.

At enormous cost. Linux itself is just a kernel. The GNU toolchain outweighs it by a huge factor in terms of what actually makes a linux distro a linux distro, and the BSD userland is laughably inadequate compared to it.

I personally hope that as much as possible of the average linux distro goes GPLv3 as soon as possible. The mere fact microsoft is reacting so vehemently to it is an indication the GPLv3 gets something right.

 

Re:So what? (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 7 years ago | (#19904617)

So I take it that you are not using Samba?

Re:So what? (2, Informative)

jZnat (793348) | more than 7 years ago | (#19904859)

Or GNOME or KDE for that matter. Hell, he probably doesn't even use any open source systems because you still need some GPL-licensed program (GCC) to make it work, even with systems like OpenBSD.

Re:So what? (0, Troll)

Ohreally_factor (593551) | more than 7 years ago | (#19904945)

Those are part of the kernel now? My goodness, technology changes quickly!

Pretty good, much worse.... what???? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19904777)

You say:

"are eschewing GPL 3, saying it's a much worse license than GPL 2, which they consider to be a pretty good license."

So if GPL2 is "pretty good" and GPL3 is "much worse" does that make GPL3 just mediocre?

I don't get what you're saying. Can you please explain it with some hint of coherence?

Re:Pretty good, much worse.... what???? (1)

Ohreally_factor (593551) | more than 7 years ago | (#19904997)

So if GPL2 is "pretty good" and GPL3 is "much worse" does that make GPL3 just mediocre?

I don't get what you're saying. Can you please explain it with some hint of coherence?
Why not read the LKML [iu.edu] yourself and decide what you think the kernel developers are saying about GPL 3?

Re:So what? (3, Insightful)

Znork (31774) | more than 7 years ago | (#19904817)

"On top of that, the BSD userland can be adapted to the Linux kernel."

Did you know, the BSD userland actually has a BSD kernel too (a whole bunch of them, in fact)?

I think we can safely conclude that anyone who wanted the BSD userland and BSD licensed kernel would, in fact, already be using BSD. And looking at the history of the unix wars we can draw some further conclusions about how the anything-goes approach plays out. The only ones who'd be interested in a repeat of that would be Microsoft or some aspireing semi-proprietary vendors who arent familiar with the pile of proprietary unices that fell at the roadside.

The fact is, the bigger participants in that round have been staunch supporters of the FSF's approach on GPLv3; both Sun and IBM appear to have learned the lessons of fractured markets and IP warfare. It creates many more losers than winners, and it damages the market as a whole - better then to live with an enforced level playing field where you compete on being the best, as opposed to being the best backstabber, where you compete on being the quickest, not the quickest to lauch lawsuits.

In the end, even tho the ability to deny others freedom can lead to short term benefits for one or a few players, in the long term the enforced market freedom creates a bigger pie for all players.

The only real objection Linus has... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19904839)

The only serious objection Linus has is over TiVo-ization. He thinks it should be OK.
He says he is angry that FSF is claiming to protect freedom while taking away a certain freedom [iu.edu] from companies like TiVo.

But the freedom that FSF is taking away is the freedom to take away freedom from users of the software. Thanks you Linus, great protector of ... wha??

But keep in mind the politics that Linus has to deal with. There are many developers who would have to sign off on GPLv3. One of the biggies is Greg Kroah Hartmann of Novel, who owns the USB subsystem. Novel no doubt takes GPLv3 personally. Greg has actively tried to discourage [gmane.org] even the "or any later version" clause from being included in kernel patches.

On top of that, even if everyone wanted to go GPLv3, they would have to track down hundreds of developers. So it's just easier for Linus to say no to GPLv3 in any case.

Re:The only real objection Linus has... (1)

Ohreally_factor (593551) | more than 7 years ago | (#19905059)

But the freedom that FSF is taking away is the freedom to take away freedom from users of the software. Thanks you Linus, great protector of ... wha??
That's a very common mischaracterization of the objections to the hardware over reach of the GPL 3. If you want to really understand the kernel developers objections (and it's not just Linus), you need to read the relevant portions of the LKML [iu.edu] .

Re:So what? (1)

dosius (230542) | more than 7 years ago | (#19904975)

I've ported a bunch of BSD stuff myself, and I'd have no issue porting more if there were 36 hours in a day.

Nothing to do with GPL, everything to do with GNU bloatware.

-uso.

Re:So what? (2, Interesting)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 7 years ago | (#19904299)

Since GPLv2 and GPLv3 are incompatible, and parts of the kernel are GPLv2 only, it's not possible to have just a few parts of the kernel to be GPLv3. The resulting kernel would not be distributable at all.
IANAL however.

Re:So what? (2, Funny)

alph0ns3 (547254) | more than 7 years ago | (#19904593)

Hi Mr. Microsoft Employee!

Re:So what? (-1, Flamebait)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 7 years ago | (#19905235)

Hi Mr. Microsoft Employee!

What makes you say that? That I object to FUD regurdless of the source? Is FUD any less FUD because Comrade Stallman spews it verses Generalissimo Ballmer? Facts are facts: There are a wide variety of true Open Source licenses, that contrary to Stallman et al are perfectly honorable. As well, Stallman is has not yet been declared The One True God, and so people still have the freedom to choose other non-GPL based Open Source licenses (of which there are a number of quite nice ones).

And, as is the correct thing in a free capitalist country such as the USA, we are not obligated by law to follow Comrade Stallman's dictates and choose his One True Open Source License at all. Isn't that what freedom is about? This isn't the world according to Stallman. We can always choose one of the many other Open Source licenses, or even a closed license.

GPL Alturnatives [opensource.org]

I have serious issues with the impact of GPLv3 on the use of Open Source in an embedded environment on specialized hardware. But I am very happy to recommend and follow GPLv2.

MS and FOSS (1)

falconwolf (725481) | more than 7 years ago | (#19904633)

Look, Microsoft is not an "Open Source" software company. Neither they, nor anyone else (including "Open Source" software companies), are obligated to distribute software under GPLv3.

True but software currently under GPLv2 vary well may be moved to v3. As Linus had said he doesn't like v3 he may keep Linux licensed under v2. If so then MS could still distrbute Linux itself.

Falcon

Re:So what? (4, Informative)

NickFortune (613926) | more than 7 years ago | (#19904915)

Look, Microsoft is not an "Open Source" software company. Neither they, nor anyone else ... are obligated to distribute software under GPLv3

Which is true as far as it goes. The missing detail is the vouchers MS have been selling for SUSE Linux which have no expiry date. This means that, in principle, if anyone redeems such a voucher for a copy of SLES, and if that collection contains any code licenced under GPLv3 at the time they redeem the voucher, then there's a chance MS may be held to account under the terms of GPLv3.

Now whether that will stand up in a court of law or not is another matter. Eben Moglen and RMS seem to think so, since they wrote the new licence to allow the MS-Novell pact specifically for this reason. But like I say, we won't know for sure until it's tested in court.

On the other hand it seems reasonably certain that Microsoft sees some legal exposure there, or they wouldn't be making such a fuss. Because for all they talk as if the licence poses no threat to them, they are nevertheless backing away from it at every opportunity.

The thing is that if the GPLv3 does apply, then anyone they sue for patent violation hereafter is going to be able to claim that Microsoft licenced the patent for their use - else they had no right to distribute in the first place. That too will need to be tested in court, but again it seems that Microsoft are taking the threat seriously.

So that's "so what". It's not Microsoft don't use GPLv3 and we think they should.

It's more a case of MS may already be using GPLv3 which makes them a lot less scary.

Hope that helps, have a nice day.

Ignore it at your peril (1)

asphaltjesus (978804) | more than 7 years ago | (#19905005)

The point is they will be using their bully pulpit to sodomize the Linux market by conveniently ignoring whatever rule of law applies in this situation.

They will change tactics when ignoring the rule of law as they see fit is no longer tolerated.

Why isn't there a "noshit" tag? (3, Insightful)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | more than 7 years ago | (#19903909)

Why isn't there a "noshit" tag? The whole idea behind GPL3 was to keep Microsoft from license-protecting customers from lawsuits. Microsoft's main contention is that GPL2 allows them to do what they're doing. Why not just save room by posting a story that says "some old story, different day"?

Re:Why isn't there a "noshit" tag? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19904151)

Why not just save room by posting a story that says "some old story, different day"?

Cmdr Taco: You must be new here. Please reserve your comments for the dupe next week.

Re:Why isn't there a "noshit" tag? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19904643)

The primary purpose of v3 was to slow the erosion of v2 protection in embedded devices where GPL software was used, could be modified, but could not be run in modified form on the device. But, you're right: since March 19, v3 has explicitly inhibited deals such as the Microsoft-Novell deal in what seems to be a secondary implementation of rights reinforcement.

An other example of GPL3 suckyness (1, Flamebait)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 7 years ago | (#19903947)

It took over a decade for a lot of major corporation to adjust to Open Source and the GPL as a business model. A lot of this time was finding the right loop-holes in it that would make it work with their business model... With these loopholes both sides won. These company contributed to the Open Source Community as some level and the Company made money. Now a few people who to the most part are anti-capitalistic. decided to change the rules because they see that the a few companies found a hole in the GPL that allowed them to do things not in the Spirit of the original GPL. So they go and change it make it more rigid for corporations and incompatible with their business model. So yes they will block GPL 3 Code and Contribute less to Open Source and Hire Developers to make in house software. (Both Sides loose) Now it may take an other decade for Business to find how to make GPL3 work for them, but in the meantime it is back to priority software. By going to far in one direction you loose more people who are in the middle. The Utopian vision of totally free information and code will never happen, The best you can do is maximize it. GPL 3 in my opinion is trying to force the Utopian vision thus minimizing the use of open coding. I know we all hate Microsoft and all. But can you blame them, they are just starting to kinda sorta maybe just a little bit become open source friendly then the rules change.

Re:An other example of GPL3 suckyness (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19904091)

What is the difference of spurring on debate and Flamebait. A lot of supporters of Open Source are also big oponents of GPL 3. For a group of people who feel that information should be free and open you are sure quick to moderate down any information you don't agree with.

Re:An other example of GPL3 suckyness (5, Interesting)

kebes (861706) | more than 7 years ago | (#19904191)

With these loopholes both sides won.
Strange, I don't remember feeling a satisfying sense of victory when Microsoft tried to undermine our software by claiming that it infringed their patents. I don't remember feeling that we had "won" when Novell signed a deal with Microsoft to protect themselves and leave the rest of the community out in the cold.

The loopholes were just that: sneaky ways to evade the intentions of most of the most important contributors in the realm of FOSS. I have no problem with businesses making money using FOSS, and many of them do it in a way that is not only compatible with the intentions of the GPL, but actively promotes the cause of free software. However, those businesses who were exploiting loopholes in the GPL knew that they were not promoting our interests, and therefore should not be surprised when the community shifts to close those loopholes. Such a shift will only alienate businesses who were not helping "the cause" anyways.

The GPLv3 is not perfect, and is not a perfect license. I don't think that every project should switch to GPLv3... for some the GPLv2 may be a better match. However GPLv3 was crafted to address a very real problem, and judging from Microsoft's reaction, it is doing a great job in that regard.

Re:An other example of GPL3 suckyness (2, Insightful)

eclectro (227083) | more than 7 years ago | (#19904377)

just a little bit become open source friendly then the rules change.

I think the rules changed when Microsoft (or the companies before them) started shaking down everyone with their patent portfolio. I would be more willing to take your side if Microsoft had the courtesy to tell everyone what patents linux was violating. As it stands, Microsoft is the king of suck, and I do not see this zebra changing it's stripes anytime soon.

Re:An other example of GPL3 suckyness (4, Interesting)

71thumper (107491) | more than 7 years ago | (#19904413)

More importantly, GPLv3 serves as a reminder that choosing Open Source with the idea that "you'll never get left behind" is not a true position -- that all any given Open Source project really represents is the right to have the source code AS IT EXISTS NOW. In the future more restrictive licensing could be released that could impact you.

In short, GPLv3 really made "Open Source" more like "Closed Source" by clearly pointing out that what you may be allowed to do now you may not be allowed to do later (unless you fork and thus lose the community aspect that made it interesting in the first place).

After all, who's to say GPLv4 won't say "you must release any changes back to the community whether you distribute or not" ?

GPLv3 is the best possible thing that could have happened to Closed Source vendors because it just kicked the chair out from under most of the arguments in favor of Open Source.

Re:An other example of GPL3 suckyness (1)

Dan Ost (415913) | more than 7 years ago | (#19904671)

After all, who's to say GPLv4 won't say "you must release any changes back to the community whether you distribute or not" ?

Copyright law is what gives the GPL teeth. Copyright law says that you can't distribute at all without permission. The GPL says you can distribute as long as you meet certain criteria.

Now do you understand why the GPL can't place requirements on people who don't distribute?

Re:An other example of GPL3 suckyness (1)

Dog-Cow (21281) | more than 7 years ago | (#19904835)

The GP didn't say such a clause wouldn't work. He's pointing out that the GPL (and FSF) encourages the addition of restrictions as long as those restrictions meet their philosophical goals. In other words, they aren't interested in open code. If all they were interested in is open code, GPLv2 would have been fine and v3 not needed at all.

Re:An other example of GPL3 suckyness (4, Insightful)

tkrotchko (124118) | more than 7 years ago | (#19904845)

"that all any given Open Source project really represents is the right to have the source code AS IT EXISTS NOW."

What gives you any better choice?

When you buy Windows Vista, and you agree to the EULA, what exactly is it giving you the right to, except the license to run the binaries AS IT EXISTS NOW?

I "get" the purpose of GPL3. I "get" why companies like MS object to it. What I don't "get" is why this is an issue. The GPL2 is still there. BSD is still there. Apache is still there. Use those.

But implying that the GPL3 is taking something away from users is pretty silly. You know the score before you start... you get the candy for free, but you have to always share it with anybody who asks. If that's not okay, then don't use it! It doesn't limit your rights in any way.

Re:An other example of GPL3 suckyness (4, Insightful)

ZeroPly (881915) | more than 7 years ago | (#19904473)

I'm afraid you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how open source development happens.

Specifically, you are getting the cart before the horse. Company XYZ doesn't pick an arbitrary project from SourceForge and, strictly out of the goodness of their heart, task several paid programmers with working on it - with the goal of someday using it. Rather, they start using an existing product which is established (Linux, Apache, etc), and after heavy use realize that contributing to it is in their own best interest. Linux was successful BEFORE IBM invested a dime in it. Apache was successful before any corporation officially contributed a single line of code.

How exactly do you think corporations are going to "block" GPLv3 code? By the time the sofware is worth blocking, it has either gained a following or failed. If it already has a following, the only choice the corporation has is whether to jump on the bandwagon. 90% of corporations are USERS, not developers. GPLv3 makes absolutely no difference to my boss since he's not planning on redistributing any of the code. If 7Zip comes with GPLv3 rather than GPLv2, you really think he's going to skip on it and pay $40/license for WinZip?

Re:An other example of GPL3 suckyness (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19904557)

Now a few people who to the most part are anti-capitalistic

Pure capitalism doesn't have copyright. The GPL tries to force a free market system using copyrights. If there were no copyrights, the GPL wouldn't be necessary.

Re:An other example of GPL3 suckyness (1)

glwtta (532858) | more than 7 years ago | (#19904789)

It's "lose", the word is spelled "lose".

Oh yeah, and "blah blah I don't get the point of the GPL blah blah" - protecting free software from MS's "embrace and extend" strategies is quite high on the FSF's list of priorities, and rightfully so.

Re:An other example of GPL3 suckyness (1)

dosius (230542) | more than 7 years ago | (#19905077)

At risk of being called a troll... GNU does embrace/extend too. But it's "free software", so it's all right, I guess?

I prefer BSD precisely for that reason, they try to do it by the book, THEN they try to improve. That's why their binaries are easily half the size of GNU's.

-uso.

Why care about something with no legal weight? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19903971)

I read the summary as "Microsoft is being very careful ... to avoid stepping in the GPLv3 ... even though the GPLv3 has no legal weight". I realize that enough lawyers gives you infinite shades of grey, but it still seems like it's one or the other: if GPLv3 has "no legal weight", why bother excercising any due caution with your partner agreements?

Re:Why care about something with no legal weight? (2)

Volante3192 (953645) | more than 7 years ago | (#19904105)

The GPL has potential weight (as opposed to kinetic weight), and they hope if they keep repeating that "No, it doesn't" they'll make enough decision makers believe it.

Microsoft really doesn't want to test the GPL because there's a good chance it will get kinetic weight from a legal standpoint, which would be bad.

Re:Why care about something with no legal weight? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19904521)

One has to wonder how many of the more vocal GPL3 detractors who endlessly post on Slashdot are paid Microsoft, SCO, or Apple shills looking to create a divide in the free software community. One need only see how they played up the mostly positive feelings Linus has about the GPLv3, by quoting him out of context, into a controversy. There has always been a significant number of well funded and well positioned people who would like to see the GPL destroyed due to the protections it affords end users, and it would not surprise me in the least if they are the ones swarming around slashdot and other places now ceaselessly attacking it.

Re:Why care about something with no legal weight? (1)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 7 years ago | (#19904571)

Microsoft really doesn't want to test the GPL because there's a good chance it will get kinetic weight from a legal standpoint, which would be bad.

Or perhaps MS is respecting the licensing choice of developers, as it would like others to do.

Or perhaps both of us really don't know why MS is acting as it is, since neither of us know the people making the decisions or were in meetings regarding the actions.

Re:Why care about something with no legal weight? (1)

Volante3192 (953645) | more than 7 years ago | (#19904841)

But speculation is half the fun!

pleading in the alternative (4, Interesting)

oliphaunt (124016) | more than 7 years ago | (#19904437)

I'm not a lawyer, yet.

In a lawsuit, it is possible to argue multiple theories of liability, or multiple theories of innocence. As long as each theory is internally consistent, they don't all have to be consistent with each other. It's the legal version of throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks... and when you're just getting started, you don't want to leave stuff out by mistake, becuase there might be a chance that if you don't bring it up at the beginning you won't be allowed to bring it up later.

The classic example is: Your buddy says, "You bastard, you slept with my wife!" If this was a lawsuit, you might respond

a. No I didn't!
b. You said that I could!
c. She wasn't your wife!
d. I thought she was someone else!
e. I was insane!

This would be OK, becuase even though (d) seems to contradict (a), that doesn't automatically mean that (a) is invalid, even though BOTH statements can't be true at the same time. These are all alternative theories of how you might avoid blame/liability for the act, and in filing or responding to lawsuits, this practice is known as alternative pleading. [wikipedia.org]

In that context, Microsoft's GPLv3 statement doesn't need to be consistent- although it is unusual to see this kind of logical construct outside of a court document. The press release reads like they're anticipating a lawsuit, and they're trying to get their story straight ahead of time... In this situation, their story is plausible deniability. and it doesn't matter which alternative theory ends up working, as long as one of them does the job.

So it's perfectly legit for MS to use alternate theories to justify their actions- it just reeks of bad faith when their public position is so openly contradictory. It does seem pretty odd that Microsoft is using legal tactics to write their press releases- almost like they've got something to hide.

Re:pleading in the alternative (1)

querist (97166) | more than 7 years ago | (#19904779)

I hate to be pedantic, but please consider either reading your posts more carefully or taking a refresher in logic.

(a) and (d) can be true at the same time provided that the woman in question was not the plaintiff's wife. It is entirely consistent. The woman in question was not the plaintiff's wife, and the defendant did not _think_ that the woman in question was not the plaintiff's wife.

None of the arguments presented are contradictory to each other. (a), (c), and (d) can support each other. (c) and (d) can be considered the same thing, only to differing degrees. (c) is making an assertion about the identity of the woman while (d) is stating the defendant's beliefs regarding the woman's identity at the time of the incident in question.

(b) is all on its own. The utility of (b) lies in (1) diffusing the suit through commity (that is, the plaintiff knew about it and agreed to it, therefore cannot sue later) and (2) the fact that (b) does not accept guilt - it is simply a statement that the defendant was given permission by the plaintiff. It does not state that the action occurred.

An analysis of (e) and its interconnections with the other four arguments is left as an exercise for the reader.

IANAL, but this is simple logic.

That said, I suspect that there are people (including juries) who would agree with the original post due to their lack of understanding of formal logic. Unfortunately, until we have a system of trained, professional jurors we will not be able to avoid this issue. I believe that this is why it is possible to appeal decisions.

Re:pleading in the alternative (2, Informative)

oliphaunt (124016) | more than 7 years ago | (#19905111)

avast!

Did I say that all of the statements were contradictory?

no.

(a) and (d) can be true at the same time provided that the woman in question was not the plaintiff's wife. It is entirely consistent. The woman in question was not the plaintiff's wife, and the defendant did not _think_ that the woman in question was not the plaintiff's wife.

speck, eye, log, misplaced double negative- if the defendant thought the woman he slept with was the plaintiff's wife, he could not make statement (d). You're not allowed to change the facts to fit your argument.

So I'll assume the second bold "not" is a typo, and address that argument instead. While it is possible to construe a situation where (a) and (d) could be true, that situation does not comport with the context I gave in my original post. (d) implies that defendant actually slept with plaintiff's wife by offering an excuse or justification for the alleged transgression. To read it otherwise is to engage in unnecessary parsing.

I hate to be pedantic

So don't do it. You'll feel better. I'll freely admit that the wikipedia dog example is a more clearly defined example of contradictory statements [P: Your dog bit me! D: (a) my dog was tied up (b) I don't believe you were bitten (c) I don't have a dog], but that's not the way I heard the story.

Re:pleading in the alternative (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19905163)

Yes, you are being way too pedantic. Answers (b), (d), and (e) have the implicit assumption that, yes, he did sleep with the guys wife. As in:

b. Yes, I slept with your wife but you said that I could!
d. Yes, I slept with your wife but I thought she was someone else!
e. Yes, I slept with your wife but I was insane!

Re:pleading in the alternative (3, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 7 years ago | (#19905205)

I'm not a lawyer, yet. .... This would be OK, becuase even though (d) seems to contradict (a), that doesn't automatically mean that (a) is invalid, even though BOTH statements can't be true at the same time. These are all alternative theories of how you might avoid blame/liability for the act, and in filing or responding to lawsuits, this practice is known as alternative pleading.

Well, thank you for demonstrating why legal stuff seems so damned asinine to the rest of us.

Sure, we can argue five different things, no two of which can be self-consistent, but as long as we can get someone to give us the go ahead on one of those, then we'll act like that was the truth and our position the whole time.

The press release reads like they're anticipating a lawsuit, and they're trying to get their story straight ahead of time... In this situation, their story is plausible deniability. and it doesn't matter which alternative theory ends up working, as long as one of them does the job.

Or, when you put conflicting statements in front of anyone but a bunch of lawyers, everyone else will call shenanigans and point out you were full of crap from the get go?

I mean ... "We're not bound by that license, and if we were, we're negating the terms of the deal which would make us bound by it, and by the way, you're all doody heads, and, hey, look, a unicorn". WTF?

I'm sure someone could post a boring explanation as to WHY you can argue several contradictory points. It would only serve to reinforce to me that law in this realm isn't so much about truth, as being able to convince someone that something might not actually be false (even though it clearly is). Sadly, I'm sure there's very good reasons why we need to have this in law. It just seems so ... bizarre!!

Cheers

Re:Why care about something with no legal weight? (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 7 years ago | (#19904519)

It's a completely voluntary license and the terms are quite clear and not unreasonable. In general I don't think you can say "you're not allowed to sue me", but in this case it's a direct consequence of "By distributing this you grant me a patent license, thus you can't sue me for patent infringement" which is just spelling it out. Of course Microsoft will say it has no legal weight, SCO also claimed the GPL is unconstitutional...

M$ sucks!!!11! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19903999)

Burbage dies on pg. 12
Hedwig dies on pg. 56
Mad-Eye dies on pg. 78
Scrimgeour dies on pg. 159
Wormtail dies on pg. 471
Dobby dies on pg. 476
Snape dies on pg. 658
Fred Weasley dies on pg. 637

Harry gets fucked up by Voldemort on pg. 704 but comes back to life on pg. 724

Tonks, Lupin, and Colin Creevy have their deaths confirmed on pg. 743

19 years after the events in the book:

Ron has married Hermione, their two children are named Rose and Hugo

Harry has married Ginny, their three children are named Lily, James, and Albus Severus.

Draco Malfoy has a son named Scorpius

        The epilogue shows all of the children boarding the train for Hogwarts together.

The final lines of the book are: "The scar had not pained Harry for 18 years. All was well."

Plot Spoilers
Part of Voldemort's soul was implanted into Harry whenever he used Ara Kadvara on him when he was a baby. Harry then sacrafices himself a la Lilly Potter style, which allows him to kill Voldemort without killing himself. He also has hacks (stone to bring him back to life, and an uber wand).

Snape went to the good side (Hogwarts, etc.) because he was all emo that Voldemort killed Lilly Potter.

Harry has three kids with Ginny. Ron and Hermoine fall in love.

I say (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19904039)

fuck 'em

Re:I say (1)

Dog-Cow (21281) | more than 7 years ago | (#19904881)

I've never understood that phrase in relation to some party that isn't liked or is doing bad stuff. Why in the world would you want to have sex with them?

Does Linspire have any market share? (3, Interesting)

jkrise (535370) | more than 7 years ago | (#19904043)

So many firms have merely pretended to be at war with Microsoft - only to cave in later and become partners - Novell and Linspire being recent cases. Have any significant no. of customers actually signed up with Linspire for patent protection? I don't think so.

Microsoft's Covenant to Customers [microsoft.com] (Linspire's customers it would seem - not Microsoft's) hardly makes compelling business sense to consider Linspire for the business desktop. Few home users would consider themselves vulnerable to patent lawsuits by Microsoft, if they used Linux.

So this announcement merely indicates that GPL3 has won, and Microsoft has been compelled to publicly qualify their pre-negotiated deals with business partners, and customers gain more from GPL3 than covenants from Microsoft.

I, for one, welcome our... (3, Funny)

Will the Chill (78436) | more than 7 years ago | (#19904059)

bullet-dodging FUD-slinging bloatware overlords!!!

-WtC

Success! (5, Insightful)

kebes (861706) | more than 7 years ago | (#19904069)

Well, given that the GPLv3 was written specifically to make those "patent protection deals" untenable, this is a huge success for the GPLv3. Microsoft is essentially admitting that, legally, the GPLv3 does what it intends to do.

So, anyone who was bothered by the MS/Novell deal (and its variants) can and should encourage usage of GPLv3. Coders who want to prevent MS from using patent threats to splinter the community should consider adopting the GPLv3.

Since a certain number of important projects have already switched to GPLv3, this means that within a year or two the MS/Novell deal (and variants) will essentially disappear. As someone who was not happy with those deals in the first place, I say good riddance.

Re:Success! (1)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 7 years ago | (#19904543)

The deals may stop, but then MS may begin actively sueing companies that distribute gpl3 software. Do you think it'd be good if Redhat's legal now tookup 110% of revenue?

Re:Success! (3, Informative)

trolltalk.com (1108067) | more than 7 years ago | (#19904765)

Microsoft will never sue - they know that the only thing they can do is amke noises. Actually suing would be the equivalent of a first strike in a MAD - Mutually Assured Destruction - scenario, which they would ultimately lose.

The resulting positive publicity for linux would further erode their already slipping grip on their customer base. Like it did with allthe SCO BS.

is GPLv3 Successful? (1)

falconwolf (725481) | more than 7 years ago | (#19904993)

So, anyone who was bothered by the MS/Novell deal (and its variants) can and should encourage usage of GPLv3. Coders who want to prevent MS from using patent threats to splinter the community should consider adopting the GPLv3.

I'm not so sure. One of the things I've heard is that GPLv3 will create hardware vender lockout. Because of clauses in v3 they won't move to v3. It's hard enough the get hardware venders to release drivers for Linux, with v3 they won't period.

Falcon

All I know is that I know nothing!

What amazes me is this... (1)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 7 years ago | (#19904133)

What amazes me is the fact that most pundits warned Linspire about Microsoft's actions while citing its past actions. They did not listen and even went ahead to defend their position. I wonder how they (Linspire folks) feel now.

Re:What amazes me is this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19904551)

I imagine that Kevin "used car salesman" Carmony feels richer. As for everyone else, oh well, too bad so sad.

I know how they feel (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 7 years ago | (#19904663)

The are laughing all the way to the bank! MS paid them for nothing...

Re:What amazes me is this... (1)

Dan Ost (415913) | more than 7 years ago | (#19904735)

I guess it depends on how much money they were paid to sign the agreement. Was that ever made public?

So Torvalds and MS agree on one thing (2, Funny)

Brad_sk (919670) | more than 7 years ago | (#19904201)

On the other side - Theres atleast one thing both Linus Torvalds and MS agree on. They both disagree to GPLv3!!

Re:So Torvalds and MS agree on one thing (1)

vertinox (846076) | more than 7 years ago | (#19905001)

From my understanding, most of issues that Linus brought up with GPL3 were on a early draft. He did warm slightly when he saw the final draft.

http://www.linux.com/articles/114336 [linux.com]

Stupid Microsoft (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19904221)

Do they still not get the optional "later versions" clause that covers most GPL2 software?

Worse for Microsoft, they were being clever-dicks and trying to work around existing license terms. All that GPL3 does is make GPL2 these terms implicit; all of which a court would take into consideration.

Darth Gates (2, Insightful)

sconeu (64226) | more than 7 years ago | (#19904255)

I have altered the deal, pray I don't alter it any further.

Re:Darth Gates (2, Insightful)

Constantine XVI (880691) | more than 7 years ago | (#19904531)

The same could be said about GPLv3
(see also: your own sig)

Re:Darth Gates (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19904947)

I have altered the deal, pray I don't alter it any further.
IANAL, but wouldn't changing the licenses of the software involved in the deal essentially break the contract if not renegociated? If Microsoft continued to distribute the vouchers without this disclaimer it could be termed as acceptance of the change, similar to the periodically changing EULAs that force a click through every time you go to use some companies software. With their disclaimers they are essentially saying that they only offer their promise not to sue to users of software distributed as originally licensed at the time of the agreement, ie if the license has changed then the deal has changed and they won't hold up their end of the bargain because they never agreed to the conditions invoked by GPLv3.

Essentially they say they will hold up their bargain re: GPLv2 distributed by companies they have made deals with but any GPLv3 software you get that way is like getting a toaster from the bank with your new account, it is free, but the bank doesn't guarantee it. Tossing in the GPLv3 ex post facto like this is primarily the same as tossing a note into shipping containers that says "by taking delivery of this product you agree not to sue us if it is harmful to you in any way and you agree to pay us double for the delivery, prior contract not withstanding".

Again, IANAL and I could be wrong about any part of the above or all, but IMO Microsoft is laying the groundwork for evidenciary proof that they never intended to extend their guarantee not to sue to anyone that did not have a contractual agreement with them stating so. I also believe that they will fight any GPLv3 attempts to remove their rights to sue under grounds similar to those used by the courts to hold parking lots and others liable despite their signs and agreements on parking lot stubs which essentially say "if you use our services on our property you agree that the company is not liable for any damage or loss to your property while under our 'care'", which would be amusing considering the wording of their own EULAs.

Would certainly welcome a real lawyer's analysis/comments on the above or from someone with more knowledge/experience in such matters then myself. Of course the lawyers will probably have to include disclaimers such as "this is not free legal advice/opinion".

The shit hits the fan ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19904323)

Let's see now how MS realizes that it can't exploit GPL and or any other kind alike conscienceless company (which is redundant, I know).

I had the idea, sometime in the future MS will adapt Linux Kernel (a snapshot of it, essentially fork it) and run MS Windows on top of it, not yet excluded, right? Like Apple took *BSD fragments making MacOS-X ... at the end all use OSS software, but run their nifty (closed source) GUI on top of it . . . and all are happy: stable OS, great GUI, almost all open source, except the GUI layer ... this will happen, it's a matter of time (5 years). Of course, it will be interesting how FSF with handle it . . . GPLv4 or v5 preventing to use the kernel in a closed-source setup? Let's see.

Re:The shit hits the fan ... (1)

edwdig (47888) | more than 7 years ago | (#19904427)

Why would MS do that? The NT kernel is fine, it's the layers above it that's crap.

If they were going to use another kernel, they'd take one of the BSD kernels so that they could retain more control.

Re:The shit hits the fan ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19904603)

The advantage over *BSD development: Linux will become even more active with more corporate support (IBM, SUN etc) and the coming features will make Linux per-se a kernel "must-have". If MS were smart, they would fund a start-up porting next version of MS Windows on top of 2.6 kernel, knowing at 3.x they fork - MS cannot afford to develop their own kernels, and I wouldn't be that surprised Sun ends up with a Linux kernel on Solaris as well, when all the features they donate now make the Linux kernel as versatile as their current.

*BSD, even I prefere it myself, will remain what it is now, a niche, important one, and companies doing embedded stuff will use *BSD kernels to keep their secrets - but MS will, which I think, see Linux kernel is superior when the backing from IBM and Sun and others will keep up and more donations of "features" are happening.

I know, it's a lot of speculation, but I also speculated of Apple switching to Intel, and having maintained a x86 source-tree in secret for a quick change (I would have if I were Apple) - if I were MS, putting aside all resentment I do have, they must think long-term ... and realize, how "cheap" it is to harvest almature kernel full of features from IBM, Sun and who knows - they don't become OSS friends, they will be convinced by the way they can profit, as banal as this.

Re:The shit hits the fan ... (1)

edwdig (47888) | more than 7 years ago | (#19905305)

How can you say MS can't afford to develop their own kernel? They've been getting along just fine for decades with that approach. They even developed two different kernels (9x and NT) at the same time for good chunk of time. They obviously have the ability to do it.

And for the cost aspect, Windows makes them incredible amounts of money. Enough so that it, combined with Office, subsidizes everything else the company does. They make enough that they can lose a billion dollars a year from the Xbox division and not even blink.

Again though, the kernel is by far the best part of the Windows codebase. Why would they scrap that and keep the rest?

Re:The shit hits the fan ... (1)

huckamania (533052) | more than 7 years ago | (#19904877)

I've wondered for a while if MS could pull off forking everything that is "GPLv2" and "GPLv2 or Later". The trick would be to do shadow development, never release a thing, until they have replaced all of the code that is controlled by the FSF and others. Think tool chains, compilers, libraries, etc. Once they have those pieces in place, they can start distributing and keep everything GPLv2, since the guts of the GPLv3 stuff will have all been replaced.

Basically, it is similar to the "we'll rewrite any code covered by patents" defense everyone was so enamored with when MS first started huffing about patents. Which, BTW, is probably not a good idea, as it would basically show that the patent was infringed upon. That would allow MS to sue for the period of infringement, which could be a long time.

Speculation is so much fun...

Re:The shit hits the fan ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19904885)

There's no problem in MS or any other company building on linux so long as they play by the rules - something Microsoft has been consistently incapable of doing.

The patent threats and Novell deal are a stink-bomb from the nasty, malicious employees of a nasty, malicious company. A pathetic company too, they're absolutely terrified of being forced to compete on fair terms.

Another Info World Fud Link (1)

Filter (6719) | more than 7 years ago | (#19904335)

I guess this is what we get for not buying subscriptions to Slashdot.

This Info World sure seems hell bent on trolling, really driven, I wonder why they are so interested?

Microsoft agrees with Linus (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19904527)

Me too am with Linus on this one. GPL v3 is a bad idea.

Novell must remove samba? (1)

pavera (320634) | more than 7 years ago | (#19904807)

Since samba is going GPLv3, and the whole "point" of the MS/Novell deal was interoperability, and Samba is pretty much THE windows/linux integration point...

Obviously Novell doesn't have to remove samba, but I would imagine that the "vouchers" that MS has are for standard Suse distros which include samba. So, does Novell now have to create a "special" distro just for MS so they don't distribute GPLv3 software?

Doesn't this fork *.everything? (3, Insightful)

davek (18465) | more than 7 years ago | (#19904873)

I still haven't made up my mind on GPLv3, but I was under the impression that it was designed to unite, not to fork.

If most F/OSS goes GPLv3, and simultaneously Microsoft denies GPLv3 bug still has a vested interest in Novell Linux, won't that just mean that MS will fork every open source project at the point where it switches to GPLv3? They'll create their own faux-communities loyal to the regime and play them off as open source, and the public will eat it up since they don't know any better. Those who believe in F/OSS as a philosophy and accept GPLv3 will be branded pinkos and commies by "commercial friendly" open source, and die a slow death...?

I sure hope I'm wrong.

Why is this surprising? (1)

Jamie.Barrows (905463) | more than 7 years ago | (#19904923)

Considering that a lot of the GPLv3 was designed to specifically target the actions of companies like MS, is it so surprising that MS would be avoiding them? Yes I know MS is claiming those sections don't apply to them, but that really hasn't been proven in court yet. For now its still a bit nebulous. I'm not saying that MS is in the right about those sections. All I'm saying is that MS's lawyers think they might be able to convince the courts that they are right. FSF lawyers say it does apply to MS. Until a few court cases settle the issue, it only makes sense for MS to avoid GPLv3 code if at all possible.

Linspire Deal with the devil (1)

obergfellja (947995) | more than 7 years ago | (#19905041)

I vaguely remember something about Microsoft suing Lindows (currently Linspire) for name infringement. Now M$FT (The Devil) wants to metaphorically "make a deal with the devil" so to speak with Linspire? this just doesn't feel right at all.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?