What the GPLv3 Means for MS-Novell Agreement

eldavojohn writes to mention IT Business Edge has a dry but interesting interview with a lawyer (Antoinette Tease) on the effects the GPLv3 on the Microsoft & Novell alliance. From her answers: "Unlike prior versions of the GNU General Public License (GPL), which did not address patent rights, the current draft of the GPL version 3 has several provisions that address patent rights. Section 2 states that the license to use the open source code 'terminates if you bring suit against anyone for patent infringement of any of your essential patent claims' based on any version of the open source program." She goes on to say "the GPLv3 as currently drafted would impose an obligation on Novell to somehow 'shield' its customers from patent lawsuits brought by Microsoft, or, alternatively, to make the source code publicly available..."

Re:micro$oft

[gstoddart]

What is microsoft doing? Are they trying to get into the Linux market or are they just playing patent games?

FUD and misdirection I should think.

The more we can bandy about the claim that only people who get indemnity from MS/Novell can be free of all of the (alleged) patent infringement which is (allegedly) peppered throughout the Linux codebase, the more people might actually believe it.

They want to be able to spread the perception that Linux is tainted by their IP, and that running it if it isn't the 'blessed' system is done at your own peril. If they 'embrace' Novell, then they can extinguish all of the other ones by freezing them out. Then, they extinguish Novell over time.

Of course, that's just what I think. I've been known to be wrong before. :-P

Cheers

We've been through this twice already!

[mi]

Remember, when the (false) news came out, that OSF/GNU/whatever is going to sue Novell over their deal with Microsoft?

First, when the news was still hot, a number of (Insightful) comments were posted, explaining the issue along the lines of Ms. Tease's argument.

Then, the next day, it was announced, that there are no such plans (for litigation) and the author of the original article was criticized for pulling something out of you-know-where.

Some of the comments (including mine) then reminded, that the "GPL is da bomb", much to the annoyance of GPL fan-boys, who claimed, there is absolutely no danger for a business in mixing it with their own wares.

Here we go the third time around, and GPL really is "da bomb" (no litigation today does not mean, no litigation tomorrow)... Its fans may argue, that it is a weapon in good hands, guarding freedom against proprietary evils — may be. But there is no denying, that it is a weapon (bomb), and that businesses may want to give the idea another thought — or opt for BSD-licensed software instead.

Correct for what goal?

[Chmcginn]

The correct language in GPL v3 would be something like, "This agreement is void in its entirety if the covered software is found to implement a current, valid patent whose owner has not offered the patent for use for free in any manner comperable to how it is used in the covered software."

If their goal was to avoid accidentally using a software patent, that would be correct.

But if their goal is to instead set up a state of (some degree of) mutually assured lawsuits, then what they are doing is the correct choice. If Microsoft (or any other software vendor, for that matter) takes a single piece of GPL v3 code that wasn't previously released as GPL v2 code, any software patent lawsuit will trigger a response of copyright infrigement lawsuits.

Re:SUPPORT THE GPLV3 NOW

[RobertM1968]

I think it more likely that MS is trying to kill the *nix world through their deal with Novell - how much longer before software that was Open Source/GPLd becomes MS' property and whole sections of *nix need to be re-written? MS can either put pressure on Novell to copyright or patent the code, or put pressure on Novell to allow MS to patent or copyright the code.

Keep in mind, MS doesnt need to have the code copyrighted - they can patent the "idea" that the code implements, allowing no one else to write replacement code that MS wont consider a violation of their patent.

It cant be as simple as MS trying to get into the Linux market - with what products? They dont have a *nix OS or a *nix app to make money off of in that arena. Anyone remember Connectix? Remember MS' promise to keep support for running on other OS's? Then the OS/2 and Mac clients were dropped... Buy (or buy your way into) anything that they see as a threat and corrupt it from the inside out...

Just my thoughts...

-Robert

The tricky bit is to KISS

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason the GPL is so successful is that it is very simple. That makes it very hard to pick holes in. The more bits they tack onto it, the more likely it can be overturned in court. It's darn hard to write something simple, elegant, comprehensive and bullet proof.

Re:it's a way to divide the community

[Rycross]

I think that its more about Microsoft being able to say they interop without having to actually do it in a real, significant way. That way they can avoid possible lawsuits without actually having to give people a possible migration path. They're getting sued in the EU over interop issues after all... and it does fit in with Microsoft's MO. Not that FUD isn't a nice bonus.

What it means... nothing.

[kinglink]

Ok so someone creates a version of linux, I get that version of linux under the GPL (v1 v2 or v3). The next day the author decides that they want to use the next version of linux. They can redistribute it under the GPL v2 but unless there's a provision that says the creator can change the terms of the license at a moment's notice. Last I heard (or didn't hear) no such provision is made, and no one would accept it if it was. If I got the GPL v2 version of the software then I'm required to only use it as specified in GPL v2. If GPL v2 said I can share that code as long as I share it's source and the license then anyone can take it from me. So from that perspective the version of software Novell and Microsoft are discussing is theirs they have no fear from GPLv3.

On the other hand if they are going to incorporate new parts there's a problem, however just from the last 6 months, I've heard numerous people who will flat out not support GPLv3, which tells me that GPLv3 is going to have issues if not be down right thrown out. Unless everyone supports it (namely the people coding the kernel of linux is going to be a big factor) then it's going to screw everything up.

This is part of the problem with the FSF, they want their license to succeed but to do so they kinda steamroll over problems like this and the semi viral nature of GPL (if you use our code your code must be GPL). GPL has issues and the solution isn't a new version that creates new problems, if anything a lot of these problems make me want to avoid GPL more than try to embrace it.

GPL v3 will certainly further divide the community

[HornWumpus]

Why is Microsoft trying to make it impossible for Novell to use GPLv3 components?

BSD will benefit. Will we see the GNU tools replaced by BSD based tools?

Is that even possible? (I'm asking a serious question, as opposed to the troll like nature of the rest of this post)

I see GPLv3 as being far too political a license.

Stallman has had his Shockley moment. After being surrounded by people telling them 'your poop don't stink' and how smart they are for a period of time lots of smart people 'Go Hollywood' and start to believe it. They then start talking out of their butts about shit they are unqualified to speak of (e.g. Shockley about eugenics, Pauling about vitamin-C, Stallman about economics and politics, Chomsky about economics and politics, the Pope about sex etc etc)

I'm coping to this being troll like. Only 'cause I understand the audience. It's an honestly held opinion. I'm consistently amazed I have any karma at all.

Re:Correct for what goal?

[SpaceLifeForm]

There is no way that you know that as
you can not see the source code.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:What about Open in Open Source?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I used to think it was nice, but I am much more drawn to the BSD licence, because it is much opener then GPL3.

A lot of people invest a lot of time in writing code they contribute to open source projects. Usually those people are less motivated by some hippy idealism of giving away things for free and are more interested in the benefits they can get from a license in terms of protecting their investment and soliciting free work from others. The GPL is so popular not because it is the most "free" but because it strikes a balance that makes most people happy. If I or my company devote significant time and investment in creating some code, I don't think it is fair that some other person or company should make minor addition (like adding a new type of hardware support) and then sell my work back to me and to others. Do you think it is "right" for you to take code that is 99.9% written by others and make money off of it while the people who did all the work get nothing? Most people don't so they avoid the GPL for most userland software.

Now I've contributed to BSD licensed projects, but I don't think they are ideal in most cases. The GPL is a guarantee that the code that is being actively developed will not be a closed fork that I can't access anymore. The intention of the GPLv3 is to insure that the code that is actively being developed is also not covered by some patent that makes it almost as unusable to me. I'm not advocating the GPLv3 and I'm not certain it is the right way to go, but I certainly understand and sympathize with the intent. Like it or not most open source code is developed by commercial companies for profit and if the deal you struck with the companies doing the rest of the development is not in your own best interests and, in fact, is exploiting your generosity, well, you have no one to blame but yourself for choosing that license. The GPL like all licenses is about protecting the interests of the developers.