Microsoft Excludes GPLv3 From Linspire Deal

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. "

The GPLv3 works

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

Great news!

Re:The GPLv3 works

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

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

(Ninjas of the world, beware)

Re:The GPLv3 works

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?

Re:The GPLv3 works

BALMER: I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further.

Stallman

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

So what?

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?

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?

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

Re:So what?

Old versions of samba exist. It'll just fork.

It's not as simple as saying, "fine, we'll just ditch anything GPLv3". Who's gonna maintain the fork? 'Cause you gotta maintain it, you can't just fork it and let it rot. Will Microsoft pick up the fork? Will any of the Linux distro's that made a deal with Microsoft? Will they fork and maintain all projects that go GPLv3?

See, it's not just a matter of forking the code. The license still sticks. OK, it's not GPLv3, it's good old GPLv2, but I think they'll have a lot of trouble dealing with just GPLv2 too. Remember, v3 made patent protection explicit and took it globally. But the stuff was still there, albeit implicit and USA-centric.

All in all, I absolutely love seeing Microsoft publicly stating it won't touch GPLv3 with a ten foot pole. This is it, folks, this is THE shit. FSF got the holy Grail. It tells the corporate assholes "take it or leave it", and they gotta choose. And neither option comes easy.

I think it's a knee-jerk reaction of Microsoft's to simply dismiss everything GPLv3, but they're probably frantic to get out of the Novell deal with clean face. It turned worse that they could've ever dreamed.

Re:So what?

There's already a fork - samba-tng - and we don't know what's happening to that yet.

Uh, yeah we do. According to its Wikipedia entry [wikipedia.org], it's pretty much dead. It's at version 0.4.99, which was released almost two years ago, and apparently hasn't had more than "minimal" development since it was forked:

Samba TNG was forked in late 1999...

Since 2000, development on Samba TNG has been minimal...

purpose served, project ended

Samba had been encoding/decoding network packets in a very manual way, with a collection of ugly macros to do the job. Samba-TNG was forked largly to switch over to doing RPC via IDL (an Interface Devinition Language, which gets processed at build time to produce *.c stub/wrapper functions to do the marshalling and unmarshalling).

The main Samba team learned their lesson. They switched to an IDL for Samba 4. Samba-TNG has been a very close clone of the Microsoft implementation, warts included. Samba 4 is far better.

Thus Samba-TNG has served it's purpose: teach the Samba developers that IDL is a good idea. Done. Mission accomplished.

Re:So what?

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:15 years ago:

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:

I agree with you that a BSD license is superior to a GPL license if you're looking to build a business around the software. So why are so many companies using GPL licensed code? Why are Microsoft and Novell trying to make money from a Linux distribution when they could have selected a BSD distribution instead?

Re:15 years ago:

"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 to abuse 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?"

There, fixed that for ya.

Re:15 years ago:

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.

Re:So what?

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?

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?

"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...

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:So what?

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.

Why isn't there a "noshit" tag?

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"?

An other example of GPL3 suckyness

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

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

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

"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

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?

Does Linspire have any market share?

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...

bullet-dodging FUD-slinging bloatware overlords!!!

-WtC

Success!

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!

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.

What amazes me is this...

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.

So Torvalds and MS agree on one thing

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

Stupid Microsoft

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

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

Another Info World Fud Link

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?

Novell must remove samba?

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?

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.

Re:Doesn't this fork *.everything?

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.

It was never that intention. GPLv3 was created solely to close the loopholes that many of the companies that were taking advantage of the GPLv2 in order to prevent their customers from gaining access from modifying the source. (aka "tivo-ization") in which vendors would simply deny modification of the source they were to provide by using another developers code under GPLv2 by adding hardware DRM.

Or in Microsoft's case by means of patents.

From my understanding there is nothing that compels any developer to upgrade from GPLv2 to GPLv3 unless you desire to use someone else's code that is being upgraded to GPLv3 with code changes (you are still free to hold on to their GPLv2 code without updating)

And the other main beef that people have is the "and later versions" clause in GPLv3, but you are free to remove that if you want as a developer of your own code (Not so much if you are using someone else's code! But no one is forcing to use other people's work instead of making you own!)

Why is this surprising?

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.

3 problems: Samba, GNU Coreutils and Tar.

Don't they know that coreutils and tar form a good chunk of any Linux distribution? And Samba's used to talk to MS Windows?

Don't they know that those packages are GPL v3?

In other words, Microsoft ether has to rewrite those packages themselves, break the distro into an unusuable state, or drop any Linux deals.

Or give up on the patent saber rattling.

We win

I don`t think all this is over but it looks like we`ve won... -- $ /usr/bin/fortune

Zune

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

Then I urge Microsoft to change the Zune firmware so that no GPLv3-licensed MP3 file is edited by the device when sending it over WiFi, or at least a provision explicitly prohibiting users from sending those. A Zune-modified MP3 is, AFAIK, a derivative work, and as such any change made by Microsoft to it "carries over" into the receiving Zune the requirement for fully licensing the DRM technology used to lock it down, as well as any and all related patents.

It would be a good idea to also block or forbid transmission of GPLv2 MP3. Although GPLv2 doesn't have the anti-DRM clause, it does indeed have the patent-licensing one. If Microsoft doesn't agree with such licensing, it must cease and desist, effective always, from distributing said GPLv2 music.

My thoughts

I'm against GPLV3 as well (sure plug the Tivo hole, but leave my web services alone! A good hearted open source geek needs to make a living.)

Anyhow, at first I thought Microsoft move's a good thing. But then again, microsoft is evil, so if they oppose GVLV3, then *it* must be a good thing. But I'm against it. But I don't like Microsoft.... Ahhrhhrhrhrrhghh... *HEAD EXPLODES*...

Killers

Microsoft has sounded the death knell for Novell/SuSE and Linspire. As the software moves on, they will have to maintain their own clean-room tree's under GPLv2 in order to both continue doing business and to satisfy their contracts with Microsoft. The problem is Novell and SuSE have been extremely good for the Linux using/developing community and I think Microsoft did it deliberately. With a few simple contract deals, Microsoft has significantly dented the appeal of Linux. While that hasn't really been popularly accepted yet due to the euphoria of the GPLv3 attack against Microsoft the economic after-effects will start to trickle through in the next couple of years.

"coupon expiration date" "works" as counterFUD

The Microsoft patent claims are FUD. Both sides know that Microsoft will never bring these claims into a court where they could be carefully checked. This allows both sides to say virtually anything and get away with it.

Microsoft can say its patent claims are valid, without telling anyone precisely what they are.

On the other hand, Eben Moglen, and Pamala Jones of Groklaw, are free to expound this ridiculous "coupon expiration date + gplv3" counterFUD theory. Any stick is good enough to beat a mad dog with.

Apparently, the tactic has worked. Because the tactic is aimed at suits, who might be worried about Microsoft's FUD, the counterFUD theory does not have to be sound to work.

No one has ever come up with some on point case law showing that distributing coupons is the same thing as "distributing software" within the meaning of Title 17 section 106 [cornell.edu].

Pure software licenses, like both version of the gpl, lack the power to prohibit anything that is allowed by copyright law with out the permission of the copyright holder. The GPLv3 does not even try. Let us look at the definitions section:

To propagate a work means to do anything with it that, without permission, would make you directly or secondarily liable for infringement under applicable copyright law, except executing it on a computer or modifying a private copy. Propagation includes copying, distribution (with or without modification), making available to the public, and in some countries other activities as well.

To convey a work means any kind of propagation that enables other parties to make or receive copies. Mere interaction with a user through a computer network, with no transfer of a copy, is not conveying.

As you can see, if something is allowed by the applicable copyright law, without permission of the copyright holder, it is not propagating or conveying. Since the gplv3 is basicly a bunch of complicated restrictions on propagating and conveying, the gplv3 does not even try to prohibit such activity. Not that it would do any good if it did try to prohibit such activity.

The other way to go, is to say, that Microsoft's activity with the coupons is indirect infringement. Indirect infringement is not in the statute, it is judge made law. A recent court decision on a totally unrelated matter seems to block this path.

In a totally different case, with a totally different fact picture, Capitol Records, Inc., et al., vs Debbie Foster and Amanda Foster, Lee R. West United States District Judge says:

The Copyright Act does not expressly render anyone liable for infringement committed by another. Metro_Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.. 545 U.S. 913, (2005). Rather, the doctrine of secondary liability emerged from common law principles. Id. Under those common law principles, one infringes a copyright contributorily by intentionally inducing or encouraging a direct infringement. The elements of a claim for contributory copyright infringement are: (1) direct infringement by third party; (2) knowledge by the defendant that third parties were directly infringing; and (3) substaintial participation by the defendant in infringing activities. See Newborn v. Yahoo!, 391 F. Supp.2d 181, (D.D.C. 2005); see also Newborn v. Yahoo! Inc., 437 F.Supp.2d 1 (D.D.C 2006) (finding defendant was entitled to an award of attorneys' fees after prevailing upon plaintiff's frivolous and objectively unreasonable contributory copyright claim). Merely supplying means to accomplish infringing activity cannot give rise to imposition of liability for contributory copyright infringement. Id.;see also A & M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc. 239. F.3d 1004, 1013 (9th Cir. 2001). One infringes a copyright vicariously by profiting from direct infringement while declining to exercise a right to stop or limit it. Grokster, 545 U.S. 913.

GPLv3 excluded to protect Linspire, not Microsoft

The expiration date on the grandfather clause has expired. If Linspire agreed to this deal without excluding GPLv3 software, Linspire would be in violation of GPLv3. Thus, the exclusion of GPLv3, from the deal is to protect Linspire, not Microsoft. Microsoft does not give a *%$#, it has not and does not agree to any version of GPL, so GPLv3 terms are not relevant to Microsoft.

...or later

I wonder which part of "GPLv2 or later" Microsoft's lawyers are unable to comprehend.

Do they even realize of most free software today is licensed this way? Would someone do an analysis of everything in Linspire and publish a report of how much of it falls under the "...or later" clause?

Re:Why care about something with no legal weight?

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:The shit hits the fan ...

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.

pleading in the alternative

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

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?

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...

Re:The shit hits the fan ...

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:I say

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?

Re:M$ sucks!!!11!

You are my new best friend. Thank you.