Authored by: lordshipmayhem on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 01:34 PM EDT

Authored by: lordshipmayhem on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 01:37 PM EDT

Remember to try to make links clickable! [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: hbo on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 01:39 PM EDT

I don't get how Microsoft continues to be a Linux distributor after they convey all the vouchers to a 3rd party. For example, let's say they sold (or gave away) all the vouchers to Dell. Wouldn't that constitute the end of Microsoft's distribution? Regards,

Howard ---

"Even if you are on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there" - Will Rogers [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: capt.Hij on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 01:40 PM EDT

This is interesting but it will only apply to software licensed under the GPL

v3. The linux kernel is specifically licensed under the GPL v2, and it will be

very difficult to get *everybody* to agree to going to v3. On the other hand, if

this turns out to be true, then it may add more pressure for the kernel

maintainers to at least try to go to v3.

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: lordshipmayhem on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 01:40 PM EDT

This is law like full-body-contact chess, and Microsoft is the skinny kid who

just got tackled by the 320 pound linebacker...



...ouch, that's gonna leave a mark.... [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: AJWM on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 01:42 PM EDT

Surely the critical date is not the date that GPLv3 goes into effect, but the

date on which Novell starts distributing a version of SuSE that includes GPLv3

software.



As long as Novell can keep distributing under v2, nothing they or Microsoft does

kicks in any v3 terms. (Although the v3 kicks in with _any_ GPLv3 software

that's part of the SuSE distro.)



Do the certificates have a (Suse) version number? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: martimus on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 01:46 PM EDT

I wonder if M$ tricked Dell into paying money for those vouchers, or if they were just given away in a frenzied effort by M$ to disassociate themselves from them. I guess we will never know for sure, but M$ seems to have really shot themselves in the foot. Much better than anyone else could have, anyway. ---

To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin: Billions for defense, but not one cent for dhimmitude. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 01:48 PM EDT

Hey, everybody!



It took a couple of paragraphs before the big deal of this sank in. When PJ

mentioned the quirk about distributing after GPL3, that's when it hit me.



I actually laughed out loud and people are wondering what's so funny.



Those who plot the destruction of others destroy themselves.



We have met the enemy and they is us.



Oh what a tangled web we weave....



I'm sorry, but the only other quote I can think of to describe this comes from

PvP:



Brent: Irony! We meet again, old friend!

Cole: You might want to pencil some time in for karma, while you're at it.



Dobre utka,

The Blue Sky Ranger [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 01:48 PM EDT

I'd like a coupon,



I'll turn it in after GPL goes live, and then everyone will be safe! [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: MjBarne on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 01:52 PM EDT

Doesn't this argument rely on Linux moving to GPL V3? I don't believe that is a

certainty yet.

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: jog on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 02:00 PM EDT

MSFT will have to *beg* Novell to make

cupon redemptions: version-update-patch,

locked in as GPLv2. (happy customers much?)

How much are the ones Dell bought worth now?

I'll be watchin

jog [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 02:03 PM EDT

Ah! Lawyers at work. It'll be intriguing to see what Microsoft can do next. I told you law was like chess, but this is like watching a game played live. Isn't the law more fascinating than you thought? Umm. No. More insidious, perhaps. This is certainly not like watching a game played live. It will be many years before anything could possibly come of this, assuming Microsoft doesn't find a way to fix it, assuming it is a valid issue, etc. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 02:11 PM EDT

Does anyone have a link to an image of the actual voucher? I love to see what

it looks like. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 02:17 PM EDT

Please keep a few coupons back for GPLv4, 5, 6, etc - giafly [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 02:18 PM EDT

Wouldn't it be amusing, if not downright ironic, that after all the bile and

scorn heaped on Novell (by the FOSS community in general, and Groklaw in

specific) in response to their "deal with the Devil", that that very

deal should prove to be Redmond's undoing? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 02:22 PM EDT

I thought that Linux was going to remain under the GPL v2 license for the time

being so how is the GPL v2 license going to help?



I don't get it. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: enodo on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 02:22 PM EDT

I'm confused. Let's assume that someone turns in a voucher for Suse after the date v3 goes into effect. At that point, all of the software on it has the "v2 or any later version" language in the license. Therefore, Novell can say it's distributing under the terms of v2, which doesn't make Microsoft a distributor.

If Suse subsequently contains a single application that explicitly uses the v3 only license, doesn't that only mean that users/distributors of that particular package can't be sued? So if some other package (allegedly) violates a patent, MS can still sue over that, right?

can't be sued? So if some other package (allegedly) violates a patent, MS can still sue over that, right? I don't understand how MS could be sued under the GPL v3 anyway. How does their procuring distribution for the code make them a party to the license? Suppose I procure distribution of something that violates a copyright - why does that make me a copyright violator? I guess I don't see how this provision of the GPL v3 works... [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 02:27 PM EDT

Get your tin-foil hats, I think there might be a fork risk.



What if, in this contract with Microsoft, Novell agreed not to release any

software under GPLv3?



What if Novell agreed to fork the code at the point where GPLv3 takes hold and

begin their own in-house development under GPLv2.



Novell certainly has the know-how, money and man-power to do it, and with Dell

in bed with MS, they can probably lock them up with Novell's own forked version

of GPL software.



What about SAMBA? Novell stated they got access to protocols from Microsoft as

part of the deal. Novell also has Miguel de Icaza who probably knows enough

about MS to continue the development of SAMBA.



What about OpenOffice? There would be enough in the package that they didn't

have to ship OOo personally, they could simply have Dell do that, or point the

user to OOo if they wanted it. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 02:45 PM EDT

I'm sure MS will claim they are not distributing Linux by giving out Novell's

vouchers. And as for an end to patent agression, my guess is that when Linux is

covered by GPLv3, Microsoft will find another twist and keep attacking. Maybe

they will sue RedHat or another distributor whom has refused to enter into the

patent agreement. The FUD ladies and gentlemen is only going to get worse as

time goes on and as Microsoft loses ground to open source software. Bank on it. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 02:49 PM EDT

I assume these terms are secret?



Depending on the terms of their agreement, Novell may in fact be barred from

distributing anything under GPLv3 - regardless of GPLv3 itself permitting them

to distribute, they may be contractually prevented from doing so by their

agreement with Microsoft.



This would be very unfortunate indeed, as the community would win nothing, and

Microsoft would have achieved one of the outcomes it was probably banking on -

one of the major Linux distributors, and possibly the one with the most

corporate cred, will wither into insignificance. The reason for their demise

will doubtless be spun as the machinations of evil bearded copyright communists,

and Linux in general could be viewed by suits as a radioactive hazard.



Also, please remind me - I seem to recall that the patent language in GPLv3 was

added as a reaction to Novell's deal - meaning that it can't be argued that

Novell would have seen this one coming when they signed the deal. Is that

correct?



And finally, a possible escape clause - it's playing silly word games, but seems

to me it might work. Does anyone know the exact wording of the MS vouchers? If

they are for "SuSE Linux Enterprise Server", and Novell re-brands

future versions of their distro to "SuSE Datacentre-Grade Linux" or

something silly, and only releases GPLv3 software under the newly branded

distro, might that give Microsoft some wiggle room? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 02:58 PM EDT

..

The Monopoly has choked on their FUD. They ventured to play in Open Source and

they caught the GPL virus.



The red that PJ highlights above confounds them.



Their deal with Novell was so convoluted, but they stung themselves. They will

trip over their tungues trying to explain how they didn't intend to free their

patents playing with GPL'd software. What will they say to the Judge? "We

intended to subvert it!"



No big deal. Just another excellent reason now not to sue over software patents

these days. The GPL is going to make patent and copyright contention

unnecessary and wasteful. All will accept this and accomplish reform. If not,

businesses will demand GPL for safety. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 03:03 PM EDT

Didn't Linus say he wasn't going to switch linux to the GPLv3. Has that

changed? Why would GPLv3 have anything to do with Linux, if the kernel isn't

distributed under that license.



Dan [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 03:05 PM EDT

What if GPLv3 "comes into effect" in the sense that FSF

gives its approval, but Novell never releases any software

subject to GPLv3? Remember all the the current GPLed

softwhere files have beginning comments that say:





/* project--: C++ frontend for glade (Gtk+ User Interface

Builder)

* Copyright (C) 1998 someone

*

* This program is free software; you can redistribute it

and/or modify

* it under the terms of the GNU General Public License

as published by

* the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the

License.







or



/* project--: C++ frontend for glade (Gtk+ User Interface

Builder)

* Copyright (C) 1998 someone

*

* This program is free software; you can redistribute it

and/or modify

* it under the terms of the GNU General Public License

as published by

* the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the

License, or

* (at your option) any later version.



The "any later version." allows someone to re-release

gplv2 code under gplv3 when it comes out. Some projects

like the Linux kernel do not have this clause in their

headers, which would make it vary difficult for those

projects to goto gplv3.



In any case their is no requirement that anyone re-release

their code under gplv3. All the code out their under GPL

version 2, does not loose its protection magickly when FSF

puts its stamp of approval on GPL v3. Everyone can

continue to use the old GPL v2 code under GPL v2. There is

nothing in the GPL v2 that prevents this.



What might happen is that projects like gcc, bash, or

glibc, might re-release the old code with new beginning

comments that say:



* project--: C++ frontend for glade (Gtk+ User Interface

Builder)

* Copyright (C) 1998 someone

*

* This program is free software; you can redistribute it

and/or modify

* it under the terms of the GNU General Public License

as published by

* the Free Software Foundation; either version 3 of the

License, or

* (at your option) any later version.



If you use this newly released files with the new comments

then you would be stuck with GPLv3.



But there is nothing that requires Novell to use this new

code! They could continue using the old code with the old

comments. Indeed, if they need new features, they could

fork this old code as needed keeping the old v2 comments.

Novell could continue indefinitely into the future this

way. Indeed, if Novell can not escape the MS-Novell deal,

this would be the only option for Novell. Otherwise they

would be a GPLv3 infringer. If this were to happen, MS

would not become subject to GPLv3, because of the

certificates, because Novell would not be distributing any

code subject to GPLv3.



There is another possibility, remember that parts of the

MS-Novell deal are still secret. Suppose new software

comes out under gplv3 that Novell wants to include in it's

distro. Suppose the new software is new versions of gcc,

bash, and glib. Novell says to MS: "We are activating the

secret escape in the MS-Novell deal. You may now sue our

customers with respect to any patents you may have in our

gcc, bash, and glib packages. And by the way, we still

don't believe that you have any such binding patents!"

If there is such an escape clause and Novell activated it,

Novell could put the new gcc, bash, and glib, into it's

distro. If there is no such escape clause then Novell's

Lawyers should be shot! If this were to happen where would

MS stand? Would MS then be subject to the GPLv3 as

a "conveyor"? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 03:06 PM EDT

not that I doubt Eben Moglen, but I would like to see a scan of a voucher. I

would be interested to see if they specify a version of SUSE as well. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 03:12 PM EDT

Eben's argument sounds fairly convincing to me, although I think there may be

some wiggle room about giving a voucher being equivalent to

"distributing". Maybe the deal with Dell will mysteriously fall apart

in the next few weeks. Have they given vouchers to anyone else?

What exactly is the voucher for anyhow? Is it for the software or for the

support agreement? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 03:14 PM EDT

It's interesting to take a look specifically at the packages Microsoft says

infringe their patents, and what licenses those packages are distributed under.

Of course, we can't be too specific, because Microsoft wan't. They mentioned

two specific packages, Linux aka the Linux kernel, and openoffice. Other

categories were "graphical user interfaces" by which I suppose they

mean kde and/or gnome, "email" which might include thunderbird,

evolution, and who knows maybe others. And then there's "other open

source" which we can't do much with.



I believe gnome, kde, and evolution will go GPLv3. (I checked all of 1 kde

source file, and it had the "or later version" line; gnome and

evolution seem to be GNU products.)



We know Linux kernel probably won't, as has been overdiscussed here before.

Openoffice is LGPL; I dunno if Sun has announced any plans to change this.

Thunderbird is MPL.



So it's kind of a mixed bag, stuff that probably will go GPLv3, stuff that

probably won't, and stuff that isn't GPL at all. [ Reply to This | # ]



Licenses - Authored by: PJ on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 03:31 PM EDT Licenses - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 05:01 PM EDT Licenses - Authored by: Tyro on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 05:49 PM EDT Licenses - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 10:08 PM EDT

- Authored by: PJ on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 03:31 PM EDT

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 03:22 PM EDT

I don't quite see how it can be that MS cannot do something tomorrow to avoid

the problem.



How could they be stuck now with because of GPLv3 features when it hasn't even

become effective.



Hope it's not too much trouble to elaborate; or maybe I didn't read carefully

enough. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: PolR on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 03:23 PM EDT

It seems Microsoft is giving away its patent portfolio to FOSS in more ways than

one. ROFL.



My first reaction was this is too good to be true. There must be a catch

somewhere. Then a thought occurred to me. How long is the service contract

provided by the coupons? Does it include upgrades and patches? What if Novell

distributes GPL3 software as an upgrade during the term of the service

contract?



If Novell wants to, it could be that Microsoft would end up distributing GPL3

software to the _current_ coupons recipient. No need to wait until a sleeping

coupon pops up like a jack in a box.



This is a golden opportunity for Novell to undo the damage and return into the

good grace of the community.

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 03:25 PM EDT

Has anyone released the actual language of the voucher or a facsimile of one?



People keep talking about them like we know what they say.



Moglen has apparently seen one not under an NDL or I'm sure he wouldn't be

talking about them.



Someone out there must have one.



---

Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.



"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."

Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 03:28 PM EDT

How the vouchers will affect a linux version which isn't yet been made?

Will Novell/M$ ever distribute this new version of linux?

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: billyskank on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 03:29 PM EDT

at the time that they conveyed the protected works? Idon't understand.



---

It's not the software that's free; it's you. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 03:53 PM EDT

I have not seen the actual text of the vouchers, but I would expect them to read

something along the lines of "This voucher entitles you to download and run

1 copy of 'Suse Linux Enterprise Server (SLES)' on a single machine and use

Novell Support for this for x years".





All Novell needs to do is come out with a new package called , say, "SLES

PLUS" (or "SLES NT" or "SLES XP" ;-) as soon as they

need to update the GNU-Tools to GPL-V3.



They will then happily ship you a version of the old "SLES" under

GPL-V2 if you turn in your voucher and provide minor bug-fixes for some time.



I do not believe, or dare to hope, Microsoft lawyers would fall for a trap like

this so easily.







[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Prototrm on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 03:56 PM EDT

According to the section of GPL3 you quoted: "the patent license you grant

is automatically extended to all recipients of the covered work and works based

on it", couldn't it be argued that you are granting the license to everyone

you personally distributed the covered work to, and no one else? In other words,

the recipients of the Microsoft coupon are covered by the patent agreement, and

that's pretty much it. Yes, works derived on it are also covered, but is it

necessary to prove in court who the father is?



IANAL and everything. Just asking a question of my betters. And maybe this

possibility is covered in language elsewhere in the GPL3.



But my fingers are indeed crossed that this is the good news it appears to be.



---

"Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the

exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them." [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 03:57 PM EDT

"No wonder, as Moglen puts it, Microsoft has been tossing the vouchers

wholesale out of airplanes "as though the coupons themselves were hot, as

indeed they are". But now here comes Moglen saying even that won't work,

because of the lack of an expiration date on the vouchers. And so, as the sun

sets over the horizon, we may be bidding a fond farewell to Microsoft's patent

bullying. I hope some friendly folks have bought a voucher. If so, you might

just want to take a breather before you turn it in, huh? Then it's buh-bye to

Microsoft's 235 patent claims, methinks. So nice of Microsoft to distribute

under GPLv3. Hugs and kisses."



This is kind of backwards logic, no? Why would Microsoft be "throwing the

coupons out of airplanes" if *the more coupons out there, the more likely

that they would be used to convey GPLv3 software*.



If Microsoft had a shadow of a doubt, at the time, that these coupons could

force them to grant a patent license to all Linux users, they wouldn't throw

them out of airplanes. They'd burn them all in a huge incinerator so nobody

could *ever* cash them in. The more Vouchers they have out there, the more

likely someone is to sit on them. The hell with however many millions they paid

to Novell. Don't throw good money after bad and all that. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Steve Allen on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 04:09 PM EDT

OK, imagine this scenario:



Suse 10.2 is GPLv2.

GPLv3 goes into effect.

Then Suse 10.3 is released with whatever GPLv3 code is in effect at the time.



If Novell only supplies copies of Suse 10.2 for the coupons, does that trigger

the GPLv3 provisions?





---

Contrary to popular belief, Unix is user friendly.

It just happens to be selective about who it makes friends with.

-Kyle Hearn

[ Reply to This | # ]



Question - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 19 2007 @ 12:31 PM EDT

Authored by: Fruny on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 04:11 PM EDT

Is Novell required to provide their latest (possibly with GPLv3 software) or can

they just provide an older version (which would only include GPLv2 stuff).



What if they were to then offer a free upgrade? Would that insulate Microsoft

from distribution arguments? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 04:12 PM EDT

"the patent license you grant is automatically extended to all recipients

of the covered work"



This all depends on how you define covered work. MS & Novell define it to be

SUSE, not Linux in general.



I don't see any problem for MS here. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 04:38 PM EDT

Just as before, Microsoft can file lawsuits or hire friends like SCO to file lawsuits against whomever they don't like. This development adds just another to the already long list of reasons why such lawsuits would be bogus. As SCO proved, it matters not at all how bogus the claims are. The most bogus IP lawsuit in the world has been demonstrated to cost many years and many tens of millions of dollars to defend against by even the most powerful companies well versed in IP law (IBM). It proved you don't need patents or even copyrights to kill any small to mid sized business. My guess is that Microsoft's patent war will be as strong as ever even if it never sees a courtroom. Microsoft will just take execs out to lunch and say "See how much little SCO hurt IBM. We've got 280 times as many patents than SCO had" and execs will fold without even giving it a second thought. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 04:56 PM EDT

Doesn't this apply if and only if the software received in exchange for the

coupon is licensed under GPLv3? What if the coupon holder got GPLv2 software in

exchange for the coupon, even after the effective date of GPLv3?



Don Andrews (dwandre), not logged in [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 05:56 PM EDT

I thought the coupons were worthless and uninteresting. But if this story is

true, I'm interested in buying one. Where are they for sale? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: SilverWave on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 05:56 PM EDT

#33232



Posted by unregistered user at 5/18/07 9:22 a.m.



Wow thats a clever move by the fsf.

MS must be smarting.



For the record that was me - I didn't have time to create an account.

http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/microsoft/archives/115505.asp



---

Linus: "The bulk of all patents are crap...

Spending time reading them is stupid...

It's up to the patent owner to do so, and to enforce them."

:p [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 06:35 PM EDT

I'd be interested in seeing exactly what Moglen said, but the way it's being

interpreted here doesn't make sense.



The gist of the argument is that Microsoft will be held to the terms of a new

license after the fact of its distribution. Aside from the fact that I can't

(as a non-lawyer, admittedly) see any court holding someone to the terms of a

license imposed after the fact, we really wouldn't want to set a precedent for

that. For one, it would surely be used against us; in addition, it would ensure

that nobody would ever want to touch the GPL again (that really would make it

viral -- or perhaps retroviral would be a better term: you're being held

retroactively to changes that you never agreed to). Basically, Microsoft

purportedly faces unlimited liability for changes after the fact.



Microsoft would surely argue that even if what it did counted as distribution

under the GPL, the act of distribution occurred when it distributed the

vouchers. But not every act of distribution requires a license to begin with:

if you have a legal copy of something, you're always allowed (at least in the

US, to the best of my knowledge) allowed to sell that copy -- you just can't

make any more copies and sell them without permission. So Microsoft might

simply argue that it was giving away existing legal copies, and the GPL applied

only to Novell, not to Microsoft. And whether or not the GPL uses the word

"convey", it has never purported to impose restrictions beyond those

already imposed by copyright law, so they'd argue the language is irrelevant --

they never accepted the GPL in the first place, and are only doing what they

would otherwise be allowed to do under copyright law. Or they'd simply refuse

to honor the vouchers, or ask Novell to buy them back, or flat out refuse to

grant the patent license, or whatnot.



But the real consideration has to be, is this the right thing to do, and would

we want to live in a legal system that allowed a result like this to happen:

would any of us be happy if the shoe were on the other foot.



-Robert Krawitz

-rlk@alum.mit.edu [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 06:53 PM EDT



Rock on Eben and Pamela! [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 08:05 PM EDT

As the FSF is fond of saying, the GPL is a license not a contract. This applies to GPLv2 and GPLv3. Both versions allow one to do things that would be otherwise illegal under copyright law. Name one thing, that MS is doing with respect to Novell that requires a license under copyright law! Distributing coupons? Show me the provision of copyright law that says you need a license to distribute coupons! So assume, MS does not comply with GLP v 2 or 3 and therefore does not have a license. Just what does MS need a license for? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 08:18 PM EDT

This is unlikely to fly in the form it's in at the moment for several reasons:



1. It depends on exactly what the voucher says. If it's a voucher for Suse 10

then that doesn't include any GPL3 software.



2. If you can put stuff into a license like this, and expect it to be upheld,

then I can put into a a license that your firstborn child belongs to me and

reasonably expect that I'll get a pile of firstborns delivered real soon.



Think about it this way, if you give your friend some money to buy a Linux CD

for another friend, then according to the language of this clause, you are can

be bound by the license of the software. But you haven't handled the software,

so how can you be bound by the license? Microsoft aren't doing any distribution,

so they can hardly be bound by a license that is relevant to distribution.



What might work is if the license only allowed your friend your friend to give

it to the other friend if you too agreed to the license. [Yes, I've added this

to the GPL3 comments.]



3. If MS gives away all the vouchers before GPL3, it's unreasonable for them to

be bound by GPL3. That's retrospective activation.



4. If you use the GPL2 with a clause allowing someone to distribute under GPL2

or later license, you can't reasonably be subjecting yourself to GPL3 if they

choose to distribute under GPL3. That's activation working it's way backwards

through licensees! And what's more, in this case it's jumping to people who

aren't even licensees. It would be breathtaking if this were upheld.



4. Even if Microsoft are retrospectively governed by GPL3, the patent clauses

only cover the patents used those exact bits of software distributed.



So all in all, this is just very wishful thinking.



JeffV [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: argee on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 08:24 PM EDT

Dear Customer

Thank you for sending in a Voucher for the SUSE Server

Edition. The voucher program has been withdrawn. Enclosed

please find our check for $99.99 for the value of the

voucher.



You may cash the check, or you are free to purchase the

SUSE Server edition from any dealer or vendor for the list

price of 95.99.



Thank you for your interest, and we hope you continue to be

a SUSE/Novell customer.



Signed

Novell, Inc.



---

--

argee [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: bigbert on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 08:43 PM EDT

Is it just me, or is MS becoming more and more amateurish and incompetent? Not

putting an expiry date on a coupon is just plain stoopit!



But I must share this with you guys: a few weeks ago the MS roadshow visited our

campus to address the students. It was the typical smoke-and-mirrors fluff --

unfortunately for them, our students are hard-core techies who saw through it

straight away. At the end of the presentation the MS guy announced with wide

eyes that..... [drum roll].... a FREE COPY OF VISTA FOR THE FIRST STUDENT TO

SHOUT! He was met with a total silence, and then the students simply got up and

walked out. You should have seen the look on their faces.



Needless to say, all us greybeard tutors were rolling on the floor laughing. It

was one of the best days of my life.



And before the MS fanbois start their sniping, let me just add that more than

half of these students participated in the Vista Beta testing program. Their

reactions weren't because of any indoctrination, but from bitter experience.



Needless to say that they all do one paper in Linux in 2nd year....... :-)



But the difference between our students, who get a good education in IT and NOT

in a particular vendor's products, and the MS clowns was very visible. The MS

people just came across as incompetent point-and-click monkeys and struggled to

answer some very basic questions. Our students wiped the floor with them.



---



--------------------------

Surfus, ergo sum. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: CypherOz on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 08:56 PM EDT

Steve Ballmer was reported today as saying that Microsoft will continue to fully support Open Sores SoftwareTM.



He went on to say that Microsoft had always included Open Sores SoftwareTM in their products and that unlike the GPL; the Microsoft EULA guaranteed customer full closed access to Open Sores SoftwareTM.



:-)



---

The GPL is enduring, not viral [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 09:05 PM EDT

I am guessing that when ms and novell were talking, ms managed to get an 'in

principle' agreement.

When they got that, they rushed it through and missed bits, and this is the

result.

No one ever anywhere misses out expiry dates on coupons.

I would think it would be the first thing any legal counsel would think of at

the mention of redeemable coupons.

This is what you also get when a company gets so greedy, it takes its eyes

right off the target.

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Zak3056 on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 09:18 PM EDT

So GPL v3 comes out, and Microsoft distributes a copy of SUSE the next day. Here's what the GPL has to say: Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation. At the VERY worst, Microsoft is prevented from distributing any software that is EXPLICITLY licensed under GPL v3. However, there is NO current software that fits this definition. So this doesn't really change anything. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 09:34 PM EDT

Isn't it now late for M$ to be signing Novell like agreements with others. As

I understand any agreement signed after march 28 will be covered by GPLv3. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: leopardi on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 10:20 PM EDT

Here is another way to turn Microsoft patent threats against itself (I think). Microsoft is still shipping Subsystem for UNIX-based Applications and has a download page for the associated Utilities and SDK. The Utilities and SDK download includes gcc 3.3. If you download the Utilities and SDK you will notice that in the doc directory there is a copy of GPLv2, prepended by a list of utilities which it applies to. Now, what if any of the GPLv2 software in Subsystem for UNIX-based Applications or the Utilities and SDK downloads violated any Microsoft patents? The only rights which Microsoft have granted for use of this software are those conveyed by GPLv2 itself. At the very least it may make it inconvenient for Microsoft to ever upgrade this software to GPLv3. There may also be implications even in the case of GPLv2. If none of this GPLv2 software violates Microsoft patents, then that is a win for GNU, since there are a fair few GNU utilities included, including gcc. Worth investigating further, don't you think? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 10:59 PM EDT

How does the Novell/MS deal play out for nonGPL FOSS? Mozilla, Apache etc. Is

there room for MS to cast a pall on all FOSS by going after "patent

infringements" in Non GPL licensed FOSS? Anybody paying attention to that

area?



emk [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 19 2007 @ 12:24 AM EDT

There seems to be a lot of 'front porch' logic being applied to this situation, which, by mischaracterizing the GPL, purports to somehow disprove Eben Moglen's assertions. Since 'common sense is neither,' and IANALJAGWAC (I am not a lawyer, just a guy with a clue), here is the nutshell version: The vouchers are for 'a GNU/Linux distribution'--it doesn't matter which one. However, if the v3 license language isn't acceptable to Microsoft/Novell, then they will have to redeem it with an old or forked version...Which, in MS-speak means: you get this copy of Windows 95, while the world is on XP. Your future prospects are extremely limited. Don't like the GPL? Fine, then don't use GNU/Linux. Sorry, Ballmer, you think Linux is playing in your world, guess what? It's the other way around, so you have two choices: play nice together, or go home and play with yourself! [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 19 2007 @ 12:32 AM EDT

It's weird that they can, even potentially, be bound by a contract that doesn't



exist in this situation. What if the GPLv3 added a clause that Microsoft had to



switch to Linux, or something more absurd? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 19 2007 @ 12:47 AM EDT

what if M$ pulls out of the Novell agreement, could it still be liable under

GPLv2/3 in respect of the licences sold till date.

[ Reply to This | # ]



correction .... read as vouchers sold - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 19 2007 @ 12:49 AM EDT

Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 19 2007 @ 09:03 AM EDT

But there is no GPL3, only a discussion draft. And the Linux kernel will not be

covered by it.



Unfortunately, the stubbornness of the "Free" software movement in its

insistence in trying to regulate the uses of software (ie no DRM/confiscating

digital keys) has made GPL3 unpalatable. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: PeterMan on Saturday, May 19 2007 @ 09:04 AM EDT

Hello Bill and Steve.





I have a fine busniess plan. You are going to like it, beacuse frankly, the idea

is just yours.



I know of a little shop in Costa Rica that, you know, has all these fine

products like Microsoft Windows XP, Microsoft Vista, Microsoft Office, Visual

Studio, Bizztalk and lots more available on purple-ish, shiny discs for $3,- a

pop.



Now, what I am going to do, I am going to buy vouchers from these guys. Next I

am going to open a little office somewhere in Miama and run a litle webshop on

which I sell these vouchers for $15,- a pop.



Users that have bought my vouchers can mail them to Costa Rica and in rerurn

they get a fine purple-ish, shiny disc.



Ofcourse, the BSA and your army of laywers will never arrive at the doorsteps of

my Miama office, because, as you know, I am not distributing these discs, I am

just selling vouchers.



I am glad you nod 'ok'. Yep. Picking up the phone to Costa Rico right now.





Al Capone.



P.S.

Oh, Bill and Steve, now that I think of it, the only reason your army of lawyers

could arrive at my doorstep is because you might have patented this idea. Or

not, that's always hard to tell with Microsoft's Heisenberg patents.



P.S.2

Great Bill and Steve.. admire your recently developed business model. Couldn't

have thought of it myself. Nice restaurant.. hey.. another business plan just

occured to me. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: SilverWave on Saturday, May 19 2007 @ 09:06 AM EDT

Moglen:

"...The patent part of the deal is excessively destructive of peace in the

community, and it won't get you what you want, because I can change the rules

which apply to the facts, after you have made the facts."



Heh MS legal playing out of their league.



I think we can expect some reorganization in MS legal after this gaff.







---

Linus

The bulk of all patents are crap...

Spending time reading them is stupid...



Moglen

I can change the rules...

The coupons have no expiration date... [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Alan(UK) on Saturday, May 19 2007 @ 09:57 AM EDT

Just imagine the following case:



Jane did not have a pencil so she asked John who only had a spare pen. John

asked George who said that he would exchange a pencil for a pen and if someone

brought his pencil back he would give them a pen. John took George's pencil and

gave it to Jane who took it back to George when she had finished with it.

Meanwhile George had exchanged John's pen with one from Mary who had hidden

drugs in it. George gives the pen to Jane and John is charged with trafficking

in drugs.



John is black so he gets sent down for 25 years without parole. But change John

for Microsoft with a huge team of lawyers, replace the drugs with GPLv3 code,

George is Novell, Mary can be FSF or anyone releasing code under GPLv3, Jane can

just be Jane. The pencil and pen you can work out for yourself.



Now, seriously, is any court going to find Microsoft 'guilty' of trafficking in

GPLv3 code?



---

Microsoft is nailing up its own coffin from the inside. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 19 2007 @ 12:08 PM EDT

This argument seems completely unworkable to me. Perhaps you can convince the

judge that distributing a voucher to receive a product from an other company

is equal to distributing the product, in some senses. But it is still that

other company that distributes the product itself, and therefore licenses the

product to the recipient. The software is simply not licensed from Microsoft,

in any case. [ Reply to This | # ]



Question is - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 20 2007 @ 05:08 PM EDT

Authored by: DrHow on Saturday, May 19 2007 @ 02:51 PM EDT

It seems that folks are speaking as if, were Novell to distribute to a voucher

holder a version of SUSE Linux which contains but a single V3 GPL'd application,

then the V3 license terms come to be imposed on MS in general. What I would

expect is that the V3 terms would apply to MS only with respect to any of their

patents which are infringed by that particular application. Does not MS's

implied 'threat' remain a matter of concern for the kernel and any other

applications which remain under V2 in anyone's distribution?



(I do not actually believe that the threat is all that credible to start with.) [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 19 2007 @ 06:11 PM EDT

Are the "certificates" that have been referred to the same thing as

the "coupons" and "vouchers"? I would guess so, but can

someone who is not guessing confirm this? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 19 2007 @ 07:25 PM EDT

Does a voucher have to be re-deemed after the GPL3 comes into effect AND the

SUSE distribution at the time has software covered by the newer license?



How does this redemption as a point-in-time event work with regards to updates

and patches to current SUSE installations given that current and proposed

licensing is 'timeless' in contrast to the artificial short life-cycle of

patents?



---

Ciphernaut [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: abraxus on Saturday, May 19 2007 @ 09:53 PM EDT

I don't understand the rationale for releasing this information and giving

microsoft's lawyers an opportunity to look at alternatives like reissuing the

coupons or something else before then. Why not just let it happen and then say

look what you did? It seems very odd. Who knows what devilish ideas Steve

Ballmer will come up with when pressed to the wall. Too late now though. This

cat is out of the bag. I just hope they don't find a way to put it back in by

then.



It just seems tactically strange. Why broadcast the good news about something

that hasn't happened yet and that doesn't take effect until someone does

something in the future when you could just let it happen with no one the wiser?

What could they possibly be thinking? [ Reply to This | # ]



What ARE the vouchers anyway? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 21 2007 @ 05:28 AM EDT

Authored by: Reliant on Monday, May 21 2007 @ 09:50 AM EDT

The clause says if there are patent agreements, you can't distribute without

giving patent agreements (paraphrase). When the GPL3 comes out, people are

thinking that will mean Microsoft will convey patent peace to Linux. That's not

going to happen.



What will happen is Microsoft will refuse to honor those vouchers, and blame the

GPL. "We're sorry, but the GPL is forbidding us from giving you what you

paid for. Blame them", only with marketting spin to make them look like the

victims [ Reply to This | # ]



Overestimated Impact and the Danger of Backfire - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 21 2007 @ 10:52 AM EDT

Authored by: DMF on Monday, May 21 2007 @ 12:23 PM EDT