Authored by: Simon G Best on Tuesday, August 28 2007 @ 11:11 AM EDT

Corrections here, if any. Please summarise corrections in the title. ---

"Public relations" is a public relations term for propaganda. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Simon G Best on Tuesday, August 28 2007 @ 11:13 AM EDT

News Picks stuff here, please. Please indicate which News Pick you're commenting on in the title. ---

"Public relations" is a public relations term for propaganda. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Simon G Best on Tuesday, August 28 2007 @ 11:16 AM EDT

Off-topic stuff here, please. Don't forget the stuff in red, just below the "Post Mode" thingy. (I've scored a hat-trick :-) ) ---

"Public relations" is a public relations term for propaganda. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: tknarr on Tuesday, August 28 2007 @ 11:26 AM EDT

I'd rather phrase it this way: "Microsoft cannot declare itself exempt from the requirements of copyright law. If it distributes, or pays others to distribute on it's behalf, material copyrighted by others and licensed for distribution only under the GPLv3, it must comply with the terms of that license exactly as anyone else wanting to distribute copyrighted material must comply with the copyright owner's license. Doing otherwise is an infringement of copyright and a violation of copyright law. No anticipatory repudiation can change this: one can repudiate a license, but one cannot repudiate the law. Microsoft makes much of wanting people to respect it's intellectual property and comply with it's licenses. It needs, in turn, to respect other people's intellectual property and comply with their licenses." [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: talexb on Tuesday, August 28 2007 @ 11:27 AM EDT

If (or when) it comes down to a lawsuit, it's going to be a doozy -- Microsoft

will spend *everything* to defend their side, and they are not strangers to

lawyering. And GPL3 (from what I've read) is a wicked powerful document.



If Groklaw was busy with SCO vs. IBM, SCO vs. Novell and SCO vs. Red Hat, it's

going to get insane with this suit.



Get your umbrellas, folks, it's going to storm out soon.



[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Tuesday, August 28 2007 @ 11:34 AM EDT

It is unusual to see a press release from FSF. Especially one like this. This is their third press release this month, but there were none in July. So far, 15 press releases for 2007 from FSF. Mostly not very interesting beyond the scope of the FSF membership. Something's up. I wonder what? ---

Free minds, Free software [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: mexaly on Tuesday, August 28 2007 @ 11:54 AM EDT

> We have no opinion on Microsoft's legal obligations

> to the intended beneficiaries of the repudiated promises,

> or to Novell.



Goading the dupes, eh?



I suspect that FSF does, indeed, hold an opinion, they're just not expressing

it.



---

My thanks go out to PJ and the legal experts that make Groklaw great. [ Reply to This | # ]



"We have no opinion" - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2007 @ 05:21 PM EDT

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2007 @ 11:55 AM EDT

FSF's sole volunteer lawer against an army of law firms. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2007 @ 12:24 PM EDT

because it could certainly rain uranium on matters like these... [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Sean DALY on Tuesday, August 28 2007 @ 01:03 PM EDT

It's been five or six years now that Microsoft has been distributing GNU GPL'd software in the Interix (now Services for Unix package) -- in particular the gcc compiler. The download includes GPLv1 and GPLv2 text; some of the tools are licensed "GPLv2 and later". The source code, or where to find it, is nowhere to be seen; perhaps Microsoft has felt itself above copyright law these past few years already? Microsoft's claim that it is somehow exempt from copyright law is just silly. Sean DALY [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Zak3056 on Tuesday, August 28 2007 @ 01:14 PM EDT

To preface: I'm a big fan of the GPL (at least v2 and earlier... I haven't

really formed an opinion on v3 yet, because I have not really had a need to

research it thoroughly) and have been for many years (the earliest I can recall

using GPL software was late 80s/early 90s.) I am also not a lawyer.



That said, I see some big problems with the way the FSF is approaching this. If

I understand things correctly, this is essentially about the coupons that

Microsoft received from Novell and then distributed (is continuing to

distribute?) to third parties, and how, if and when someone redeems one of those

coupons for software covered under GPL v3, MS has distributed said software, and

is bound by the terms of GPL v3. If this is the case, that's a pretty scary

notion.



It appears (and appearances can be deceiving, I agree) that MS, in this case, is

acting as either a reseller or an agent for Novell. So if resellers and agents

can be bound by the language of GPL v3, where does it end?



If I'm an integrator or VAR, and I provide a complete solution to someone (say,

RHEL as a base system, with my ERP, or IP PBX, or whatever other application on

top of it) have I suddenly given up rights to any IP that I have a claim on,

that is in the kernel, that I was not aware of?



How about if I'm a large retailer, like Walmart, and I sell a boxed copy of SUSE

to J. Random User, have I "distributed" it under the terms of the

license? Have I waived any rights as I result of this?



The same theories aimed at Microsoft would seem to apply in the above cases.

Hopefully, I am wrong in my interpretation, because if that were the case, the

amount of FUD that could be spun against FOSS as a result would make what came

out of Lindon seem tiny in comparison. :( [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2007 @ 02:42 PM EDT

1. Lets start with an obvious truth: If Microsoft distributes GPL3 software

without agreeing to the GPL3, they are committing copyright infringement. There

are very clear legal consequences to distributing copyrighted works without a

license. Both Microsoft and FSF know what they are.



2. Those consequences do NOT include Microsoft becoming legally obligated to

comply with the terms of the GPL3. There is absolutely no written or case law

that supports the notion that a company can be forced to agree to the terms of a

license it has publicly repudiated. I understand the power of the fantasy that

Microsoft will suddenly lose the ability to enforce its patents. We need to

remember that this is pure fantasy. Microsoft's damages would be limited to the

existing civil and criminal penalties for copyright infringement. In the event

of accidental distribution, these are likely to be quite minimal (especially

from the perspective of a corporation worth hundreds of billions of dollars).



3. The FSF statement implies that they will help sue Microsoft if they commit

copyright infringement. This presumably includes contributory infringement and

vicarious infringement. On the surface, this would be a good thing but...



4. Most commentators are saying that FSF intends to sue Microsoft for

Contributory Infringement or Vicarious Infringement based on the notion that

Microsoft's material contribution is a cross licensing agreement.



5. FSF will lose such a case. While it is true that there is no obviously on

point case law, asking a judge to expand the definition of contributory or

vicarious infringement in this way (especially given recent rulings which limit

it) is pure folly. (I am still waiting for Eben to say that HE believes such a

case can be won. If FSF sues on this basis, he will surely have to make such an

argument.)



6. When FSF loses, countless headlines will proclaim (inaccurately) "GPL

Invalid". Many people will believe this, and open source will suffer. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2007 @ 02:54 PM EDT

Fundamentally, either (a) Microsoft is doing things with GPLed software which

would not be permitted by copyright law (in the absence of the GPL), or (b)

Microsoft is NOT doing things with GPLed software which would not be permitted

by copyright law (in the absence of the GPL).



(Right? IANAL, but it seems like one of those two statements logically MUST be

true.)



If (b) is the case (which seems to be what MS is claiming), then it doesn't

matter what the GPL says; the GPL only comes into effect when you need some

right which copyright law doesn't already grant you. (Indeed, the GPL itself

notes that there are certain things you are allowed to do with GPLed software

without needing to accept the GPL.)



But if (a) is the case (which AFAICT would have to be what the FSF is arguing),

then wouldn't that have to mean that MS is already violating the GPLv2? So why

hasn't the FSF sued to get them to stop distributing the vouchers?

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2007 @ 03:13 PM EDT

Microsoft will be "exempt" from the GPLv3 simply because they will

<b><I>never</I></b> distribute or pay others to

distribute GPLv3 code: since the FSF foundation has made clear they believe that

paying others counts as distribution, the Novell deal will not encompass any

GPLv3 stuff.



So for all those who hope that Microsoft will somehow get caught with their hand

in the GPL cookie-jar/trap, forget about it. They are already very careful, and

GPLv3 makes them even more careful.





Rather, what the GPLv3 does is make a large amount of future open-source

development unavailable to Apple. Apple, unlike Microsoft, ships a large amount

of GPL based software: GCC, emacs, a lot of random utilities, etc.



And Apple's solution is to buy up the copyright when possible (CUPS), replace

(I've heard talk about replacing gcc), and/or fork at the last GPLv2 version.



The GPLv3 is designed to be unpalitable to many companies: TiVo, Apple, Google,

etc, and they will sooner forgoe anything released under GPLv3 than deal with

the liscence. This is a <I><b>feature</b></I> of the

GPLv3, not a bug.



But it is a feature that will only be noticed by its absence: large companies

avoiding GPLv3 code except for internal use.



-Nicholas Weaver (nweaver@gmail.com, too lazy to create an account)

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Stevieboy on Tuesday, August 28 2007 @ 03:29 PM EDT

At Last......



The instigators of GPLv3 baldly telling M$ "If you try to circumvent

something for which there is no legal circumvention, WE WILL SUE" [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: veatnik on Tuesday, August 28 2007 @ 03:57 PM EDT

I have been wondering how Microsoft could avoid the GPL (v3) and still have the

mentioned agreements. Seems like in court they would be asked...

Q: Did you distribute Linux?

A: No

Q: Did you cause Linux to be distrubted?

A: (They might say no but the certificates are indeed a cause of distribution.)



So if they knew of potential patent infringements in GPLed code but still

encouraged or caused distribution of Linux that would be contributory copyright

infringement I think.

(although IANAL)

If so, this would be true under both GPLv2 and GPLv3.



Perhaps it is time for a lawsuit? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: webster on Tuesday, August 28 2007 @ 04:04 PM EDT

..

This press release has been described as the FSF response to the Monopoly's

repudiation of the GPLv3.



Consider it that and nothing more. Do not interpret it as the FSF threatening

to go to court. Certainly they will if they have to. The most desperate will

lead the way to court. Going to court is like deliberately firing a loose

cannon. You can destroy yourself as much as your enemy.



Who is more desperate? A strengthening Free Software movement, or a

conviction-certified Monopoly who acts with impunity? Neither. So the FUD

continues, standards are fought off, retailers sell 95% Monopoly machines. That

which the Monopoly hasn't wrapped up, can be bought if necessary.



Meanwhile Linux grows of necessity. It is spreading in the defense industry.

One consultant, who had to get a high security clearance, was hired for one DoD

(Dept of Def) project. All he does is put in hardened, secure, Linux servers.

He is now made to work on numerous projects for his contractor. Security-minded

corporate entities adopt it. It can be trusted. It grows though not as much as

the Monopoly. It is essential. It keeps the prices down and the people

free,...as in not slavery.



So don't expect any court action until people start paying the Monopoly for

patents in Linux, or the Monopoly ship starts to list. (Or unless IBM wants to

do something about SCO....)







---

webster





© 2007 Monopoly Corporation. ALL rights reserved. Yours included. [ Reply to This | # ]



I agree - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2007 @ 07:03 PM EDT

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2007 @ 05:22 PM EDT

The key to this "FSF versus Gate$ and M$ issue" is hiring someone like

Karl Rove - who can FRAME (Google G. Lakoff) the issue so well; that no matter

who sues who first (or whatever) - that Gate$ and M$ look like the devil

incarnate!



Rove was a Master at the above task. Of course along with Rove, 2000 or more

"FRAMING BLOGGERS" are needed to carry the FRAMING message over the

net; once, the Master Framer (Rove or his substitute) finished there linguistic

twistings. [ Reply to This | # ]



FSF NEEDS TO HIRE KARL ROVE...NOW - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2007 @ 07:19 PM EDT

Authored by: gbl on Tuesday, August 28 2007 @ 05:37 PM EDT

I don't think that the FSF want to go to law; however I do think they want to force Microsoft to repudiate the agreements they have made with Novell and others about GPL licensed code. The risk to Microsoft is that the information that they have provided to Novell and others to enable "interoperability" may well have to be made available to all. The risk to FSF is they they get involved in an expensive legal case that will be won by the side with the most money (even if the law is against them Microsoft can stretch out the case for ten or more years and bankrupt the FSF.) ---

If you love some code, set it free. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2007 @ 05:42 PM EDT

Just made a $1000 donation to FSF. I never donated this much to a single cause

in my life before, but I think it's worth it. Really, let's fill the FSF's

coffers for the oncoming battle for freedom.



Thomas [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2007 @ 05:44 PM EDT

And I suspect the FSF has been lining up all of its ducks in a nice little row

prior to making this announcement.



I think the FSF *knows* they are ready to take on the evil empire and win.



M$ fired the first round in this war but I believe that the FSF will fire the

last round in their *total* (draw no quarter - take no quarter) fight to utterly

destroy the empire and all those who support it.



krp [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: blacklight on Tuesday, August 28 2007 @ 08:10 PM EDT

If Micro$oft wants its IP respected, then it must take all neceessary measures

to isolate it from others' IP. It's that simple.



---

Know your enemies well, because that's the only way you are going to defeat

them. And know your friends even better, just in case they become your enemies. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: SirHumphrey on Tuesday, August 28 2007 @ 09:44 PM EDT

struggles to comprehend how fruit can spontaneously relocate. Still believes

it orates Ex Cathedra. Rest of day is spoiled by Groklaw funsters.



Vexum vexum. Litigatum spurium ad nauseum.



Bono pro risibilium. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2007 @ 11:04 PM EDT

IANAL(Yet)



Certain code has one and only one license offered. Microsoft distributes that

code AND repudiates the sole license. What happens?



One of two things (maybe more, but I'd keep my eye on the judge's finances if

something else does happen).



1) A court denies Microsoft's repudiation and enforces Specific Performance. In

this case, that would be either an injunction against Microsoft suing for

violations of rights waived or an instant dismissal of any suit Microsoft brings

attempting to enforce the waived rights.



2) A person at Microsoft is found to have willfully infringed the copyright. As

an infringer, and not a licensee, Microsoft is not likely subject to specific

enforcement. But is unlikely to be able to deny willfull infringement (likely

result -- someone pretty high up at Microsoft goes to jail).



There are other spurious defenses, but these are the big odds. Microsoft

*publicly* denies one license. It better have a way of showing plausible belief

in a different license (or Public Domain) as its justification for using code it

Microsoft knows it didn't write. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2007 @ 12:05 AM EDT

When I read the press release, I shot foie gras out my nose! My very wattle quivered! These audacious Freetards *must* respect Baboon Jowls' omnipotence! I mean: the *nerve* of these wild eyed zealots! FDL secretdiaryofdanlyons

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2007 @ 12:46 AM EDT

Commentary on Groklaw article titled "FSF to Microsoft: "You Can't Declare Yourself Exempt from GPLv3" And this press release from FSF leaves open their response to Xandros and Linspire. Those two distributors contracted with Microsoft to patent encumber the GPL AFTER they knew the terms of GPL3. I had never thought about it in that way. I was always surprised after Xandros and Linspire deals that FSF seemed silent for a long time...and then of course there's the Fuji, Xerox, Samsung, LGE, etc deals purportedly for embedded Linux MS patents and royalties. [ Reply to This | # ]



Joint culpability for GPL2? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2007 @ 04:21 AM EDT

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2007 @ 03:26 AM EDT

As I read the Microsoft statement, I understood it as saying MS will not

distribute any GPL3 licensed code. If they indeed do not do anything with any

GPL3 code, then obviously they won't have any dealings with the GPL3 license

terms. Calling it "exempt" is a weird way of putting it, but

technically it's correct if they indeed never touch GPL3 code. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: emacsuser on Wednesday, August 29 2007 @ 06:07 AM EDT

I don't think the FSF should instigate litigation against MS, they should wait

until MS makes a move against a GPL entity, either developers, integrators or

end users.



Litigation is Microsofts forte, all you will be doing is fighting MSs favourite

battle on MSs home terrority. MSs response to litigation is invariably to tie

the other fella up in court for ages and then settle out of court with the terms

kept secret. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: emacsuser on Wednesday, August 29 2007 @ 06:24 AM EDT

I wonder is port25 violating MS intelluctual property, what if PJ wrote Bill Hilf and asked him his opinion. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2007 @ 07:59 AM EDT

I thought that MS's announcement about GPL v3 said that they would not extend

the "promise not to sue" to any GPL v3 software. After all, their

original promise states that they can change it or cancel it at any time for any

or no reason.



At that point they are not extending any patent protection on any GPL v3

software, and conveying any GPL v3 software would not require them to extend any

patent protection to anyone, even if they continue to promise the ptotection to

Novell Suse Linux customers for any GPL v2 software that they get from novell. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: briaman on Wednesday, August 29 2007 @ 08:28 AM EDT

If I buy a copy of Windows XP from PJ and later Resell that copy to MathFox, I

have not infringed copyright : my actions are perfectly legal.



Likewise, if Microsoft buys 2 million copies of SuSE Linux and resells those

copies to various users - no copyright infringement has occured.



Its really simple. No copies made = no copy-left licence activation. Microsoft

can distribute Novells' boxes of SuSE Linux and not activate or violate the

GPL.



Only if they _COPY_AND_DISTRIBUTE_ some GPL protected code do they activate the

GPL provisions.

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Malor on Wednesday, August 29 2007 @ 11:51 AM EDT

I wrote this rant up awhile ago, waiting for the next time this hit the news. It doesn't quite suit this article, because it's not Pamela making the GPLv3 claims, but I think it will get the point across. *************** I think you are badly misstating the facts here. It appears that you want this to be true so badly that you're not thinking it through. Microsoft didn't sign any version of the GPL. The only way you can prove that it applies to them is if they are doing something that copyright law would ordinarily forbid. No matter what the GPL says about 'conveying' or 'transferring', the only time it provably fired is when the entity involved did something that would otherwise be prevented by copyright law. And even at that, it didn't fire if the company would prefer to pay the draconian copyright-infringement penalties. Distributing vouchers is not covered under copyright. It just isn't. If I sell you a gift certificate for CDs at Target, I'm not violating anyone's copyright by doing so. Microsoft is selling gift certificates, not copying software. Copyright law covers only making and distributing copies of covered works, not vouchers talking about them. Further, it is the entity using the GPL to break copyright law that chooses the terms under which it is allowed to do so. You may wish Microsoft was distributing Linux to you under GPL3, but THEY get to choose the terms, not you. But they don't even have to, because they're not doing anything for which they need the GPL's permission. Novell is the only entity breaking copyright law, thus needing the umbrella of the GPL. At most, you'd get access to the Novell patents. It looks to me that you folks want this so badly that you're using very flawed analysis. Microsoft hasn't signed the GPL, so you have to prove that it took effect and bound them. You simply can't do that, because what they're doing doesn't require the copyright holder's permission. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2007 @ 12:05 PM EDT

From Microsoft's annnouncement about GPL v3:



Microsoft has decided that the Novell support certificates that we distribute to customers will not entitle the recipient to receive from Novell, or any other party, any subscription for support and updates relating to any code licensed under GPLv3.



So Microsoft is saying that the certificates are not valid for getting any GPL v3 software from Novell. This means that they are not conveying anything under the GPL.



Novell has, on the other hand, said that they plan on including GPL v3 code in future versions of Suse Linux, and that if customers come to them with a MS certificate, then they will give that customer the latest version of Suse Linux, which may include some GPL v3 code.



At that point, all MS has to do is change their "covenant not to sue" to specifically exclude any gpl v3 code from the promise, and no one will be violating the GPL v3. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2007 @ 04:06 PM EDT

Of course! The Trolls are out in Force on Groklaw, as soon as an

article appears which seems detrimental to Microsoft. As has

already been predicted, these Trolls are the children of the

corporate media, including Web-Sites like Slashdot, The Register,

Linux Today and others. The same corporate media which

Groklaw has links to on its first page. This media depends on

advertisers, and Microsoft is one of the biggest, if not the biggest,

advertisers in IT. Thus the corporate media spread their

propaganda and slant their content to favour these advertisers.

Take for example this headline from PCLinuxOnline, which is

taken from VNU NET:



"FSF threatens Microsoft over GPLv3"

(http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2197532/fsf-denies-microsoft-gplv3)





Nominally, this is a Web-site dedicated to Linux. But yet it has

Microsoft propaganda on it, courtesy of the corporate media.

Whenever have you seen a headline from the corporate media

entitled something like "Microsoft threatens FSF", making Microsoft



seem like an aggressive predator? Out of the two entities FSF

and Microsoft, who would you say has a history of being an

aggressive predator? This are the kind of vicious propagandist

which Groklaw has got in bed with by having their links on this

Web-site. This is the kind of treatment that Groklaw can expect if

ever it threatens Microsoft's monopoly. And any site dedicated to

uncovering the injustice in the computer industry, and is mildly

successful, will sooner or later be run over by this juggernaut. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 31 2007 @ 02:34 PM EDT

No one has made this clear. Microsoft is not distributing SuSE Linux. They are

distributing vouchers to get a copy from Novell. Thus Novell is doing to

distribution and Microsoft is essentially giving a referral. Even the argument

that Microsoft is indirectly distributing SuSE Linux seems weak, to me. So what

is the FSF's argument? [ Reply to This | # ]

