What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Giving a Smart phone? Finding The Right One Just Got Easier. view!
bestbuy.com - Best Buy has all the phones and carriers in one place so you can quickly compare prices & features.
65 Comments
- IceZZ, on 10/10/2007, -12/+31Nice try FSF. Anyone with any legal experience and some contracts law knows you can't be bound by a 3rd party to a contract between you and another, and further you also can't agree to terms that are not yet defined (ie. the forward-looking clauses of the v2 license). I can't see how Eben seriously thinks this will hold up...
- bieber, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11You generally can't, but when you decide, in all your brilliance, to distribute little vouchers entitling people to receive software, _at any time in the future, with license terms that not only may change, but you know are going to change soon_, there's a very good chance it could come back to bite you in the ass. Of course, we can't yet know how this will come out in court, but the FSF has some very good legal counsel, and they wouldn't be considering suing unless they knew that there was at least a case worth making.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -11/+21Microsoft has not distributed any GPL3 software yet, how the hell FSF thinks they should abide by GPL3?
On the other hand, even if they distribute the vouchers (after everything has been GPL3-fied) besides selling Windows licenses, it's got to be proved in court that the vouchers count as distributing software.
Imagine buying a Canon Digital Camera and getting a HP printer coupon with it, is the coupon distributor responsible for HP's business obligations? No. Similarly, in MS and Novell's case, Novell would be responsible. - unrequited, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10Can somebody dumb this down for me? I have no clue what the huff's about concerning vouchers and GPL.
- jjesusfreak01, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11The FSF will get what they wish for. Someone somewhere will write a license better than the GPL, everyone will move to it, and they will disappear. They dont care about software interoperability, or benefiting the consumer, all the FSF cares about is software being free. They have the attitude that commercial software and free software must live in different worlds. They are not the ones we should be looking at for guidance on the future of software.
- geekee, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9FTA:
"Although Microsoft does not believe that a GPL license is required to sell support vouchers, the company decided to avoid the legal questions that could emerge from the debate by issuing a statement last month saying 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 the GPLv3." " - geomon, on 10/10/2007, -5/+12GPLv3 applies to any software that someone attaches to it, despite what eclipse007 has written above. If Novell includes a package that is GPLv3 in the SuSE distro and Microsoft supports it, then Microsoft is bound by the terms and conditions of the GPLv3 *if* that support includes distributing software.
- Carcass666, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Sorry, I don't see the story here. I don't get how Microsoft distributing support vouchers obligates them to honor the GPL for code that they are not distributing. If I have a GPL program (whether I compiled from source or got from a package) and somebody has posted a fix/update, I am entitled to it regardless of who is on the other side of the phone (RedHat, Microsoft, Satan, etc.) saying I should go get it.
- bieber, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7That's nice. Too bad you can't just take ***** back like that. If Wal-Mart gives me a voucher, without an expiration date, for any watch from some cheap brand, and the same brand later starts making solid gold watches, Walmart can't just say "Oh, *****, we didn't mean to give you a condition-less voucher, now these conditions apply."
- fkr3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Both of you ***** off and take your ***** cartoon with you...
- bieber, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4First of all, I'd like to point out that a very large amount of free software _is_ commercial software. Think, you know, Linux, Apache, GNU, GCC, and a hell of other stuff. Secondly, the whole point of free software is that it benefits the user if all software is free, and the GPL is just one means of working towards that goal. And apparently, it's a pretty common goal, which would explain the GPL being, by far, the world's most used free software license. Like it or not, the FSF has done far more for free software than any other entity out there.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -8/+11I'm really looking forward to the FSF trying to prove that Microsoft is bound by a contract entered by another party. Oh yes, really looking forward to that.
The FSF should be careful what they wish for. The GPL and things like these might just get their day in court, and I don't think they'd want the other side to be Microsoft, as opposed to some hapless little company nailed with a GPL violation.
Stock up on popcorn everyone, this is going to be a good one. - MeneerR, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4I don't understand why we always depend on the court-systems for this. Why doesn't the government step in? The EU has been a little bit mean to Microsoft, but not enough.
1) Just pull windows and office out of all the stores. Make it illegal to sell it, and say you will release the ban, when the interoperatibility issues are solved.
2) Sue not just microsoft, but a dozen of its "gold" partners for running a kartel.
3) Kick software patents out of the door. Have a law that explicitely states that even trying to get a software patent is anti-competitive by definition.
4) Arrest those persons that are literally saying "pay royalties or somebody will sue you" for racketeering. Don't give them a fine. Put them in jail. I don't care if they are suits. It's called extortion.
5) Don't we have anti-mob-laws to deal with these kind of ***** anyway?
***** the fines.
PUT THEM IN JAIL
And if you there is shred of evidence that Bill suggested the racketering he should go to jail too, for running a criminal organisation. - richard2, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7The GPL has been scrutinised in the courts of different countries on several occasions and has always been upheld.
- nixfu, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4>MS actually used to have the most popular Unix
HAHAH... SORRY.. As someone who was actually in the industry back and working on unix systems in college, then your embellishing things quite a bit. Xenix was not popular until SCO licensed it from MS and ported it to the 386.
Back then the most popular UNIX's were first and foremost the ULTRIX that DEC sold for the VAXes as well as the UnixV7 that ran on DEC hardware too, Sun was getting some traction by the mid 80s with their SunOS version of BSD, and also AT&T's that ran on their 3B2 systems which I remember hating to have to work on compared to the VAX's :).
By 1989, I was working for a consulting firm doing Unix work for medical office systems running SCO on Intel 386's. - geomon, on 10/10/2007, -5/+8You haven't distributed any of Microsoft software, yet Microsoft expects you to abide by its copyright?
Who the ***** is this Microsoft? - fatdog789, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4You miss one key element: MS WOULD ONLY BE BOUND BY THE GPL3 FOR THE SOFTWARE (PACKAGE) THAT THEY WERE DISTRIBUTING. Nothing more, nothing less.
And if MS was using GPL code, they wouldn't have a patent on it. - Urusai, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5If the GPL ever represented a serious threat to Microsoft, copyright law would be rewritten to nullify "copyleft" licenses altogether, retroactively. In this case, selling "support" isn't distributing GPL'ed software, so Microsoft has nothing to fear. In fact, they can use this to distract the FSF while they go about buying OOXML into acceptance.
- livevil, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2You're an idiot. You don't know anything about GPL.
- Soulhuntre, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2That is the stupidest list of "demands" I have seen in a long time. Then again, I suppose you are just saying out loud what so many of the OSS fanatics keep thinkign intheir heads.
- livevil, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Are you kidding me. What the ***** doing think Open Source is. That you can view/trade your shemale porn on VLC without paying any license fees. Concepts of Fair Use, where a consumer gets to use what he paid for. These don't benefit consumers? You've been smacked over the head with the bible one too many times. *****' moron.
- venom8599, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Giving something away still qualifies as distribution.
- daftman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2FSF has a bunch of lawyers that work for free. What makes you think they would spend millions of dollars and a years of effort? Fighting company like Microsoft is the point of their effort.
- Philluminati, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Basically. Novell, who sell Linux (which has the GPL2 license on it) made a deal with Microsoft. In this deal it said that Microsoft would distribute vouchers for linux. Microsoft also, at the time, threatened everyone in the linux community, saying "unless your with Novell Linux" you might be sued by us for patent infringement. The FSF (Free Software Foundation) who writes the GPL license made a new version called GPL 3 which says if you permit 1 person 1 freedom, you must grant that freedom to everyone. When novells product includes GPL3 code, Microsoft, through the vouchers it sold to wallmark, may be bound to the term (oh ***** this. I'm tired of typing. I'll let someone else finish this story...)
- venom8599, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5That was before the switch to GPLv3, which is vastly different than its predecessor.
- daftman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Selling is ONE form of distribution. It is not the only form of distribution.
- geomon, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4"Microsoft does not seem to be directly distributing modified GPLv3 software."
Then what kind of "support" are you getting when the software is free?
I think they saw that they *were* going to be dragged into the GPLv3 and issued this statement in an attempt to clarify their earlier "support" statement.
The Novell/Microsoft alliance is busted. - daftman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2License is not Contract.
GPL is not and EULA. - daftman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Obviously you have zero legal experience and know jack ***** about contract law. FSF argument isn't about contract law you idiot. It's about Licensing. A License is NOT a Contract. Go and look that up. Why are there morons digging this idiot up?
Secondly, Eben has a PhD in law. You are just some random ***** who read a few crap on the internet and think you know the law. I would trust his opinion over yours. - geomon, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6"I don't get how Microsoft distributing support vouchers obligates them to honor the GPL for code that they are not distributing."
If they are distributing GPL software, they are bound by the GPL.
If they are not distributing GPL software, then what kind of service are they providing?
"If I have a GPL program (whether I compiled from source or got from a package) and somebody has posted a fix/update, I am entitled to it regardless of who is on the other side of the phone (RedHat, Microsoft, Satan, etc.) saying I should go get it."
Therein lies the problem for Microsoft. They cannot provide the software for you unless they want to become a party to the GPL. - cquinnd, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2No geomon, they would he honoring the license (ala GPL 2), as bound by contractural aggreement with Novell. The issue is whether that extends automatically to GPL3, when the answer would be "no" with regard to any other contract.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5The license vis-a-vis copyright law, sure. The effects of the license on the indemnity of third parties is quite another story.
- cstrippie, on 10/10/2007, -6/+7And if you want to make it even simpler, look up "efficient breach" (of contract). Microsoft can easily bypass this.
- impissed, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Stock up on your ass.
- geomon, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5This isn't a contract (look it up). It is a copyright.
Microsoft will not bypass this. - TGMD, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2That's odd... I gave you a thumbs up and it gave you another negative...
oh well
Few people realize that MS actually used to have the most popular Unix release in the 80's... in fact many of the modern day Unix/Linux features are somewhat based on it. - bieber, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Please. There isn't anything fundamentally different from the GPLv2, it's just better wording, along with closing a couple of loopholes (one of which actually involves _removing_ a restriction that made distributing GPL binaries via bittorrent technically illegal). Everyone's bitching now, but guess what, in a year it's going to be right back to business with a new GPL, and it's not going to make any damn difference, aside from lessening everyone's software patent paranoia and preventing companies like TiVO from distributing GPL software while denying users the rights the GPL is _supposed_ to guarantee.
- harlowsmonkeys, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2So? First sale doctrine. Here's the gist of it, from 17 USC 109: "Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 (3), the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord". Note the part about *without the authority of the copyright owner*.
17 USC 106 is the enumeration of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder, and subsection (3) covers the distribution right.
A common situation in which you've likely seen the first sale doctrine in action is at your favorite used bookstore. It is 17 USC 109 that makes used bookstores legal. (And movie rental stores, for that matter). - daftman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2The average person doesn't give a ***** about anything really. But it doesn't mean that there isn't people out there protecting the basic freedom that when you actually give a ***** about, it's available to you.
- MeneerR, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2What's so stupid about wanting a fair market for software?
We have a fair market for hardware, which is actually thanks to Microsoft. (if it were up to Apple..)
It isn't the fault of the Microsoft programmer's or anybody. If it wasn't Microsoft, it would be somebody else. The rules need to change. IT is infrastructure, we need open standards, or public infrastructure.
What if one company owned the majority of all roads? They would say, hey, you can only drive our cars on these roads. But our cars can only pump gas at our fuel stations. Only our supermarkets may be connected to our roads.
This is the type of expension Microsoft has been doing. But that's not even enough for them.
They actually go around as say ' we own the whole road-idea and car-idea " .. and we might sue you if you do not pay us our royality and use public infrastructure. (opensource comes as close as public infrastructure in my book)
If I go to a bar, and say "hey, .. you might get hit by someone unless you pay me your money" .. "then I will make sure nobody can hurt you".. that's racketeering. That's extortion. That's illegal. How is what microsoft is doing to linux and its fud and patent threats any different? - baalzebub, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2xenix was a convoluted piece of crap, now BSD was good back then and is still good today...
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Well flocktard, by your tone I deduce that you must be better informed than me, so enlighten me. What don't I understand about the GPL?
- geomon, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4"omeone somewhere will write a license better than the GPL, everyone will move to it, and they will disappear."
That prediction has been made before yet everyone has stuck it out with the GPL. - Carcass666, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4That's not entirely true. From gnu.org:
“Free software” is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of “free” as in “free speech”, not as in “free beer”.
You can have commercial software that is "free" - it's just rather difficult to implement any kind of usage control, especially under GPL 3. Getting rid of the GPL is a challenge, though -- the problem is that there is a whole big stack of stuff that has to get re-written. I agree though that the GPL 3 may be the "Vista" for FSF - it is going to force people who are serious about using free software in business to begin looking at other alternatives (BSD, etc.). - OrangeTide, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Microsoft does not seem to be directly distributing modified GPLv3 software. It seems their partner (not even a subsidiary) is doing the distributing and is therefor under GPLv3 obligations. I'm not sure why Microsoft even posted the notice because it doesn't seem to matter at all from what I can tell.
- happytron, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2FSF's argument is shamelessly specious, and if it actually held up in court, it would clearly be an abuse of the copyright system. If they're so confident of their position, why don't they just add the condition that Microsoft owes them a trillion dollars to the GPLv3? That should get rid of the threat of Microsoft once and for all.
- MeneerR, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I don't think so. The sort of companies that dislike the GPL aren't the ones you want involved in OSS in the first place. I see a number of ways companies can make money from software. But they all depend on this one little part of logic:
- you don't write it all yourself.
- you write it all yourself and it is targetted a small market and you are the only one supporting it
You can sell support, but that won't pay for all the costs of developping. But you don't need to. The other 95% costs of developping is done by the same sort of companies as yours. In other areas, in other countries. It's like local-tv. They all have their own channel, with their own programs, yet most programs are shared amoungst them. This custs the cost and they co-operate. It's just with the big dictator at the top. - radiometric, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1...smd!
- LordofShadows, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1lol
- geomon, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3If they send "updates" they are distributing software.
-
Show 51 - 65 of 65 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is