What is Digg?89 Comments
- drag, on 10/11/2007, -0/+52Try number 2:
FIRST PART:
Linux is a threat to Microsoft's core businesses, which is the business licensing for Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Office Suite. Most of Microsoft's other businesses center specificly around these two products.. Such as Active Directory is designed to make large numbers of Windows Desktops easier to administrate and Microsoft Exchange integrates with Microsoft Office's outlook.
The success with Microsoft is oriented towards tight integration with these products, and this 'proprietary-ness' is something that Microsoft feircly defends.
Linux's primary strength is that it and related Open Source software forms the 'glue' that holds modern enterprising together. Whether your using Veriatis, IBM's stuff, SAP, Oracle, Apache, Jboss, Sun Java, or anything else for your businesses they all have one thing in common nowadays; They all work with Linux. Linux thrives in _creating_ tight integration between lots of different types of things and highly customized solutions.
With the change in focus from 'Desktop' to 'Network' with a lot of disparent products this puts Linux in a special position were it may be better for companies to migrate from Windows to Linux. Since Linux is easily customizable, has widespread vendor support, and it's desktop stuff is now adiquate for larger businesses then in a short amount of time it can pose a threat to Windows, and then in a secondary effect threaten MS Office.
What Microsoft now depends on is the continued intertia of it's Windows systems. It's currently still is a monopoly and the most effective way continue to halt Linux encrouchment on it's core businesses is to prevent the potential early adoptors from using Linux on the desktop.
One of the aproaches they are trying to take is to attack a significant weakness in OSS development model, which is the threat of software patents.
Due to the nature of software patents and the ease at which is it is possible to obtain one if you make non-trivial software (ie something people want to use) you have about a 100% chance of violating somebody's patent somewere. Everybody does this.. IBM violates patents, Microsoft violates patents, and Linux violates patents. Larger companies can counteract this threat by making sure to get as many patents as possible and then doing cross-licensing between other large companies.
It's similar to the nuclear deterant theory of 'Mutually Assured Destruction', or 'MAD'. If everybody has large amounts of nuclear weapons then everybody is scared to use them because both sides will lose. It's impossible in this modern age to have a nuclear war and actually have any survivors.
With software patents it's like that. Or you can look at it like the beginning of World War 1 were the political powers of Europe have very strong treaties with each other. Each side promising to go to war if the other side attacks. So every large military has a 'automaticly kill everybody on their side' treaties going. Thus you have a volitile situation were a small regional conflict can trigger a chain reaction can cause the entire European land mass to mobilize for war within weeks.
This works out generally 'ok'. You sue me, I sue you. They sue you. They sue me. We all lose, we all win. Everybody does cross-licensing and thus the threat of the broken patent system is watered down. So real large-scale patent lawsuites are rare.
But still software patent threats primiarly come from 'IP holding' companies. That is companies, generally made up of lawyers, who purchase up assists of failing companies or purchase software patents from individuals or universities or whatever. These people produce no software themselves therefore are immune to counter lawsuites.
These 'IP holding companies' are called 'Patent trolls'. Since they can't be counter-sued the only effective defense is to simply purchase licenses from them and pay them off. The people who run these places will make sure that the licensing costs are less then what it would cost to go to court and defeat the patent. Then they can use their patents again against other companies.
So if you go to any lawyer and ask them 'Is software patents a threat against Linux'?
The answer should be 'Yes' if they are a good lawyer.
Of course it's a threat against Windows also, and any other non-trivial software... but that is something Microsoft isn't going to advertise.
So Microsoft is using 'FUD' (fear uncertainty and doubt) tactics to make it seem like they are a potential patent troll. It's just a PR game to make it seem like Linux is more expensive and dangerous then it is. They want people to see that 'Free software isn't free', or in otherwords Free and Open Source software can open you up to liability.
Which is true, sorta, but the same thing is true for Windows or any other software.. but again Microsoft isn't going to advertise that.
SECOND PART:
So this goes back to the 'Enterprise'. Like I said before Linux is the 'glue' that holds modern enterprise together. Whether your using IBM mainframes, or SAP, or Oracle DBs on SANs... it all works with Linux so all of it talks to Linux and Linux can talk to everything. This dramaticly reduces costs for mixed environments. Linux/Free/Open Source software, even if it isn't used for everything, still is able to have nice cost savings.
So when Microsoft says 'We will sue you for using Linux.. maybe' they are in fact threatening the largest and most powerfull people in capitalism. They are threatening financial instituions, major banks, major stock holders. They are threating the NYSE of all people. These people have a lot of money, a lot of power. These people are the people that own and run the companies make up the 'Dow Jones Industrial Average'.
You don't threaten these people if your on the stock market. They will ***** you up. They own significant parts of your company.
You don't want these people on the side of Linux and on the side of Free and Open Source software. A small amount of money (for these people... say 30-40 million dollars) worth of intellegent investment in Linux desktop and things like OpenOffice.org would pretty much kill Microsoft. Look at what Mark Shuttle worth was able to do with Ubuntu.. and he is a mere millionare.
And I don't know if you've noticed, but Microsoft's stock isn't performing that well. It's mostly flat. People get paid dividends, which keeps them happy, but if a run happened on MS stock then they could be in trouble.
So in order to keep Microsoft's FUD working without threatening these people they have gone into agreement with the morons who run Novel. Novell didn't understand what the hell was going on. They got tricked and they figured getting paid 420 million dollars from Microsoft was a great deal. The patent thing, to them, was just a minor add-on and didn't matter.
What Microsoft got was the 'Linux voucher'. If your a large enterprise orginization all you have to do is buy a Suse License and your 'safe' from Microsoft. So most these people purchase Suse anyways, it's the second most popular commercial distro behind Redhat.
So now when Microsoft says 'I will sue your ass off, maybe. But I could, but I won't. I especially won't if you pay me' it's not those big 'Enterprise' people that they're talking to. Microsoft figures those people don't give a ***** anymore since they are immune, and MS is probably right.
So the Novell-Microsoft patent deal was designed to take away a big potential ally of Linux/OpenSource/Free software. Novell didn't know this, but Novell isn't run by people who are very smart. (probably most the smart manager-types left a long time ago to go work for Microsoft).
It's designed to make it safe for Microsoft patent FUD to be directed at Linux developers and smaller businesses without threatening the bigger guys that make up most of the licenses that Microsoft sells for it's Windows and MS Office stuff.
THIRD PART:
Here enters the GPLv3.
GPLv2 is the most popular open source license out there. In a paticular open source operating system and open source operating system environment the GPL-licensed software makes up of well over 70% of all software.
The GPLv3 is a attempt at modernizing the GPLv2. In terms of software GPLv2 is ancient. Since it was created copyright laws have subtly changed, software is much more international, and patents are a larger issue.
Most other common open source licenses have patent language in them, as does most commercial licenses. Apache public license, Ecplispe license, the Sun CDDL license, IBM public license, Mozilla licenses, and many other such things have patent language in them.
GPLv2 has _implied_ patent language. But GPLv3 has _explicit_ patent language. Since GPLv2 is not very specific then the Microsoft-Novell people were able to find a way to work around it. The GPLv3 is not designed to make it impossible for what Microsoft-Novel did, but it still fixes the loophole.
In fact the Microsoft-Novel agreement is still perfectly valid and 100% legal if you switched out all the GPLv2 software for GPLv3 software. The one difference is that with the GPLv3 any patent you grant to users of GPLv3 software automaticly is granted to ALL users of that software. And the makers of that software.
It makes sense, right? When I buy GPL software I can sell you the GPL software. You get it under the same terms and conditions that I got it. So any sort of patent agreements should spread just like the copyright agreements do.
That's the important difference. With the GPLv2 the covenent only covers the end users of Novel Suse. With the GPLv3 that adoption spreads to people other then just Novel's customers.
The Microsoft-Novel agreement doesn't EXPIRE and is not just for GPLv2 software!! Therefore all you have to do is get a voucher today, and then buy Novel Suse when they have GPLv3 software on it and then the immunity spreads to other users and other developers!
PART FOUR:
There has recently been two significant decisions by the USA Supreme Court that involve software patents.
The first one is AT&T vs Microsoft were Microsoft was the victim of a patent lawsuite involving MP3 patents. Microsoft paid one group of people for MP3 licenses. However MP3 is covered by lots of patents by lots of different people. Those other people were never paid so they sued Microsoft. These were computers that are exported out of the USA. USA export laws says any patents on exported goods are treated the same as if they were sold domesticly.. so AT&T and friends (who own patents on mp3) figured Microsoft owed them money for.
Microsoft argued that since the software was shiped not as part of the end product then software patents don't apply to it. Microsoft won. This weakened software patents. Eben Moglen and other lawyers from the 'Software Freedom Law Center' actually wrote letters to the Supreme Court in support of Microsoft!
Also the Supreme Court noted publicly that the validity of software patents themsevles are questionable since they have never ruled on whether or not software patents are valid. With patents the courts have a lot of control over...
The second significant ruling was with the Supreme Court and it's KSR v. Teleflex decision. It doesn't have anything realy to do with _software_patents_ persay.. just patents in generaly. KSR v. Teleflex is something new this month...
The Supreme Court ruled that it was a trivial patent. They made it MUCH MUCH easier to defeat patents in courts. A LOT EASIER. They acknowledged that there are way to many patents being given out.
Microsoft's patents generally aren't very good patents. I am sure that they have a few good ones, but a lot of them are going to be weaker then the one in the KSR case.
All this together means that just this year software patents are much weaker then they ever been. They are still valid, but the threat is less.
PART FIVE:
RMS+Eben+GPLv3+Free/Open source software community to Microsoft:
Checkmate... Bitch
Or at least almost. Microsoft's patent threat was always pretty cheesy to begin with. They are the ones that are continiously being sued by patent trolls for this or that violation. The people who work on Linux are people like IBM, Nokia, Sony, Oracle, and other such things.. They are all major patent holders.
Plus you have OIN who own several very EVIL and very strong patents in regards to critical online businesses. (thanks in a very large way to Novel buying them! So this cancels out their stupidity with the MS-Novel deal) These patents are generally much stronger and scarier then what Microsoft has.
And Microsoft DOES violate OIN-held patents.
The way OIN is setup is that if anybody uses anybody else for 'using Linux', then OIN automaticly sues them. It's a 'IP holding house' that is on the side of Linux/Free/Open source software. It's Linux's 2 own megaton nuclear patent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Invention_Network
Hope that makes everything make sense. - agrabob, on 10/11/2007, -3/+39Im certainly no lawyer, but wouldnt MS's contract with Novell (and possibly the coupons themselves) have an exclusion for future versions of the GPL? It would seem obvious to MS's lawyers that new revisions of the GPL will come out.
- Visceral, on 10/11/2007, -2/+35From what I've read, the coupons themselves are already out there. Someone on /. did suggest the only way MS *might* get out of it is if they eat the cost of the coupons and not honor them in some manner. It's just funny as hell that they may have painted themselves into a corner like this.
- Sabata, on 10/11/2007, -2/+30I don't speak legalese, nor do I have time to research what happened here between linux and ms, can somebody elaborate the situation in layman plox?
- aweraw, on 10/11/2007, -0/+25@agrabob
The thing is that Novell does not license Linux. It's licensed independently by the people who write the code. The Linux kernel will be distributed under the GPL3 by these people.
So..... if in the future Novell distributes their SUSE distro and it incorporates the GPL3 code Microsoft is chest beating over, and someone uses one of the vouchers they get from MS to obtain this GPL3 licensed product - then MS is technically a distributor of GPL3 code, and therefore subject to it.
Wow... writing that out made me realize how damn complex this whole thing is.... MS is being caught in a web of their own making! - AlphaToxic, on 10/11/2007, -2/+21The contract with Novel may be limited to GPLv2 only, but that means that if Novel moves to GPLv3 their customers lose that protection from suing. Novel might not move to GPLv3 but then it will not be able to use any new versions of the kernel and most of everything else as those will move to GPLv3, so Novel will effectively be out of business.
There is, of course, the option where Novel's lawyers saw what is coming, knew what the additions to GPL will be (I think the proposed GPLv3 was completely different when MS and Novel signed the deal) and intentionally f_ed MS. Not very likely but theoretically possible. If so, then they did one hell of a job by putting them selves in the line of fire (in the short term) and winning a great victory for all of us (in the long term) and in the meantime getting MS's money too ;) .
@superpotential: I doubt that. If they have signed a deal then that is it. Either respect the deal or get sued by Novel. - jm9206755, on 10/11/2007, -2/+17All GNU software WILL go under GPLv3 (I believe it's controlled by Richard Stallman of the FSF) which is (to be honest) the bulk of the GNU/Linux operating system. So even if the kernel doesn't go GPLv3 the GNU part of the OS will do the job.
- nondescrypt, on 10/11/2007, -3/+17Wow, after 10 mintues of reading (i've had enough) I realize there is much more reading to do here....
The FSF & the GPL are soo great. M$ is really an evil bunch of bastards here...
Open source & Linux is a competitor to them in the same way a food bank is a competitor to Wal-Mart....
It's like Intel doing everything it can to stop the OLPC project from giving educational laptops to the world's poorest children
these corporations can be real evil ***** at times....
DEATH TO MICROSOFT !!!! Serious injuries to Intel !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
: ) - schestowitz, on 10/11/2007, -7/+20Well, let's just hope that everybody becomes aware of this because Microsoft will continue to spin this and spread FUD.
- thtroyer, on 10/11/2007, -5/+17Patent infringement. Where have you been the last few days?
- init100, on 10/11/2007, -2/+13@fatdog789
"And this is why the FSF has rarely won any legal battles. They jump to conclusions and make wild assumptions that have no basis in the law as it actually exists."
"BTW, IAAL."
Interesting, you claim to be a lawyer, but you still have no idea what you are talking about. The FSF has rarely won any legal battles because they haven't been in any legal battles that I know of. They have enforced the GPL without going to court, because parties that have been infringing the GPL have been persuaded to comply without the FSF suing them. I guess they were probably told by their lawyers that they were not likely to prevail in a court of law. - Philluminati, on 10/11/2007, -1/+12for not activating their copies of Ubuntu, lol
/sarcasm - Greyhaven7, on 10/11/2007, -2/+12LOL. I've been working my ass off to deliver a project at work. Sorry. :)
I figured it was patent infringement... but on what? Does MS think it owns our series of tubes or something? - init100, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10@aweraw
"Wow... writing that out made me realize how damn complex this whole thing is.... MS is being caught in a web of their own making!"
Isn't it beautiful? I'd like to hold off on judging whether this would actually work, but if it does, it is a great irony. Microsoft payed a lot of money to Novell for those coupons, and in the end those coupons may well mean the undoing of the patent thread to F/OSS poised by Microsoft. - schestowitz, on 10/11/2007, -5/+15But didn't they just spread some fresh FUD yesterday?
Hilf: Microsoft won't sue over Linux, for now
http://news.yahoo.com/s/infoworld/20070517/tc_infoworld/88614
The "for now" part is intended to imply some kind of inevitability, so although they can never win (and will never sue withoput a proxy), they continue to spread more and more FUD. - spiffytech, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11That's exactly the problem: Microsoft won't say what infringes. They've been saying for years that Linux infringes, and this week the infringements were brought back into the spotlight because MS gave an actual number (235), but they never name them, for fear that Linux developers will code around them, or that they will be invalidated.
- init100, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10@fatdog789
"The vouchers are limited to GPL2."
Do you know this for certain? If you don't, how can you assert that those vouchers are limited to GPLv2? - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -4/+12are agreements not to sue ever legally binding? i never thought they were.
- jm9206755, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8If you want to claim a story is untrue then prove it here. Contribute to the discussion meaningfully or shut up.
- GMorgan, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8Basically the vouchers are for a current version of SLES or SLED. Meaning that a later redemption will get you a newer copy of SLE. Later versions of SLE will most likely include GPLv3 code. At that point MS becomes a distributor of GPLv3 code and part of that license is a royalty free and redistributable patent license. Essentially I could get an MS copy of SLED and get a patent license for all declared, undeclared and future MS patents that cover that work. The killer is I can redistribute that license much in the same manner as the GPL itself, essentially every time I distribute a copy of the code they also get a free patent license from MS.
MS have tried to dump all their vouchers before GPLv3 day thinking it will free them of that obligation. However the vouchers do not expire and the distribution hasn't legally taken place until some one redeems a voucher.
I could get hold of one and sit on it until GPLv3 code spreads liberally through SLE then demand redemption. MS at this point would essentially relinquish all patent rights on that piece of software for all time.
If Novell really want to rescue their reputation they will become early adopters of GPLv3 code. Hell this could have always been their intention though I will wait to see how they respond rather than make any judgement. I always maintained that Microvell was a storm in a tea cup though.
//edit - this may be a sound reason for Linus to try and move the kernel to v3 now. If he doesn't like the DRM clauses fine, get a modified version that still allows it to be part of this.// - bmartin, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7Not ever.
While they've made more contributions to FOSS than most other major companies, that hardly offsets their betrayal of the entire FOSS community. - cheshire137, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6So is Linus going to license Linux under the GPLv3 when it's released? Last I heard, he was still resisting it and wanted to stick with v2.
- bmartin, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Only if SUSE wants to use the latest and greatest kernel and GNU software (assuming the newer GNU/Linux stuff is released under the GPLv3).
- init100, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5@schestowitz
"Hilf: Microsoft won't sue over Linux, for now
http://news.yahoo.com/s/infoworld/20070517/tc_infoworld/88614"
Interesting, he claims that patents have to be very specific, and that you cannot have general patents. As an example, he claims that nobody patented the automobile. Since I strongly recall the opposite, I decided to look it up. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Baldwin_Selden :
"George B. Selden, ... , was a lawyer and inventor who was granted the first U.S. patent for an automobile, which he invented in 1877"
"However, Henry Ford, owner of the Ford Motor Company, ... , and four other car makers resolved to contest the patent infringement suit filed by Selden and EVC. The legal fight lasted 8 years generating a case record of 14,000 pages. The case was heavily publicized in the newspapers of the day and ended in a victory for Selden. In his decision, the judge wrote that the patent covered any automobile propelled by an engine powered by gasoline vapor."
No patent for the automobile? Yeah right. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -6/+11doesn't Microsoft still hold the right not to honour the coupons, at their discretion, much like your grocery store can just decide at free will not to honour coupons still marked as valid (bad business /customer practice but still legal)?
- titanix88, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Good thing is that Microsoft is REALLY afraid & it's losing it's weapons.
- TeatimeGrommit, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7Courts aren't as dumb as people here seem to think. Microsoft is not bound by GPLv3 because they never had a chance to agree / disagree with it before distributing the vouchers. You can't unilaterally modify a contract, period. If MS continued to distribute vouchers after the Novel codebase were switched to GPLv3, then things would get interesting.
Personally, I find the GPLv2 argument more compelling. MS had every opportunity to read GPLv2 before distributing those vouchers and GPLv2 has a rather strong implied patent license. At a minimum, as a user of GPLv2 software I have a strong "good faith" argument limiting the patent damages. (Good faith means I really could as a reasonable person believe that I wasn't breaking any law violating any patent). - init100, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8@hedgefighter
"So, MS being the clever bastards they are made a deal with Novell to just go ahead and infringe each others patents, but they promised not to sue each other over it."
See below.
"The Linux community was pissed.
They started drafting a new GPL to fix the issue."
Actually not. The work on a new version of the GPL started long before the Microsoft-Novell agreement. It was fueled in part by Microsoft's earlier claims that Linux and other F/OSS violate their patents, and in part by so called tivoization. Tivoization means that someone use free software on a device, but uses some form of DRM to lock it up so that only versions approved by the vendor can be loaded (it's called tivoization just because the Tivo PVR does that). Tivo releases the source as required by the license, but the source cannot be used to make modified versions of the software for your Tivo, since it only accepts code signed by the vendor. This negates the freedom to run modified versions of software covered by the GPL, which is a clear violation of the spirit of the license while probably (IANAL) still technically allowed by the GPLv2.
Since the GPLv3 was not finalized when the Microsoft-Novell agreement was made public, the FSF started to investigate if they could insert clauses that prevents future similar agreements, since the agreement has the power to split the F/OSS community in half, where SUSE would be "safe F/OSS" while other distributions would be "unsafe F/OSS" (safe in this case means "no risk of being the target of a patent infringement lawsuit by Microsoft).
@aarongough
"correct me if I'm wrong and I understand that this is a bit more 'legalese' than your explanation but Microsoft/Novell were forbidden under the terms of the GPL to enter into an agreement promising not to sue 'each other' so instead they entered into an agreement no to 'sue each others customers'...."
You are correct. - DatuPuti, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Hmm... SCO used the same tactics before and now Microsoft is using it too. As I see it, only companies on the losing end use this tactic as a last resort.
I wonder... hmm... - Novagenesis, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4On topic but half-indirect....
I'm on the OIN site, and is it true that they have a patent on the IDE?
"5,764,989 Interactive Software Development System"
...and all incremental compilers?
"5,848,274 Incremental Byte Code Compilation System"
Are those supportable? If so, they're a lot stronger than I'd first assumed - Novagenesis, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5howabout Gimp?
And X?
Gnome?
KDE?
How about all those tools critical to the use of linux that -will- be converted to v3?
binutils?
gcc?
I don't know which will, but the only thing Linus -may- have a solid grasp on right now (which I doubt, since he's a figurehead nowadays) is the kernel - DavidDigg, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4I think we need a genuine screaming match between a M$ guy and a Linux guy on an MSM pundit program. It should be extremely loud and impossible to follow with a lot of hubris, arrogance, and vitriol on both sides. This morass of stupidity would be shown for what it is. Then we might be able to make some headway in rewriting patent law. Software patents should never ever have been granted to anyone. You can't patent an algorithm and all software programs are algorithms. Patents have stifled the development of software and it is sad.
- init100, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4@fatdog789
"MS isn't too worried because they can easily comply with those patents simply by open-sourcing some of their code base."
Oh? Who says that open-sourcing some code is enough?
"Novell was worried because MS is a real company, and charges licensing fees for its codes and patents (which the OSS world doesn't do)."
If MS is a real company, which one is the fake company? The OSS world doesn't charge licensing fees for their patents? If we include IBM in this group, you are clearly wrong.
"MS was extending an olive branch of sorts"
I'd rather call their "olive branch" FUD.
"because the patents they believe Linux violates aren't worth the money it would require to go to court. Either there weren't any damages, or the violations or miniscule, or they may simply be potential violations."
I'm surprised that you, who claim to be a lawyer, won't understand that any alleged violation is a *potential* violation until a violation has been proven in a court of law. It is probable that none of the potentially infringed patents (if they even exist) have been validated in court.
"HOWEVER, rather than looking at that as a means of stabilizing a fundamental legal uncertainty that was preventing adoption of Linux by businesses afraid of being sued for patent violations"
In other words, your solution would be to pay Microsoft money so that they won't sue. Would you pay protection money to the local criminals too? This "uncertainty" is only FUD pushed by Microsoft. The definitive way to remove any "uncertainty" would be for Microsoft to publish the list of alleged infringements so that they can be corrected and/or challenged in court. Of course they won't do that. They want to put a Microsoft tax on F/OSS, not make it clean of infringements, since that would remove any taxation opportunity.
"companies holding patents that Linux may violate have decided against or delayed similar contracts with Linux-based companies because they don't want to be ***** like MS may be."
Are you trying to claim that this is a disadvantage? That other companies that may hold patents potentially infringed by F/OSS have not come forward to demand money for their patents? You look more and more like a Microsoft shill to me. Maybe you work in their legal department, where your work description includes spreading FUD about competing products?
"IOW, in trying to screw over MS, the tech world is delaying the adoption of Linux by maintaining a legal uncertainty that was and still is preventing the adoption of Linux."
This is what Microsoft claims. Do you have any solid evidence that a significant number of companies have been scared away from Linux and other F/OSS by Microsoft's patent threats? - Novagenesis, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Microsoft was too vague in the licensing terms.
They say 'current' version at the point of redemption. They are legally bound to hold to that.
If I redeem that coupon for a future product (which is fine, since there's no time deadline for redemption), they are implicitly accepting the licensing terms of that future product.
There's no ex-post-facto. If you sign a contract to obey another contract that you haven't read, you're still legally bound to it.
It's kinda low for the Linux people to do, and Suse could just refuse to use gpl v3 updates, doing its own in-house (Novel is a big enough company), but it's a huge step that -could- free it all up.
Now, mind you, the sticking point is that they won't reveal what linux -supposedly- infringes upon. Either way, in patent law, it's all about how you look in court. A bound license saying that all patents are cross-licensed is a get out of suit free card. - digitalranger, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5I've never been into law but I now hold Eben Moglen as a legal Eintsein :)
- Novagenesis, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Fact: There are -potential- patent infringements. Every company has that. The question is whether Microsoft will waste the money to -try- it. The more strength against, the better the case.
The best possible bet is if they DO try to sue for every possible patent, and lose miserably each time. Otherwise, they can always hold it over someone's head, and pounce if it proves to be an opportune time...
Vonage lost a case where Verizon had a patent on using wireless technology with VOIP - GMorgan, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3He hasn't agreed to move to v3 though. He thinks the newest version isn't retarded but that doesn't mean he wants to sleep with it every day for the rest of his life. It would be a huge effort chasing down all the Linux developers who have 'GPLv2 only' code, some of them might be out of contact or even dead. It will probably end up requiring at least some rewriting.
- renegadeafk, on 10/11/2007, -6/+9Microsoft is insane if they even think they can get away with suing anyone using linux.
- GyroTech, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4@jm9206755
While it's true that any GNU software is almost certainly going to GPLv3, it is still at the discretion of individual developers, this is one of the main reasons Linus isn't really all that interested in GPLv3 If the developers of the code in the Linux kernel want to use it, then so be it, but each of them would have to be individually contacted and their consent given. I believe if even one developer says no to GPLv3, then the whole kernel has to stay GPLv2. A lot of developers though put in clauses to say something along of "this code is licensed under GPLv2 or newer"...
But it just takes one. - iWat, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3@cheshire137
Sorry, you are out dated.
"Torvalds 'pretty pleased' about new GPL 3 draft"
http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-6171300-7.html - fatdog789, on 10/11/2007, -15/+18And this is why the FSF has rarely won any legal battles. They jump to conclusions and make wild assumptions that have no basis in the law as it actually exists.
The vouchers are limited to GPL2. Further, even if they were not, they would not apply to GPL3 because that's a substantial departure from the terms of the MS-Novell contract that defeats the terms of the original. Legally, that provides MS an out and they can *choose* whether to honor them or not.
FURTHERMORE, Novell doesn't own Linux. This only protects *Novell-based* Linux applications and their derivatives. So unless you want Novell controlling the future of Linux, that's a no-go.
P.S. Agreements not to sue are legally binding IF the other side offers something of value in return. I don't know where you guys get the idea that people can't legally agree not to sue. BTW, IAAL. - fluxion, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Microsoft seemed pretty confident in arguing against the presumption that they could be considered a vendor of linux. unforunately i forgot what the argument was (something along the lines of "we're not distributing, we're just reselling Novell's product"). but Moglen's original point in bringing that up was a little less "tricksey", as Gollum would put it: if MS is a linux vendor, and distributed their own (supposedly patent-infringed) code under the GPL via Novell's vouchers, then the infringed code is now governed by the GPL (open-sourced) and there's nothing to sue about.
i found that a fair bit more convincing than this recent development, but i dont pretend to know jack about these complicated licenses, so mayhap that Moglen saw need to employ this new argument instead.
it's a bit disheartening that all these legal arguments from either side are so flimsy and subjective. objective law seems sorely lacking here. - alexmipego, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2@AlphaToxic
Linus says he won't move the kernel to GPL3, at least any time soon. And even if GNU tools move to GPL3 Novell will always have the option not to update them and develop the same improvements as the main trees did. Altough this doesn't look likely to happens its one option.
Anyway, I do not really think this will happen anytime soon guys. In fact, I do not know of any proved patent claim from MS against Linux or anyone sued. We just wait and see. - Fritzel, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Is Microsoft/Novell Required to upgrade to GPLv3?
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3I don't think M$ will ever sue. Why?
One... they would have to prove the infringements. This would require them to outline all the areas they claim as infringing which are safely 'greyed out' at this point. M$ doesn't want legions of anti-M$ hounds digging all over the place to find prior proofs of concept that originated before M$ patented said technology. Considering M$ history of stealing other peoples code/ideas/business models... they are unlikely to shore up any real argument that proves the patents they hold as valid. All a lawsuit can do for M$ is unleash a horde or people proving their patents invalid. This is the last thing they want.
So instead.... they just bang on the drums of war to scare off enemy combatants. M$: "Maybe they will leave if we drum a little louder?" Sorry M$... were not falling for it!
Go ahead and sue... lay your cards out on the table.... and watch your patents evaporate into thin air! - jm9206755, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4The language of MS deal with Novell is that they will honor the vouchers for WHATEVER the most current version of Suse is. When large swathes of Suse code is relicensed under the GPLv3 if someone redeemes the voucher then that makes MS a de facto distributer or GPLv3 code. All they can do is refuse to honor the vouchers and then they are breaching their contract with Novell (opening them up for a lawsuit). They didn't specify any agreements about which licenses they would honor.
- deadowl, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2If Microsoft outs of the deal from a change in the terms of conditions, we're back to pre MS/Novell.
Otherwise, Microsoft can't sue anyone.
If Microsoft does throw a lawsuit against Linux users, it better be on TV. I'd certainly be watching. - johnbellone, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3This only covers software that is licensed under GPLv3. The Linux kernel will never be licensed under GPLv3, not only has Linus said so but the fact that it would be a huge undertaking due to the need to get permission from each and every copyright holder. If someone decides they don't want their code under GPLv3 then the code has to be rewritten blackbox style. Which, one could argue, might be impossible in some cases due to the fact that the person writing the could (or in some cases several people) would need to know how the system works in the first place in order not to break all the other systems.
This is only going to cover any Novel-based software that is licensed under the GPLv3. So basically, if/when Novell decides to license parts of SUSE under GPLv3 only the components will be afflicted by this. I have severe doubts about being able to "license away" patents without the owning party agreeing to it. We'll see if it actually works. Money talks, and Microsoft has a ***** load more than the FSF.
Growlaw seems to be grasping at straws. - Novagenesis, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2In patent law, the party in the wrong can win with enough money. You want as many hooks in them as you can have in case they're stupid enough to try to sue.
-
Show 51 - 90 of 90 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is