On Tue, 22 May 2007 15:23:57 -0400, tom smith <atomsmitty@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> Read: "The ultra-FUD backfired on us, so we will crawl back into our rat hole
> for a while."
It may have backfired more than they could have possibly imagined.
Remember the deal they struck with Novell? Well, there's no expiration
date on them. Why is that important?
Check this out:
http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2007/05/21/os_gpl3_indemnity/
>From the article:
Novell's deal with Microsoft (on behalf of its customers, of course)
could end up benefiting everyone in the open source community after
all, thanks to a missing expiration date and a nifty little clause in
GPLv3.
Microsoft announced last week that it holds exactly 235 patents
which are infringed by Linux source code. It wasn't letting out much in
the way of specifics, but the announcement prompted speculation that
the software firm was about to start enforcing these patents, or using
the threat of enforcement to bring OS distributors to heel as it did
with Novell.
But thanks to the deal it did last year with Novell, these plans may
now come to naught.
Free Software Foundation lawyer Eben Moglen points out that the
"vouchers" Novell bought to indemnify its customers have no expiration
date. This is fine and dandy, except that Microsoft becomes subject to
GPLv3 as soon as the new license comes into effect. Then the indemnity
Microsoft was so keen to extend to Novell's customers is extended to
everyone else as well.
This is why:
GPLv3 says: "If, pursuant to or in connection with a single transaction
or arrangement, you convey, or propagate by procuring conveyance of, a
covered work, and grant a patent license providing freedom to use,
propagate, modify or convey a specific copy of the covered work to any
of the parties receiving the covered work, then the patent license you
grant is automatically extended to all recipients of the covered work
and works based on it."
Moglen and other open sourcerers argue that this means as soon as
someone buys SUSE after GPLv3 comes into effect, there is a reasonable
defence for anyone Microsoft chooses to pursue for patent infringement.
According to various net reports, including Groklaw and Seattle PI
blogger Todd Bishop, Mogeln said: "If you make deals with a party
having patents, to pay tribute to that party, in return for protecting
some but not all of your customers...you are violating the license, and
you must stop distributing altogether."
Regards,
Ozz.
-- ======================================== Computers are like air conditioners... They stop working when you open Windows. ========================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:37:26 EDT