Comments on: GPLv3 Cluebat Hits Microsoft, Which Has Just Entered the ”Denial” Stage of Its Agony (Updated) http://techrights.org/2007/07/05/microsoft-in-denial/ Free Software Sentry – watching and reporting maneuvers of those threatened by software freedom Tue, 07 Feb 2012 14:00:35 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Roy Schestowitz http://techrights.org/2007/07/05/microsoft-in-denial/comment-page-1/#comment-1156 Roy Schestowitz Fri, 06 Jul 2007 11:41:13 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/2007/07/05/microsoft-in-denial/#comment-1156 John, look what Groklaw says. :-) http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070705205728953 <em>"Microsoft Says It Is Not Bound by GPLv3 — they think they can so declare, like an emperor, and it becomes fiat."</em> John, look what Groklaw says. :-)

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070705205728953

“Microsoft Says It Is Not Bound by GPLv3 — they think they can so declare, like an emperor, and it becomes fiat.”

]]> By: John Drinkwater http://techrights.org/2007/07/05/microsoft-in-denial/comment-page-1/#comment-1155 John Drinkwater Fri, 06 Jul 2007 10:35:09 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/2007/07/05/microsoft-in-denial/#comment-1155 The best line imho from the statement "Furthermore, Microsoft does not grant any implied or express patent rights under or as a result of GPLv3" Are they saying here, that if any part of their SuSE voucher distribution is covered by GPLv3, then their statement applies, and they aren't granting patent rights? That violates GPLv3 certainly… The best line imho from the statement “Furthermore, Microsoft does not grant any implied or express patent rights under or as a result of GPLv3″

Are they saying here, that if any part of their SuSE voucher distribution is covered by GPLv3, then their statement applies, and they aren’t granting patent rights? That violates GPLv3 certainly…

]]> By: Roy Schestowitz http://techrights.org/2007/07/05/microsoft-in-denial/comment-page-1/#comment-1154 Roy Schestowitz Fri, 06 Jul 2007 10:12:20 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/2007/07/05/microsoft-in-denial/#comment-1154 I've collected a couple of interesting short pieces that say more about this predictable development. <a href="http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070705205728953" title="MS: Dancing as fast as it can to try to get away from GPLv3" rel="nofollow">MS: Dancing as fast as it can to try to get away from GPLv3</a> <blockquote cite="http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070705205728953"> ant to laugh? Microsoft Says It Is Not Bound by GPLv3" -- they think they can so declare, like an emperor, and it becomes fiat. It's not so easy. I gather Microsoft's lawyers have begun to discern the GPL pickle they are in. </blockquote> <a href="http://www.linuxelectrons.com/news/linux/10565/microsoft-issues-statement-concerning-gplv3-novell-agreement" title="Microsoft Issues Statement Concerning the GPLv3 and Novell Agreement" rel="nofollow">Microsoft Issues Statement Concerning the GPLv3 and Novell Agreement</a> Well, I've already included it verbatim in the update above. There's also this one: <a href="http://www.linuxelectrons.com/news/linux/10566/commentary-some-linux-vendors-dance-archfiend-microsoft" title="Commentary: Some Linux Vendors Dance with the Archfiend, Microsoft" rel="nofollow">Commentary: Some Linux Vendors Dance with the Archfiend, Microsoft</a> <blockquote cite="http://www.linuxelectrons.com/news/linux/10566/commentary-some-linux-vendors-dance-archfiend-microsoft"> What is the future remedy for the open source community? Its called the GNU General Public License version 3. The GPLv3 has specific clauses to prevent the surrender of open source code to third parties who use discriminatory patent licenses, such as the recent Novell/Microsoft agreement. However, the GPLv3 is not retroactive. The developer has to move his or her code to GPLv3 and all previous versions remain licensed under whatever license that version of code happened to use. The GPLv3 already has an effect on Microsoft. Just yesterday, Microsoft said they will not distribute any Novell certificates that contain GPLv3 code. </blockquote> In short, Microsoft is not happy. The FSF has the upper hand. On the face of it, Apache sort of shows its support for GPLv3, but that's worth a separate post. It's just another example of the growing list of GPLv3 supporters. I’ve collected a couple of interesting short pieces that say more about this predictable development.

MS: Dancing as fast as it can to try to get away from GPLv3

ant to laugh? Microsoft Says It Is Not Bound by GPLv3″ — they think they can so declare, like an emperor, and it becomes fiat. It’s not so easy. I gather Microsoft’s lawyers have begun to discern the GPL pickle they are in.

Microsoft Issues Statement Concerning the GPLv3 and Novell Agreement

Well, I’ve already included it verbatim in the update above. There’s also this one:

Commentary: Some Linux Vendors Dance with the Archfiend, Microsoft

What is the future remedy for the open source community? Its called the GNU General Public License version 3. The GPLv3 has specific clauses to prevent the surrender of open source code to third parties who use discriminatory patent licenses, such as the recent Novell/Microsoft agreement. However, the GPLv3 is not retroactive. The developer has to move his or her code to GPLv3 and all previous versions remain licensed under whatever license that version of code happened to use. The GPLv3 already has an effect on Microsoft. Just yesterday, Microsoft said they will not distribute any Novell certificates that contain GPLv3 code.

In short, Microsoft is not happy. The FSF has the upper hand. On the face of it, Apache sort of shows its support for GPLv3, but that’s worth a separate post. It’s just another example of the growing list of GPLv3 supporters.

]]> By: shane coyle http://techrights.org/2007/07/05/microsoft-in-denial/comment-page-1/#comment-1153 shane coyle Fri, 06 Jul 2007 09:53:21 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/2007/07/05/microsoft-in-denial/#comment-1153 Not shocking, really, I never thought Novell et al were going to <a href="http://boycottnovell.com/2007/06/25/gplv3-hook/#comment-1025" rel="nofollow">touch anything under V3 that is affected by their exclusionary patent deals</a>, or should I say I never thought MS would allow them to. However, MS taking so much time to deny being bound by V3 sounds like an implicit admission that they <em>are</em> bound by V2, which provides us all <a href="http://boycottnovell.com/2007/05/19/no-need-to-wait-for-gplv3-ms-already-is-granting-linux-patent-rights/" rel="nofollow">a bit of protection</a> at least. Where's my <a href="http://boycottnovell.com/2007/05/10/microsoft-source-code-request-for-suse/" rel="nofollow">damn source code</a>? Not shocking, really, I never thought Novell et al were going to touch anything under V3 that is affected by their exclusionary patent deals, or should I say I never thought MS would allow them to.

However, MS taking so much time to deny being bound by V3 sounds like an implicit admission that they are bound by V2, which provides us all a bit of protection at least.

Where’s my damn source code?

]]>