Comments

• BW

  2009-07-25 00:20:23

  It doesn't actually rebut the claims, though, does it? If people had MS drivers without source code, then they were violating the GPL. Who cares who made the initial accusation? It doesn't change the real reason for their source code release.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-07-25 00:23:48

  Yes, like the first post claimed, it was merely an obligation. See how Microsoft Clarke spins it in El Reg.

• zatoichi

  2009-07-25 02:34:01

  Actually, you're completely incorrect.
  
  Microsoft would be in violation of the GPL IF anyone to whom Microsoft had provided a binary driver were to request the sources, AND Microsoft were then to fail to provide them those sources in a timely fashion for no more than the "cost of physically performing source distribution", i.e. the cost of the media plus reasonable postage and handling fees. See section 3 for details.
  
  They are in particular NOT required to publish the modified sources to the public, NOR are they obligated to provide absent a specific request, AND that request can only come from someone to whom Microsoft has provided a binary of "the program" in question.
  
  No binary, no request; no request, no violation. Do not pass "Go!", do not collect $200.
  
  The guys over at gpl-violations.org lament the fact that some Linux-based devices are only sold in large quantities to customers who then rent them to users, e.g. some set-top boxes; if they can't get hold of a binary (in the form of one embedded within a specific device)--in other words, if the code has not been "distributed" to them, and rental doesn't constitute a distribution--they've got no standing to request sources for the GPL code in that device.
  
  Have you folks actually read the GPL? What else do you imagine it says? (Have we established that I know more about these things that you folks do yet...?)

• zatoichi

  2009-07-25 02:38:39

  And, by the way, when Dave Roberts was talking about some web sites that virtually put words into the mouths of Vyatta employees, he was talking about this web site.

• zatoichi

  2009-07-25 05:45:02

  ...and rental doesn’t constitute a distribution...
  
  Clarification: at least, we don't think it does, so far. There are some discussions going on over this point among FOS licensing pros in the FSFE legal network, with some interesting questions: what if I "rent" you something for 99 years? If I give you my Archos 5 media player to hold for five minutes, that doesn't constitute a distribution whether you paid me a nickel to let you hold it or not; if I just give you the Archos, to keep, without an expectation of getting it back, that is a distribution.... Would a thief who stole one be entitled to ask for sources? These are the sorts of things lawyers mull over for fun.
  
  No binary, no request; no request, no violation. Do not pass “Go!”, do not collect $200.
  
  Also, I misspelled, "No binary, no request; no request, no violation; no harm, no foul. Do not pass “Go!”, do not collect $200, do not publish articles claiming Microsoft was 'accused' of 'violating' the GPL."

• zatoichi

  2009-07-26 15:23:40

  I'm still waiting for a response from Roy as to why this story remains uncorrected. I'm also still waiting for some clarification from ROy as to whether he's ever actually read the GLPv2, or whether, having read it, he simply failed to understand it.
  
  You call Novell a "collaborator"—with regard to a contribution of code to the kernel! I don't know whether you missed the memo, Roy, but we value collaboration in the FLOSS community.
  
  And we don't base the acceptance of code on the moral character of the code's author. The reasons that ReiserFS stalled weren't because of a moral judgment on its author having gotten convicted of murder.
  
  You further refer to Microsoft's "racketeering practices", without specifying what those are supposed to actually be. Care to enumerate these "racketeering practices" so we're all clear on what you're talking about.