ONE OF our regular participants has just taken a close look at Moonlight's legalese and published 3 questions about the project. Watch the image at the bottom. Yes, it figures. Moonlight is now being called “Microsoft Moonlight” and this is not a joke. Novell is becoming an attractive takeover target for Microsoft.
“Moonlight is now being called “Microsoft Moonlight” and this is not a joke.”"The way the Microsoft covenant reads to me," says the author, "only Novell can distribute Moonlight. So, if you are non-Novell user, it won't be something that is wrapped up in your distro."
"Unless [the] distribution wants to risk hot water or out side where Microsoft rules apply," adds oiaohm in an informal IRC conversation.
There is also "the expectation is that users will get the distro from wherever and then download Moonlight from Novell," remarks the author.
Well, guess what? Debian Legal has just received the following from Saul Goode, who had taken a look at Moonlight licensing; it does not seem too good. Fedora (Red Hat) reached the same conclusion after the SFLC had taken a look at the Moonlight licence and did not like what's in it.
Since the license for the Debian package must "comply with" the Ms-PL, its license should necessarily offer the patent grants required in Section 2(B). Assuming that a license which complies with the Ms-PL is used -- or indeed that the Ms-PL itself used -- the question is thus raised, how are patent grants being provided for the MIT/X11-licensed components of the Debian binary package? Without providing such a grant, the package licensing would not meet the terms and conditions of Section 2(B) and fail to "comply with" the Ms-PL. Providing such a grant should demand extra measure be taken with regard to the MIT/X11-licensed code because the authors of that code were not obligated by its licensing to provide such a grant.
As a final comment, and one more hypothetical in nature, the Ms-PL makes no distinction between derived and collective works and offers no exemption for "mere aggregation" (as does the General Public License). In lieu of such an exception, we are left with relying upon the interpretation of the courts as to what constitutes a derived or collected work of joint authorship under copyright law. Should a Ms-PL-licensed package be included with a Debian distribution, it may very well be argued that the entire distribution (a collective work) must be offered under licensing which "complies with" the Ms-PL -- any inclusion of code for which there is no patent grant could be construed as infringement of the copyrights of Ms-PLed code's author.
“But why should other GNU/Linux vendors be foolishly dragged into Novell's (and Microsoft's) trap?”Whereas Debian doesn't care about anything legal all that much, Canonical is vulnerable because it is a company and it inflicts great pain upon Microsoft's profit. Microsoft does not even need to attack it directly (either with FUD or with legal action) and one regular reader of ours thinks that it inevitably will.
All in all, Microsoft hopes that by assimilation it will gain greater legal and technical control over GNU/Linux. It's the same ol' embrace, extend, and extinguish (EEE) tactic. It's about attracting engineers to .NET/C# (or clones) and leading them into the 'first class' choice which is Microsoft .NET along with Silverlight, Visual Studio, and Windows. One has to bury one's head in the sand in order not to comprehend it.
Earlier on today we wrote about Microsoft's "embrace, extend, and extinguish" against open source. Well, here is a new comment from the Microsoft Blog in ZDNet, which attracts the pro-Microsoft crowd, naturally:
"Sounds like one more way to help migrate from linux to Microsoft Windows. If this is implemented pulling data from a linux server will be that much easier until the server is no longer needed. I'm liking this interoperability."
So go ahead, Novell. Do what Microsoft has paid you almost half a billion dollars to achieve. But why should other GNU/Linux vendors be foolishly dragged into Novell's (and Microsoft's) trap? ⬆
Comments
self_liar
2009-04-26 14:44:30
Other people which try to implement .net , like dotgnu will not get good implementation like mono.
Roy Schestowitz
2009-04-26 14:49:15
JohnD
2009-04-26 13:01:14
Roy Schestowitz
2009-04-26 13:17:37
Myfraudsoft
2009-04-26 13:45:46
Roy Schestowitz
2009-04-26 13:51:04
Myfraudsoft
2009-04-26 14:03:21
Roy Schestowitz
2009-04-26 14:12:18
JohnD
2009-04-26 14:01:41
Roy Schestowitz
2009-04-26 14:10:36
For a verifiable fact, Novell already has access to (visibility) of Microsoft source code*, which leaves the door open to SCO-like allegations.
___ *Source: Justin Steinman, CBR interview, 2007.
JohnD
2009-04-26 15:44:52
JohnD
2009-04-26 16:13:07
Roy Schestowitz
2009-04-26 16:16:08
Myfraudsoft
2009-04-26 16:56:22
JohnD
2009-04-26 19:24:57
Roy Schestowitz
2009-04-26 19:27:02
JohnD
2009-04-26 19:51:18
JohnD
2009-04-26 20:04:18
Roy Schestowitz
2009-04-26 20:08:55
JohnD
2009-04-26 20:14:56
Roy Schestowitz
2009-04-26 20:21:57
Obviously not because we still argue about "port".
JohnD
2009-04-26 20:55:04
Myfraudsoft
2009-04-26 21:02:06
Roy Schestowitz
2009-04-26 21:02:11
Whose meaning you conveniently warped to make Moonlight sound like a decent thing.
Roy Schestowitz
2009-04-26 21:05:23
@Myfraudsoft: yes, and don't forget the codecs.
JohnD
2009-04-26 21:43:54
Roy Schestowitz
2009-04-26 21:46:49
JohnD
2009-04-26 21:57:48
Roy Schestowitz
2009-04-26 19:58:10
Moonlight is not taking Silverlight code.
JohnD
2009-04-26 20:06:29
Roy Schestowitz
2009-04-26 20:10:51
JohnD
2009-04-26 20:12:48
Roy Schestowitz
2009-04-26 20:20:57
Jose_X
2009-04-26 22:42:36
Shane, do you want help filtering out these things? I can try to write up a regular expression or something.
Shane Coyle
2009-04-27 23:09:31
Remember, there are quite a few pro-Novell and pro-Microsoft visitors, some of whom may genuinely be interested in whatever they're saying/selling, even if you're not.
Maybe we should have a static spot where it collects my regular responses to these questions, But, JohnD, No - Roy gets none of the Ad revenue for this site, despite my offering a few times early on for him to 'monetize' his postings.
The ads are mine, I use them to offset the costs of hosting (the same account that also hosts edu-nix.org, so I suppose it could be said that BN also 'pays' for that these days, with me not nearly as often having to make deposits).
Of course, we're seemingly always an inch away from getting kicked off the net, and who knows what a bigger host will cost, but right now we break just about even but sometimes underfund due to Google's waiting to pay after you clear $100.
Roy Schestowitz
2009-04-27 23:13:55
Shane Coyle
2009-04-27 23:35:35
Myfraudsoft
2009-04-26 21:07:20
Roy Schestowitz
2009-04-26 21:13:02
JohnD
2009-04-28 00:54:27
JohnD
2009-04-28 00:45:51
Brian Assaf
2009-04-27 20:45:43
A port: Modifying code to run on another platform
A clone: Making a software that does the same thing (looks similar etc.) as another piece of software.
This matters due to things like reverse-engineering and clean room implementation.
If you've taken code without permission you've got a derivative work.
If you've done it all by yourself with a unique implementation, you've got a clean room implementation.
Saying things are a port, would really spread confusion for no reason.
Calling all word processors ports of each other, or spread sheets, etc. Would be utterly false.
However, looking at GPL'd programs, i.e. videolan, and see how many platforms it can run on. Ditto for GNU/Linux distributions that run on x86, arm, sparc, etc. ALL the software that runs on multiple platforms in that case is ported.
If you want to continue the word port, there is an implication that source code of the "parent" application is used. So I'd say stop it, but surely there will be a discussion about it as occurred here.
Lastly, about the IE 8 advert. Take the money from MS while you can. They've certainly taken mine with the "bundling" of its OS.
P.S. Internet Explorer is a port of Spyglass Mosaic, for those interested. If anyone as a list of software that MS "acquired" it would be a neat article. Apart from QDOS, what else?
Myfraudsoft
2009-04-27 21:20:43
Roy Schestowitz
2009-04-27 21:23:12
And already taken to the cleaners.
"Usually Microsoft doesn't develop products, we buy products."
--Arno Edelmann, Microsoft's European business security product manager
Roy Schestowitz
2009-04-27 21:24:09
JohnD
2009-04-28 00:21:00