Comments on: Microsoft tries evading new GPL grasp
Redmond says it's not a party to the new license. And those Suse Linux coupons won't get you any support guarantees.
Most Popular
Latest tech news headlines
- Nirvana bassist defends Bono's antipiracy stance
January 5, 2010 10:27 AM PST
- Box office sales outpace disc sales in 2009
January 5, 2010 10:11 AM PST
- Live coverage of Google's Android phone announcement
January 5, 2010 10:08 AM PST
- See all headlines
RSS Feeds
Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.
More feeds available in our RSS feed index.
- Markets
Related quotes
Did MS think they could take advantage of the GPL without adhering to its terms and responsibilities?
They will learn that a simple decree is not enough. This will be a huge mistake that will cost them dearly.
If they want to profit off of someones work, they must respect the terms that allowed them to do so in the first place.
Hopefully, Novell will use this to break the agreement.
What MS says is irrelevant, it's what the judges decide that matters. Any MS patent lawsuit is likely to be met with a quote from GPL3, and it's the judges who decide whether or not to consider that a valid defense.
In the past, they've stolen code, got caught, taken to court, then
simply paid whatever the fine was and moved on.
Microsoft got caught lying to a federal judge (altering video), and it
resulted in nothing.
The list goes on and on and on, but in the end, Microsoft can out-
litigate, out-spend and out-wait anyone and everyone.
As long as people continue giving Microsoft a never-ending supply
of cash, no matter what they do, in the end, they will win.
the craptasticgasm that is vista, MS is showing that they are, and
have always been, a pathetic little paranoid company. people fear
their FUD less every day.
face it, they are no longer the 800lb gorilla. they can't stick it to
anyone....
enough supporters who think it's awesome that they can get away
it (and have enough money to make it so), they'll win in the end.
* MSFT is seeing sales of Vista go flat to failing, threatening one
of the two pillars that actually hold the company up (the other
being MS Office).
* Where once MSFT had a stranglehold on what an OEM chose to
pre-load on their computers, Dell decided recently to buck the
trend... and are expanding their line of Ubuntu Linux preloaded
machines.
MSFT probably saw at least some of it coming, which is why
they've been on a patent-a-thon the past couple of years.
Problem is, their plans to use patents to, say, subvert the GNU
GPL, suddenly isn't looking so hot. They also found themselves
painted nto a corner when it came to patent trolling, since one
peep from their lawyers and IBM nukes 'em back into the Stone
Age (not to mention it was prolly a rude shock to them when
they found out about the OSS patent pool... :evil grin: )
While the Linux Kernel will remain GPLv2 for a long time, all the
other apps and tools surrounding it (like, say, Xorg) are likely to
drift into GPLv3 sooner rather than later.
Oh... and for the really juicy part? Microsoft, as a distributor of
SuSE Linux (yes, legally they are with those voucher thingies that
they charge money for), means that they have zero legal ground
to stand on when they mouth off about patents, copyright, or
any other delusions they may have about IP and what they think
is theirs. ;)
Enjoy the sinking ship you've paid full fare on, my dear MSFT
Astroturfer... :)
/P
Could this be the straw that broke the camel's back?
In a way... I hope it is. Novell has been stung royally by Microsoft in the past.
This may be thier final revenge.
Microsoft tries a lot... gets a way with a lot of what they try. But with the GPL crowd allow Microsoft to get away with this?
That is the question 'Watson'.
And the answer will be interesting to watch.
Novell will support GPLv3 but Microsoft won't.
(* Hmmmm *)
Going to be an interesting showdown to say the least.
Walt
If Microsoft claims that OSS infringes on their patents, but they are not willing to let us know which patents or what code infringes, we should try to invaladate all or most of Microsoft's patents.
We set up a Linux defense website that lists all of Microsoft's patents. People put a bounty on the ones that they want to see disappear, The person who finds the prior art that invalidates Microsoft's claim gets the cash.
With any luck in a very short time Microsoft would loose most of its IP.
Follow the attached link To Boldly Go Where None Has Gone Before!
"OS2 World.Com Bounties"
http://www.os2world.com/bounties
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/matters/matters-0012.html
Down with the Socialists (Linus Torvalds et al) folks and don't be brainwashed. Guess why "They All Come To America"; take a close look at the U.S. Constitution; and, there is where your real "intellectual property" rights were enshrined and not in the GPL. Wake up folks!
To often monopolies hide behind the language of the "free market" when in reality they are as detrimental and stifling to the advantages of the free market as any socialist dictatorship could ever be.
Wake up folks!
Please your politcal agenda out it.
I also don't want to hear any Mac versus PC comments, anti-religous rhetoric, pro-religious rhetoric, etc., etc.
If you want to talk about those issues, go to an article that actually relates to them.
Sheesh!
Commander_Spock has no one to report to except to agitate for the release (freedom) of the caged up 800lb Gorilla that is OS/2; and, the good thing for you if you wish to know why Spock is spending so much "time on this issue" (if you wish to make more cash that those pushing the Windows and Linux Distros) is that the Gorilla will Go Boldly on the Desktop as an ISO Standards Bearer where no other OS "Has Gone Before". Does the recovery of gold and diamonds, the manufacturing of ethanol (ask the Brazilians)... make sense to you; then, think about financial and economic projections that are required. The Bush Administration has gotten it right(and has got to be on the right track by remembering and adopting that famous Clinton's Administration Campaign Slogan and that is what it all boils down to.
Best regards.
Please, lets try to take over the world with better products, not silly wording that says, if you are reading this then you have no private ideas anymore.
If Microsoft were to let us know what software violated its alleged patents, the OSS community could rewrite the software or even better show prior art and get the Microsoft patent thrown out. Unfortunately, Microsoft will not tell anyone what OSS software it claims violates its patents, nor will they tell us which of its patents are in question.
In an attempt to extort money from the OSS community, Microsoft has told OSS users that they will not sue if the user gives Microsoft "Protection money" (Purchase a certificate).
The solution is to,
1. invaladate all of Microsoft's patents.
2. us the GPLv3.0 to invalidate Microsoft's certificates.
3. After the bush administration leaves office, go after Microsoft under the RICO act.
"Because source code under GPLv2 and GPLv3 may not necessarily be freely intermixed, moving an open-source project from one license to another can be complicated."
"The Samba team will continue to provide security fixes to the GPLv2 versions, but new features will be added only to the GPLv3 versions, the team said." So now, does the 800 lb Gorilla that is OS/2 gets freed (through eComStation - ) by disguising intself in the Samba updates:
re:
"eComStation Virtual File System (Samba client support)"
"Samba is a SMB/CIFS protocols file and print sharing server/client set originally made for UNIX world to cooperate with corresponding Windows and OS/2 servers or clients. eComStation has a native implementation of SMB/CIFS server/client set - IBM LAN Manager and IBM Peer. These products have not been recently updated and may have some compatibility issues with modern Windows SMB/CIFS implementations.
Serenity Systems International has reached an agreement with Blueprint Software Works for the inclusion of the 'eComStation Virtual File System' driver which provides support for Samba Client. Currently a GUI to configure it is lacking, but an example of how to mount a Samba resource is available". Thus, "the complicated intellectual property questions software users must reckon with as proprietary and free software worlds collide."!
This damned thing is one step from being Sky-Net!
Beware, my friends, we're watching the evolution of an AI happen
here, all in the context of a C-Net forum
:-)
The way I see it, this is a new licence; it is Version 3 of a Licence, and had rewording. No software Microsoft has supplied (which is doesn't anyway, it gives good-will support to Novell Customers as part of a deal, not really distribution is it?) has been used with the Version 3 Licence. Now... for diplomacy's sake let's say you are OpenOffice, and you use a piece of code under GPLv2 in your codebase (let's skim over the fact, for ease, that OpenOffice is probably fully under GPLv2. Now... you hear about version 3. Within the text you notice that GPLv3 demands you as a user to pay homage to the Goddess Athena by sacrificing a bull once a month. You decide... bugger that, it'd cost so much! So you stop updating that component in OpenOffice and start to continue development of it yourself. Are you legally obliged to carry out the terms of the version 3 licence, without using software developed under the version 3 licence?
You may think that through all you like; and I will be interested in answers to be perfectly honest but I think Microsoft is smart enough to stop these certificates, the use of which I have never understood from the start. I'm not even sure why they count as distribution.
Any straight thought can see this is a sneaky move; there is no use for this beyond viral movement through the sofware world. I understand Intellectual Property; and I understand people like their software commanded by it, whether secretively or under a open licence. It is complicated to handle open-source intellectual property. To be honest; why complicate it and support lawyers' lives with licences. You write software visible to everyone, why do you need a licence? You don't want people to profit from it, understandable. Lawyers do not need more money, don't give them a reason to get it :P This licence however is clearly viral, and it wants only to open up more software with its licence. If the Foundation of whatever believed Open Source was the key to software development; it would focus on software development and the protection of the rights of the developer. Not on making blows, or forcing people to use it, which this part of the licence does. Its not only complicated for Microsoft, its complicated for a lot of people who use the Licence in conjunction with proprietory software and I feel it will have an opposite effect on the system than sitting back and protecting developers would have done.
Let me state a non-obvious fact to most open source advocates.
People like to sue corporations.
As a result, business is extremely risk adverse, so very few companies are willing to bet their business that a bunch of very clever developers have properly vetted their work against existing works and the study in your house doesn't qualify as a clean room for legal reverse engineering (if such a thing exists after DMCA).
I don't know which is worse, Microsoft's Get of Jail Free certificates or GPL's All Knowledge Belongs to the Human Race and should therefore be free religous mantra.
So, if there wasn't enough forking, and enough licensing models, let's release a version so draconian that no developer who actually needs to make a living from his efforts can do so.
What I do find interesting is that Red Hat can build a multi-million dollar business off of Open Source, but when MS defines a revenue stream, GPL actually rewrites licensing to try and kill it.
Sometimes, I think Open Source is its own worst enemy.
- Doesn't matter....
- by drfrost July 9, 2007 5:05 PM PDT
- It doesn't matter if they are wrong if it's going to cost us a billion dollars to prove it in court.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- They can try
- by qwerty75 July 9, 2007 10:18 PM PDT
- The amount of capital that could be raised for a defense would stagger MS.
- Like this View reply
Processing -
(84 Comments)If they believe FSF is a threat to their dominance don't think for a second that they'll hesitate to take it down.
MS as a dominant force is over, they know it, but are making a desperate last ditch effort to maintain the status quo.
In the midst of their panic the blew the other foot off. The ammo that took off the first foot was Vista.
The majority of the retail copies "sold" are sitting in warehouses and collecting dust on retail shelves.