| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Are Microsoft’s patent lawyers really this dumb? | |
|
||
| Time: 00:16 EST/05:16 GMT | News Source: ZDNet | Posted By: Kenneth van Surksum | ||
|
Are Microsoft’s patent lawyers playing possum? Or are they really as clueless about what makes open-source software tick as they seem? Consider the latest patent-related statement Microsoft published to its Web site on July 5 a statement claiming it is not party to the GPLv3 and is not bound by it. “While there have been some claims that Microsoft’s distribution of certificates for Novell support services, under our interoperability collaboration with Novell, constitutes acceptance of the GPLv3 license, we do not believe that such claims have a valid legal basis under contract, intellectual property, or any other law. In fact, we do not believe that Microsoft needs a license under GPL to carry out any aspect of its collaboration with Novell, including its distribution of support certificates, even if Novell chooses to distribute GPLv3 code in the future.” | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 305 Last | Next |
The time now is
5:52:33 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 32132 (142.32.208.232) at 7/9/2007 9:55:30 AM |
|
Are the Microsoft haters so stupid they haven't read the GPL?
"The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the GNU General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns. Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies that a certain numbered version of the GNU General Public License “or any later version” applies to it, you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that numbered version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of the GNU General Public License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation." Since the GPLV3 did not exist when the Novell deal was signed, Microsoft has the option to abide by the GPLv2. |
| #2 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 7/9/2007 12:32:26 PM |
| http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070709101318827 |
| #3 By 32132 (142.32.208.232) at 7/9/2007 12:48:41 PM |
|
#2 As usual Groklaw left out the key part that I quoted.
I did like this comment: "All this brouhaha over how much trouble Microsoft is in should provide plenty of fodder for their PR people to show customers how dangerous and viral GPL code is. " This one is interesting too: "I can write "By reading this text you agree to become my personal slave" and it means nothing. Licenses don't get to define when they apply to you. For MS to come under the terms of the GPL, they have to do something that COPYRIGHT LAW says is illegal without a license. If copyright law says that selling vouchers for somebody else's copyright works constitutes copying, then MS is indeed going to take delivery of a GPL v3 shafting because they've either violated copyright law or accepted the GPL. But if copyright law says that selling vouchers that can be used to get a copy of a copyrighted work FROM SOMEBODY ELSE doesn't constitute you making a copy, then the GPL v3 can say that you have to paint yourself blue and it won't be relevant: If they haven't made something legally considered to be a copy, they haven't come under copyright law, so they haven't done anything that requires them to accept the GPL." This post was edited by NotParker on Monday, July 09, 2007 at 12:52. |
| #4 By 54556 (68.35.10.96) at 7/9/2007 2:03:18 PM |
| NotParker the lawyer....rotfl |
| #5 By 8556 (12.207.97.148) at 7/9/2007 2:41:52 PM |
|
The question is not how dumb MS's lawyers are, but how brilliant they have been. MS has no equity in Linux and will do all they currently can, within the law, to keep customers from it. MS is doing a brilliant job of causing confusion, already, on Linux licensing with people now guessing who may or may not be sued at MS's whim. Why would MS not want to do everthing they can to keep people away from Linux by seeingly supporting a now older license and only with some companies, until they put out a newer version with a newer kernal. This legal angle of "you are blessed my son, as long as you are locked in time and space with GPL v2, and will not be sued is superb!". Now a newer GPL is out and they already don't need to abide by it, putting out PR that is priceless. Therefore, no one that upgrades to a newer version of any Linux build is exempted from MS's legal scare tactics. Gotchya. This post was edited by bobsireno on Monday, July 09, 2007 at 14:42. |
| #6 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 7/9/2007 3:34:37 PM |
| #5: They tried with the Linux patent FUD, but most sites seem to be highly skeptical of their dubious claims since MS won't tell anyone what is being infringed. Nobody believes MS would actually do more than rattle the sabre, and it's been postulated that MS would have more to lose in a patent meltdown. They tried this boogeyman 2 years ago and people took it more seriously then, but like the boy who cried wolf, nobody is putting any stock in MS FD this time around, especially when MS is so coy about what is being infringed and how. MS' statement that GPL3 does not apply to them is not up for them to decide. If someone redeems an MS-SUSE coupon (that they bought from MS and has no expiration date) for SUSE after it has included GPL3 code (Samba has already announced GPL3 and LGPL3 license for new releases), then it may be (I'm not a lawyer so I won't go around making pronouncements) deemed that MS is a distributor of GPL3 code. This, in turn, makes them a party to the terms of the GPL3 license as it pertains to distributors. |
| #7 By 32132 (66.183.203.110) at 7/9/2007 10:42:12 PM |
| Coupons aren't covered by the GPL. |
| #8 By 3653 (68.52.143.149) at 7/10/2007 2:07:58 AM |
| Spot on assessment bobsireno. I think msft has finally cracked this nut. It took them long enough, but this latest strategy has legs. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 305 Last | Next |
The time now is
5:52:33 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
