Posted by unregistered user at 5/18/07 12:19 a.m.

Mr. Bishop, Moglen wouldn't be saying as it should be that Novell be endangered and Microsoft be protected, but quite the opposite...why do either have to be "endangered"? When I asked why there is not security features built into hardware anymore like the locking casing that used to be in some IBM's, it was suggested I lock my computer in a cage...what's the purpose of running either any apparatus of software when the hardware is now easier to break into physically?

So, in summary, Novell will be protected for the long haul, and Microsoft will be endangered for the long haul by GPL 3, and that's as it should be."

Why not both...why is the hardware not as tuff as it used to be

Posted by unregistered user at 5/18/07 9:22 a.m.

Wow thats a clever move by the fsf.
MS must be smarting.

Posted by unregistered user at 5/18/07 10:32 a.m.

IANAL but this is in GPL v2:
------------------------------------------------
9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions
of the 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 a version number of this License which applies to it and "any
later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions
either of that version or of any later version published by the Free
Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of
this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software
Foundation.
------------------------------------------------

Most projects doesn't modify the COPYING file at all,
meaning the following section is in them unapplied:

------------------------------------------------
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
(at your option) any later version.
------------------------------------------------

I think that means that such a project can and will be used by
anyone according to the rules found in GPL v2 only and not
by v3. And it's allowed.

Posted by unregistered user at 5/18/07 1:03 p.m.

Not distribution, conveyance. The GPL v3 defines a new term, "convey", which it applies to. This gets around ugliness in the copyright law term and allows them to cover only what they actually wish to cover with the license.

So yeah, I hope someone has some of these coupons, because then Microsoft's dirty trick of trying to make life difficult for businesses using Linux will have officially backfired.

Posted by unregistered user at 5/18/07 4:14 p.m.

Smart move indeed, but it won't happen automatically.

This is the order of events that would allow us to legally use all MS patents:

* GPL3 goes into effect.
* FSF releases Linux's libc into the GPL3 or later.
* Novell includes that version of libc.
* MS releases new coupons for that new version.
* At least one customer uses them.

Of course, if those coupons do not have a specific version number, it is just a matter of time.

Posted by unregistered user at 5/18/07 8:06 p.m.

"I think that means that such a project can and will be used by
anyone according to the rules found in GPL v2 only and not
by v3. And it's allowed."

The software vendors are allowed to continue using GPL2, but many already are planning on upgrading to version 3, and many others probably will before long. As long as any of the software that upgrades to v3 is a part of the SuSE distribution, the distributors are subject to v3 (as well as previous versions and other licenses). (also not a lawyer, but I have been following many of the twists of this since November).

Posted by unregistered user at 5/18/07 8:45 p.m.

But the GPLv3 (draft 3) says only that a source conveyer is prevented from pursuing patent claims for patents covered by that specific GPLv3 source code only, right?

I guess it's not like if you ship one piece of GPLv3 code, and then your whole patent portfolio is considered accessible for the FOSS community, just the patents relevant for that code.

So if we assume the Linux kernel (and other important FOSS pieces) would remain GPLv2, Microsoft could still rattle with its (FUDdy/unproven) patent claims as long as these patents aren't covered by any of the other conveyed GPLv3 code, right?

--
Viking

Posted by unregistered user at 5/18/07 8:48 p.m.

in response to post #33238, where the use of existing software published under gpl v2 was concerned, please note that new versions of the software can be released under the new gpl version. Thus the old software version and derivatives can be licensed under gpl v2, but the new version would have v3 applied.

To avoid being stuck in the past for the long haul, the newly licensed (gpl v3) code would be preferred (at least eventually) and in the long haul, it'd eventually become the most up to date version and thus the GPL v3 will creep into the mainstream eventually.

Posted by unregistered user at 5/18/07 8:50 p.m.

If the linux community moves to GPL3 then all new additions will be via GPL3 and SUSE/Novell will have no choice but to move to GPL3 or stop releasing new versions.
Or MS may decide to buy Novell and stop it from selling linux any more.

Posted by unregistered user at 5/18/07 9:04 p.m.

"
Most projects doesn't modify the COPYING file at all,
meaning the following section is in them unapplied:
"

There's several ways to deal with this, and these are all used when some apps moved from GPL1 to GPL2:

Do nothing. It's not legally rigorous, and I think you're right in this case -- a good lawyer could just argue the contributors didn't agree to a switch of license, so the old license should apply.

Notify the contributors: A few projects did this -- they simply E-Mailed everyone that contributed and got the OK.

Copyright assignment. This in fact is quite common -- quite a few open source apps have copyright assigned to the Free Software Foundation. The main reason for doing this for open source apps is explicitly to clear up the licensing, for instance FSF had no problems switching to GPL2, and won't for GPL3 either. The copyright owner can change to any license, of course, including non-free ones. A defense against this inherent in free software licenses is simple -- the fork. If end users object to a new license, they can use the last available version under the previous license, and (since it's free) put it up somewhere and have people modify and improve it. In a few cases, projects have forked for license reasons, nearly everyone jumped to working on and using the fork, and the "main" version esentially stagnated and became irrelevant.

In the scenario suggested with FSF using the GPL3 for libc, they own the copyright and can GPL3 it, no worries. Novell technically could avoid GPL3, but it'd cripple it as a contender in Linux distros. As libraries (such as libc) and apps are GPL3'd, Novell is entitled to use the last GPL2 version, or fork off a "Novell" version of the apps. But, then the libraries and apps are either "frozen in time", or Novell basically will have to improve and update the GPL2-fork software themselves (since everyone but Novell will be working on the "main" GPL3 version.)

Posted by unregistered user at 5/18/07 10:30 p.m.

The whole concept is interesting but I believe unlikely. First the Linux kernel is currently under GPL version 2 and not GPL version 2 or later (with the possible exceptions of some small subsets). Since GPL version 2 only code can not be released under GPL version 3 (without all contributers agreeing which is unlikely for Linux since many of of early contributors are no longer reachable), the Linux kernel itself won't easily be distributed under GPL version 3.

There is also the issue of mixing GPL 2 and GPL version 3 code, which could color the issue of highly integrated libraries being released under GPL version 3. Even in the event that they are, it will be easy to fork a copy to remain under GPL version 2. The idea that the forked copy would only be maintained by a small group is unlikely. Look at XFree86 and their license change which created the X.org fork. Beyond looking at the Linux kernel being GPL version 2 only, I am fairly certain that there are numbers of other applications distributed with most Linux distributions which are also GPL version 2 ONLY (ie. do not specified or later version) and a change of license for the singularly most used library could cause all those programs to be excluded from the distributions. At the very least it would require someone to spend the time and effort to go though every single application to confirm that they can be linked against a new GPL version 3 library, so I doubt major companies would be interested in doing this just to try and catch microsoft.

What is much, much more likely is the next major release will switch to the new license and if you look at the upgrade from glib to glib2 it wasn't smooth and it took quite a while. I didn't exactly time it, but I believe most distributions contained both libraries for over a year and that was just due to technical difference. I am sure there will be someone to fork it to GPL version 3 just because they can, just as there are any number of dead GPL forks of Apache/BSD projects. While there are many people who worry more about the license than anything else, there are even more people who will look at things practically and will upgrade the license when it makes sense to do it, ie... when there is a change that breaks compatibility anyway.

Posted by unregistered user at 5/19/07 4:01 a.m.

"They're providing somebody access to a service but they're not providing copies of Linux on a disk, and they're not providing somebody access to Linux for the purpose of download, and so they're not engaged in any distribution."

Yes they are, they're engaged in indirect distribution which is already covered in GPL2 section 7. I humbly suggest the esteemed patent attorney read it before saying "nay".

Posted by unregistered user at 5/19/07 7:47 a.m.

Comment #33335 is, I think, a mistake.
If Microsoft does not need a copyright license to issue the
vouchers, then it doesn't need to fall under the GPL AT ALL,
and what the GPL says about "distributing", "conveying", or
anything else is irrelevant. There needs to be something
else which brings Microsoft under the GPL. That's the point
which is being made here. I don't, off the top of my head,
know what that might be, and I'm worried that Dr. Moglen's
argument may be bust on that account (I'm sure Microsoft's
lawyers have been VERY careful).

Assuming that Microsoft is (somehow) required to embrace the
GPL as a precondition of something it's promised to do, then
other things follow. I assume this in what follows.

In reply to another unregistered user (comment 33238): His
comment was made a while ago, but I think the replies to
it I've seen have missed some of his argument (just where
I think his argument is most wrong!).

It is the licensee (ANY licensee) who chooses whether to
exercise an "or later version" option. The licensee that
matters here is "any licensee sued by Microsoft". That
other licensees may elect to work under GPLv2 is irrelevant.
Strictly, what's at stake is not "what you are not allowed to
do" but "what Microsoft is allowed to sue you for", which
is different. The threatened licensee uses a SUSE Voucher
from Microsoft as a get-out-of-jail-free card.
Can Microsoft then sue anyone else? No! Because in
honouring its voucher, it has in effect endorsed the
licenses under which SUSE Linux is provided. It may not
like them, but it is bound by promissory estoppel not to sue
people for taking its own word for what it has allowed them
to do. Bound (at THAT point) by GPL v. 3 - which does not
yet exist, so isn't yet an option - it is debarred from suing
ANYONE over the patents in question (we can't know what
they are until it happens). And it isn't allowed to
discriminate between customers. It can discriminate between
patents, but what use is that? Does it think it has so many
litigable patents to use against Linux that it can keep
suing over them until there are none of its SUSE vouchers
left in the world?

I think we can cheerfully ignore the merely logical
possibility that a version of SUSE Linux will ever exist
which will be GPL v.2 only. That's another sky-falling
problem (like the entire abandonment of the patent provisions
from GPL v. 3 as finally released).

And in reply to #33285, too: see the above! GPLv3 bites when
a licensee so chooses, and need not wait for a GPLv3-only
release of anything. The stuff that's already in there with
the option (not the kernel, as we all know) is enough.
Microsoft can't tell a customer "tough, we won't allow you
to use GPLv3 here" - it's not their bat and it's not their
ball.

Posted by unregistered user at 5/19/07 9:21 a.m.

"If" is a big word. What patents? It requires only marginal intelligence to do patent searches using key words. Say starting form the year of Microsoft's Incorporation date. I got a buck to throw in to hire an attorney, like Bill Gate's mom. 235 patents is a lot. The fact that not even one of them has been openly made known, which is one of the hallmarks of taking out a patent in the first place, tells me something is seriously wrong at Microsoft. If you are familiar with Don Quixote...Microsoft is trying to get the Linux/GNU community to fight the Microsoft windmills. We are smarter than that. Until we see 235 cards on the table, the Linux/GNU community should walk away from such a lame tactic. The Linux/GNU community is too big and smart to be pulled into playing any childish games.
A good offence makes for a good defence so I am thankful for Eben Moglen et al for their intelligence and forthought on the GPL3.
But 235 patents? Okay Bill I am, for one, calling your bluff, I want to see your patent numbers.
Mind you, we should all beware, if anybody is an artful master at screwing people out of their intellectual property it is Microsoft. (A moment of silence for Novell for making a fatal business mistake.) From that perspective Linux/GNU is being pursued by the best. What an honor. Linux/GNU has arrived.
Cheers,
linuxjon...

Posted by unregistered user at 5/19/07 9:27 a.m.

Why is this being championed as such a great thing by the FSF? Is Microsoft does have the patent claims it alleges, shouldn't they be given the benefit of such patents. Should Microsoft be denied patent protection simply because they are a dominant player in the market?

Microsoft spends hundreds of millions of dollars in software development and support. Patents are a way to offset this expenditure.

Ask yourself this: if you sold your house and sunk your money into developing something from idea to reality, then went through the time and expense of patenting it only to have me come along and start giving it away for free, wouldn't you be justified in being a little upset?

Posted by unregistered user at 5/19/07 10:45 a.m.

I am not sure about Microsoft's claim that since they do not give out the software, or provide it for downloading that they are not a distributor. I remember being pounded about the head and shoulders by Microsoft's licenses saying that for giving them money, we do not own the software, nor really have any real legal rights to use the software except under a narrow set of guidelines. Microsoft allows you to use the software, but can cut off that permission at any time.

So it is not distributing such as say giving away candy... you are allowed to hold the lollypop and see the lollypop, just not lick the lollypop. So with the permissions that it gives and not transferring rights to the software, I am not sure where the actual giving of the "disk" is relevant.

As an example, I know that at my work in the UC system, we just buy MS licenses where we are assigned a number. There is no transfer of code involved. We just get a piece of paper... sort of like a coupon.

Posted by unregistered user at 5/19/07 2:22 p.m.

re: #33352

The issue isn't that people don't care about microsoft's patents, but that by MS saying 'you infringe on these 240 odd patents but we aren't going to sue you right now or tell you which ones they are so you can change them' MS isn't playing very nice (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear%2C_uncertainty_and_doubt).

If the community knew what patents specifically were being infringed they could check them and if they agreed, then they could rewrite or remove the offending code. If they disagreed then MS could sue them and the courts could decide. Simple (but not as fun and rewarding for microsoft). The perception is that MS gains more by not saying what's wrong and making business's worry about the threat of litagation.

That said, FSF is against software patents full stop so there's an ideological factor to this whole thing, but it's not that they want to infringe at all. Hope that helped.

Posted by unregistered user at 5/20/07 1:29 a.m.

one should read this article
MICROSOFT IS DEAD
http://paulgraham.com/microsoft.html

Posted by unregistered user at 5/20/07 9:23 a.m.

Loopholes are like bugs -- you need to see the "code". Does any one have a link to what the _coupon_ actually says? and the Novell/Microsoft agreement?

Posted by unregistered user at 5/20/07 12:22 p.m.

to comment #33340

The gpl describes the way that our software can be distributed. If Microsoft can get away with selling coupons to acquire gpl software while not remaining subject to the gpl...

Someone in China (for instance) could host a password protected server that had copies of windows. I could then make an agreement with this host where I can sell coupons in the US to acquire Windows. While the person in China may be acting illegally (I don't know Chinese law), I would be running a completely legit business here in the US. I think Microsoft may have an issue with this.

Posted by unregistered user at 5/21/07 3:07 a.m.

gcc is one of the FSF's strongest cards in this matter. They hold the copyright to it, so it will go under the GPL v3 as a matter of course, it is sufficiently peripheral to Novell's business, and Novell won't want to sidetrack itself the way it did so gratuitously in the '90s with WordPerfect Office, so it will be upgraded as a matter of course in S.u.S.E. 10.x; Microsoft is also a distributor of gcc in their Interix POSIX subsystem, which for once, is actually a Microsoft case of truth in advertising.

The alternative is of course to start a fork of gcc, GPL v2, and its environment, which won't be cheap.

One point I think Microsoft's missing, is that Microsoft won a patent case against AT&T with the argument that sending a copy of a software CD-ROM to a foreign OEM was not the same as distributing the CD-ROMs itself. It was the OEM they handed the CD-ROM masters to, that was responsible for distributing and selling them. Now they are arguing that distributing a coupon that entitles recipient to a copy of S.u.S.E. Linux isn't distributing Linux. Correction - according to the logic of the verdict of that Microsoft-vs-AT&T case, if a company gives you a coupon to hand out to whoever you wish, and you hand out said coupons to whoever you wish, you have become a distributor of the product covered by that coupon.

Microsoft can't simultaneously claim white-is-black and white-is-white on a whim.

Posted by zenten at 5/22/07 4:50 p.m.

I feel really sorry for the judge if this ever goes to trial.

Posted by unregistered user at 7/3/07 3:39 p.m.

why? that judge will prolly get rich from bribes or something lol

Posted by unregistered user at 9/9/07 7:36 p.m.

car transport, auto transport, car shipping, vehicle shipping, car shipper, vehicle shipper

Name: Civello Auto Shippers, Inc.
Fone: 866.865.9785
Fax: 281.828.7208
Add: 20820 Park Row Katy
City: houston
State: Texas
Zipcode: 77449

Posted by unregistered user at 9/11/07 6:16 p.m.

thiet ke web, thiet ke logo, thiet ke brochure, thiet ke website, thiet ke in an, web, website, lap trinh web, cho thue may chu, cung cap email, mail server, dich thuat, thiet ke website, quang cao in an, xay dung thuong hieu

481/581/9 Le Quang Dinh street,wart 11, Dist : Binh thanh ,Ho Chi Minh city
Unit: 603 - Fl 6, 87 Tran Thien Chanh Str, Dist 10, Ho Chi Minh city
Tel: 848 5158499
848 2978144
848 5158500
fax: 8482978143

Posted by ahsapgen at 9/29/07 8:23 a.m.

sohbet chat
sohbet odaları
chat odaları
fix arkadaş
arkadaş
arkadaşlık Thankssssss

Posted by sohbetiniz at 10/17/07 2:20 p.m.

sohbet
sohbet odaları
sohbet odalari
sohbet

Posted by unregistered user at 10/27/07 12:16 p.m.

www.sohbeth.com

Posted by unregistered user at 10/28/07 9:58 a.m.

Thank yo very much for articles and apologies
take care.

www.ogretmenlernet.com

Posted by unregistered user at 11/8/07 7:06 a.m.

GPL3 goes into effect.

Symbian freeware

Posted by unregistered user at 11/8/07 7:08 a.m.

GPL3 goes into effect.

symbiancorner.blogspot.com

Posted by turkeyProperty at 11/12/07 3:05 p.m.

Turkey Property For Sale

Turkey Real Estate For Sale

Property in Turkey

Posted by turkeyProperty at 11/12/07 3:14 p.m.

Property in Turkey
Turkey Villas
Turkey Apartments
Turkey Property
Investment Property Turkey
Holiday Property Turkey
Retirement Property Turkey
Turkish Real Estate
Turkish Property
Turkije Makelaars
Belek Property
Antalya Property
Side Property
Kemer Property
Alanya Property
Kas Property
Kalkan Property
Fethiye Property

Posted by kusursuz at 11/22/07 1:04 p.m.

http://www.ircsohbet.com

Posted by unregistered user at 1/5/08 1:56 a.m.

www.forumgezer.com

Posted by unregistered user at 1/7/08 1:03 p.m.

Estetik
Estetik
Estetik
Estetik
Estetik
Estetik
Estetik
Estetik
Estetik
Estetik
Estetik
Estetik
Estetik
Estetik
Estetik
Estetik
Estetik
Estetik
Estetik
Estetik
Estetik
Estetik
Estetik
Estetik
Estetik
Estetik
Estetik
Estetik
Estetik
Estetik
Estetik
Estetik
Estetik
Estetik
Estetik

Posted by ceviri at 1/9/08 3:13 p.m.

Almanca Tercüman
Rusça tercüman
Fransızca Tercüman
Arapça tercüman
farsça tercüman
tercüme büroları
ispanyolca tercüman
almanca tercüman
japonca tercüman
çince tercüman
bulgarca tercüman
yunanca tercüman
italyanca tercüman
korece tercüman
portekizce tercüman
romence tercüman
ingilizce tercüman
ukraynaca tercüman
tercüme bürosu
tercüme
web sitesi çevirisi

Posted by unregistered user at 1/10/08 4:26 a.m.

Bilgi Yarışması
arkadaş ara
asp indir
asp scriptler
asp script indir
aşk sevgi resimleri
avrupa yakası dizisi
bil kazan
bilgi yarışması
bilgisayar güvenliği
genco dizisi
hayvan resimleri
hepsi 1 dizisi
ilan ver
kaspersky antivirüs
kavak yelleri dizisi
köprü dizisi
ödüllü yarışma
php indir
php script indir
php scriptler
pusat dizisi
gül resimleri
seri ilanlar
sevgili ara bul
yaprak dökümü dizisi
yarış kazan
kurtlar vadisi pusu dizisi
gül resimleri
çiçek resimleri
komik resimler
manken resimleri
sevgi resimleri
aşk resimleri
köprü dizisi
kurtlar vadisi pusu dizisi
yaprak dökümü dizisi
asp script indir
php indir
php script indir
ilan ver
seri ilanlar
restaurant
movie theater
various artists

Posted by Viagra at 2/6/08 2:52 a.m.

Crona sd

Posted by unregistered user at 3/16/08 5:06 p.m.

www.mirchane.com

Posted by unregistered user at 3/28/08 7:17 a.m.

Needfornews.com New great news aggregator. With it You won't need anything else to read news.
needfornews.com/search_feeds.php?q=news

Posted by unregistered user at 4/2/08 1:49 a.m.

New RSS News Digest: rssnewsdigest.com/top_search.php

Posted by unregistered user at 6/3/08 2:23 p.m.

buy cheap viagra
buy cheap cialis
buy cheap levitra

Posted by lloyd2008 at 7/6/08 8:24 a.m.

buy acomplia
buy acomplia
buy acomplia
buy acomplia
buy acomplia
buy acomplia
buy acomplia