spike1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
<snip>
>
>> http://www.openaddict.com/comment.php?comment.news.227
>
>> It might be the first among something larger that will evolve to become a
>> trend.
>
> How the heck are they "in violation of the GPL"?
>
> The GPL has no clauses restricting who you can sign deals with. Microsoft
> is quite free to use, distribute and rerelease GPL'd software itself... In
> fact, I've heard they do, occasionally, to a limited extent.
>
> So apart from the foolhardiness of actually signing a deal with
> microsoft... What breakage of the GPL have they committed?
Novell has already agreed to the GPL, since they distribute SuSE, and the
GPL is the only way they can do that. If they do not comply with the GPL,
then only ordinary copyright applies and Novell may not continue to
distribute SuSE. To anyone who has read the recent coverage, it's perfectly
clear what violation of the GPL it is being suggested may result from the
agreement that has been signed with Microsoft.
>From the preamble to the GPL:
<quote>
Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software patents. We
wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will
individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program
proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be
licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.
</quote>
As I understand it from the details that have been disclosed, as well as
various other arrangements that Novell will be paying royalties to
Microsoft, related to their open-source revenue. That looks like licensing,
to me, and expressing it in language describing it as a "covenant not to
sue" rather than an explicit license, perhaps specifically to try and
circumvent the GPL, which seems nothing but sophistry. It also conveniently
avoids any need to actually state what patents these might be or what they
might cover, or if there actually are any at all which might be meaningful.
The problem comes that this only applies in a limited way, to Novell/Suse
developers and users, and to individual, non-commercial GPL developers.
This is not compatible with the GPL, which requires in section 6 that you
must pass on the same freedoms you received, and in section 7 including the
right to royalty-free downstream modifications, and without imposing
additional restrictions.
Section 7 of the GPL:
<quote>
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent
infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues),
conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not
excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so
as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any
other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute
the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit
royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies
directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy
both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of
the Program.
</quote>
That means any patent protection such as in the Novell-Microsoft deal must
apply to everyone to whom Novell redistributes SuSE, however they re-use it
and whether or not they are individual and non-commercial, or an commercial
organisation such as Red Hat or Canonical. If not, then Novell risk losing
the right to redistribute SuSE. Thanks to the weasel wording, it may be
that they can just barely argue that the "covenant not to sue" isn't
licensing and complies with the letter if not the spirit of the GPL V2,
though I suspect perhaps not the GPL V3.
Where Novell could come seriously aground is in the combined implications of
the agreement they've signed and the GPL they are also bound by. That might
be only potential at this point; however were Microsoft to subsequently sue
anyone else for patent infringement, then Novell could well find itself
dragged into the countersuits and subject to court judgements that would
trigger section 7 of the GPL and require them to cease distribution of SuSE
Linux.
The saying is that when you sup with the devil, it is necessary to use a
long spoon. Novell seem to have signed a Faustian pact here which can only
hurt them. Certainly, I, and I'm sure others, will no longer recommend
Novell/SuSE under any circumstances - I did not switch to free/libre
software to pay Microsoft royalties for the privilege, and nor will I
recommend others do so. By contrast, commercial development of open/libre
software is a great opportunity, if allowed to flourish freely in open
competition, rather than be locked down to existing players by patent
cross-licensing deals.
Novell/SuSE should rightly be boycotted and ostracised by the free/libre
software community for these actions, and our support thrown behind other
distributions and organisations, commercial or otherwise, who continue to
help rather than hinder the development of an open world with open software
which is not "owned" by any single individual or organisation.
--
JPB
|
|
