Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> Mark Kent wrote:
>
>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>> Microsoft Says It Is Not Bound by GPLv3
>>>
>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>> | Microsoft cleared the air July 5 on its obligations to GNU General
>>> | Public Licence Version 3 support, declaring it will not provide
>>> | support or updates for GPLv3 under the deal it penned in November
>>> | with Novell to administer certificates for the Linux distribution.
>>> `----
>>>
>>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/zd/20070705/tc_zd/210987
>>>
>>> Funny company. It's desperate. 5 stages of agony... returning to denial.
>> How can it not support what it's agreed to support, I wonder?
>>
>
> How can you make them support it with a license which came into existance
> *after* they signed a deal?
> That would fly in no court of this world. You can't unilaterally change the
> conditions of a deal and expect it to stay. And this is what the GPL3 tries
> to accomplish, altering the conditions in a way which would make it
> impossible for MS to fulfill the contract without violating the GPL3
>
> Guess the number of judges who would not laugh that out of court (any number
> below 1 is possible)
>
> Anyone reading "MS is hooked" into that is on an extreme tour of wishful
> thinking. The GPL3 is the exact tool MS needs to get out of that contract
> scotfree anytime they want to
The 'new' paradigm in law seems to be that any license you agree to is
subject to change, and you are bound to it if you use the service.
I submit that this is most often encountered in the banking and
financial industry. A consumer is constantly facing a changed,
modified, license or contract, so that the bank or lendor is in the best
position to profit.
Credit lenders for revolving credit cards mention in the fine print that
they can change most of the criteria of acceptance, the rates of
interest, and penalties, for your failure perfectly observe their terms.
Simply by using that credit you agree to abide with the new terms.
Why do you think that contractual agreements visa vi copyrighted
material is any different? By the agreement already entered via
contract between Microsoft and Novell, Microsoft agreed to abide by the
terms of the GPL.
Microsoft has two issues:
1. By continuing to issue certificates for Novell Open Source products,
Microsoft agrees to abide by the terms of the GPLv3.
2. Honoring the terms of any previously issued certificate, after the
date of the GPLv3, Microsoft binds itself to the new GPLv3.
If Microsoft breaks that contract, Novell can sue in Court.
Microsoft's legal department has entered the maze so similar to those
traps they are so adept at setting for others. I wonder how they
couldn't see this.
I am gleeful whenever I see the tyrant brought down by the very guile so
often used to oppress the weak consumer.
|
|
