Peter Köhlmann <peter.koehlmann@xxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> Mark Kent wrote:
>
>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>> ____/ Peter Köhlmann on Tuesday 10 July 2007 16:33 : \____
>>>
>>>> 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
>>>
>>> You're actually quite right here. Novell suffers (or will suffer) a
>>> great deal here while Microsoft sees yet another malovolent plan sinking
>>> like a rock. Both of them lose. The FSF was very successful because it
>>> actually gave Novell a second chance. It was merciful. Eventually it was
>>> Novell's new 'partner' (not the FSF) that screwed Novell, throwing SUSE
>>> vouchers out of the airplane.
>>>
>>
>> You should go back and look very carefully at the GPL. For the vast
>> majority of GPLed projects, they specifically note that the licence will
>> be updated, and that the latest version of the licence will be the one
>> which applies, as far as I know.
>
> This is wrong. The "or later" clause allows to relicence it as GPL3, for
> example
Exactly the point. The code can be relicensed under a later version of
the GPL, including GPLv3, and this statement exists in the vast majority
of GPLed programmes.
>
>> You cannot just wish this away because you'd like to, it's there.
>
> You cannot just wish this away because you'd like to, it's there.
Indeed it is there.
>
>> This means that, as and where Microsoft made promises with respect to
>> GPLed projects, excepting the kernel which for some shortsighted reason
>> is specifically locked to GPLv2, most things are not, and any
>> committments made were made in the knowledge that this change not
>> only could be made, but as the GPLv3 was under discussion when Microsoft
>> made their committments, they knew very clearly just what changes were
>> being made.
>>
>
> Actually, no, they did *not* know very clearly anything at all. You can't
> know what the final draft will contain when it is still heavyly under
> discussion. And therefor you can't commit to that.
As the clause regarding relicensing was there, you cannot *not* commit
to it, the GPL doesn't allow you to be selective.
> MS is committed to the legal situation which existed at that time. And that
> was a situation without the GPL3. They could not guess what would be worded
> how in the end.
Indeed they could, as the subject had been under discussion, publicly,
for a very long time indeed.
> Especially not that the GPL3 would later contain wording to make deals like
> the MS/Novell one impossible. Please explain how they can guess that such a
> clause would be inserted.
You don't need to guess, it was published for all to read.
> You can imagine anything you want, but MS is not in danger because of the
> GPL3. Not a tiny little bit
If that were the case, then they wouldn't be asking Novell to distribute
the GPLv3 components of SuSE which they had previously committed to
distribute themselves - Roy posted the story here today.
>
> And no, the projects which are now "GPL2 or later" are still "GPL2 or later"
> They are GPL3 when licensed that way. Not automatically.
In fact, it is automatic, that's the point of it. I suggest you have a
peek at the FAQ section at the FSF site which explains it.
> And anyone can at this point fork off a "GPL2 or later" version and keep it
> that way. the GPL3 has actually no say in that at all
> And this is what eventually may happen, dividing linux into a GPL3 version
> with limited access to hardware and a GPL2 version without such silly
> restrictions. These undesirable things may happen when blind zealots impose
> their version of "freedom" unto anyone
That's exactly the argument which was used for BSD over Linux; it
didn't hold water then, and still does not.
>
>> They tried to get under the radar, and they failed.
>>
> You try to be somewhat dishonest.
Not at all - I work very hard indeed to be as honest as I can be. I'm a
rubbish liar, anyway.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |
|
|
