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
> 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.
> 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.
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.
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 can imagine anything you want, but MS is not in danger because of the
GPL3. Not a tiny little bit
And no, the projects which are now "GPL2 or later" are still "GPL2 or later"
They are GPL3 when licensed that way. Not automatically.
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
> They tried to get under the radar, and they failed.
>
You try to be somewhat dishonest.
--
Your depth of comprehension may tend to make you lax in worldly ways.
|
|
