This is simple, MS in all its arrogance just forced the Free Software Foundation into doing something that it has never really wanted to do, sue someone.

The Free Software Foundation (FSF) is more about leading the next Operating system to the desktop, than being a legal firm. But in this case, I think it will proceed. The FSF is not a patent troll. Its really a defensive body to protect coders of open source GPL software and make software free for all end users like us.

All I can say is, SICK EM FSF! And go for the big bucks!

If anybody could sue MS for at least 3 years or more of its ill begotten income as a monopoly, it the FSF. That would be at least 210 billion dollars, think of it?

Why both to sue M$ for just 2.5 billion, its just a number. They might start to get it for 210 billion, and start to act like regular law abiding citizen. They might even "retire" Bill and Steve, only then can they become a more normal and moral company.

In an attempt to cut off Microsoft, Gplv3 has come to make rediculous assertions. One of them being that in order to interoperate with anything, you will need to give up your IP. Gplv3 in the long run will hurt open source not Microsoft. I see nothing wrong with Microsoft's clarification that's not bound with GPLv3. If somebody doesn't want interoperability that is Gplv3 advocates.

Reminds me of Cheney's claim that he isn't part of the executive branch.

Or in a non-political sense, from the Taming of the Shrew, where the wife is to accept her husband's claim that the moon is the sun...

The King makes up the language and the meaning; and he draws the maps, too.

Depart not from the received message, ye bootlicks, or ye will end up on a pike...like Peter Quinn and his successor, Louis Gutierrez, in The Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Lets see, GPL v3 is all about those who distrube or use coupons to distrube or sell GNU/Linux, will be subject to the terms of the GPL v3 terms on any GPL v3 software in that Linux distro that they are distrubiting. The anwser would of course be clear for MS, just stop the coupons and selling Linux. Otherwise, they will end up in court, or give up their rights to sue Linux.

Evan;
It really has nothing to do with "interoperability," that just MS latest catch word. If anything, MS is still making their latest product not interoperate with Linux on a grand scale. There is no need to fall for MS's BS.

Leave it to you Joe, to review what's happening with GPL3 and the obvious attempts to target deals like the MSFT/NOVL one and somehow conclude that MSFT is the bad guy. On the latter, if you're not a lawyer, which you're not, then why do you presume to think you know more about the legal issues involved than trained lawyers do?

We now see Microsoft is ready to 'develop' and roll out their internet platform.

I say Microsoft has settled with VCSY and the remaining IP stack they are affiliated with. Most likely Microsoft and Red Hat also see eye to eye.

I can't imagine any real lawyers as stupid as the Microsoft lawyers look right now in how they handled the GPLv3 thing. The only thing that would make somebody LOOK that inept would be if they knew they could entirely ignore the Linux base because they could field something extra-ordinary that would take that license out of the picture as a commercial concern.

By: yo-eleven
07 Jul 2007, 02:59 PM EDT
Msg. 189173 of 189173
(This msg. is a reply to 189172 by waitin-on-news.)
Jump to msg. #
waitin - I would say nobody among the journalists will talk about VCSY for one of three of reasons:

1. They don't know about it.
2. They don't know enough to write about it.
3. They can't write about it until allowed.

If 1, they don't know how to do research.

If 2, they don't understand the architectures.

If 3, they can do nothing but wait.

You cannot force 3rd parties into using the GPLv3 no matter which weird fantasy land Stallman lives in.

Microsoft didn't sign the GPLv3, the GPLv3 did not exists when Microsft and Novell signed their agreement.

Microsoft is not bound by it in any way shape or form.

1-All of us have the right to think (we don't need to be lawyers to give our opinion), furthermore, at a legal level, common sense generally reigns(law being founded by guidance of common sense.)
2-About GPLv3, it is simple, MS stops distributing coupons and the problem is finito (just as chip wrote)...or maybe it is not so simple. Maybe the coupons were made without an expiration date (err..it was a terrible error from MS's "branch" of lawyers) pretty much the same signing a blank check. Now we come to conjectures, and MS has not got the possibility of arguing "lack of expertise" since it has got practically a regiment of lawyers. That's why Ms is scared-and that's also why it is possible the judges might fail against them (and, yes, Joe, the moon is NOT made out of blue cheese.)

I'm a little worried about this. We've all seen what happens when MS gets taken to court. They can afford to drag it out for years. I don't know whether the FSF can financially afford to take MS to court. And if they can't, will MS get away with it?

I've submitted this to fsdaily.com - a digg style site for free software news.

Marco;
Good point about the "no expiration date" on those coupons to distribute Novel GNU/Linux.

Bruce :
Have you ever looked at the eula on a MS windows product? Its very restrictive, to say the least what you can and cannot do. Now the GPL on the other hand, lets you do a lot of things with the software. Unlike MS Windows, the software on a GNU/Linux disk, comes from many sources, and each piece of software has some sort of licence. Most likely GPL V2 or soon V3. There has always been a purpose behind the GPL licence, mostly the purpose is that if you distribute GPL software, or use it, or expecially modify it, you have to give back to the community, freely, the code you modified. MS gives nothing back, and is in the protection business, pay or I'll sue you. Its called racketeering, since they won't point out the exact pattens they claim are infringed on. Perhaps it time to take out the antitrust hammer and break the monopoly in several dozen tiny little pieces.

The other point I would make, is a lot of people in the Linux community, are there to get away from the doings of MS. What did MS expect when they decided to make money on the work of free coders and try to rip off the GPL? The Linux community, as a whole, will not stand for it. Sure, Novel needed the money they got up front from MS, a few other very small linux distros as well.

Microsoft doesnt need to persuade 6 billion people that up is down, just 1 billion.

" Bruce :

You cannot force 3rd parties into using the GPLv3 no matter which weird fantasy land Stallman lives in.

Microsoft didn't sign the GPLv3, the GPLv3 did not exists when Microsft and Novell signed their agreement.

Microsoft is not bound by it in any way shape or form."

First of all, you don't have to sign a license agreement. If you distribute, you've accepted the license implicitly. What do you think happens when you start up Windows and click through that gobbledegook labelled "Software License Agreement"? By clicking through, you've implicitly accepted the terms of the license. The GPL, on the other hand, comes into play when you distribute the software, and by giving out coupons (for which they get the money), Microsoft is distributing GPL'ed software. Therefore, Microsoft has implicitly accepted the terms (even if they claim they haven't), and one of the terms is that if you accept the GPL and distribute, you pass on to everyone downstream any patent agreement made with the people one level below you (in this case, Microsoft has a patent agreement with "Novell's customers", so the GPL says that all those customers plus anyone who gets their software from them in the chain anywhere gets a patent agreement from Microsoft). The result is that if they try to sue somebody for "patent infringement", they are guilty of copyright infringement for violating the terms of the license agreement and distributing anyway.

Just to point something out to windows users that think MS is being treated unfairly with reguards to GPL v3. Even though MS made a "deal" with Novel to distribute Suse GNU/Linux, this distro at the time contained mostly GPL v2 programs, and that license, applied at that time. MS could still distribute Suse GNU/Linux, if it only contains GPL v2 programs in the future. However, as software for GNU/Linux distros changes and improves, a newer version comes out, and many of these programs, will be GPL v3.

MS made its deal with Novell suse, not the people that actually wrote these programs or the Free Software Foundation that holds and sets the rules for the licenses. And Novell never agreed not to use the newest software in its distro.

Its not like MS can't stop what its doing, they just want their hand in our pocket. Including the pocket of Linux users, it seems.

Now think about this, the GPL is all about control of the software, its a license. Probably the one thing its designed to do from the start is to keep control of the software away from companies like M$. And M$ knows this, what MS has done is underhanded again.

joe, mary jo's much closer than you. imo
http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=557

Although i'm sure neither of you are aloud to use the letters VCSY in sequence yet! ha

"If the Program specifies that a certain numbered version of the GNU General Public License “or any later version” applies to it, you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that numbered version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of the GNU General Public License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation."

Microsoft has the option of abiding by GPLV2 license terms since no GPLV3 software existed at the time of the deal with Novell.

Bruce:
Quote;
"Microsoft has the option of abiding by GPLV2 license terms since no GPLV3 software existed at the time of the deal with Novell."
--------------------------------------------------
This is true, maybe, as long as they only use the old distro of Suse that predated the agreement, as that disto would not have any GPL v3 programs on it. Novell Suse, however, will move on with future versions of Suse, just like MS released Windows 95, 98 then 98SE, as an example. The new versions will contain GPL v3 programs, without any doubt. There are hundred, perhaps thousands of programs on one of those Suse disks, and all have some sort of license. Doubt if more than 20% of the programs on it are made by Suse themselves, and even those are probably GPL. Even those maybe GPL v3.

Its the license on those GPL programs on the disk itself that is important, not as much the "agreement between Novell and MS." Because Novell and MS must obey the license with requards to the GPL of the software they distribute. And if there is GPL v3 software being distributed by MS, in the forms of coupons (and will know that MS paid 270 million for those coupons), then MS falls under the terms of the GPL v3. Simple, if they want to get out of it, they need to stop, or go to court and take their chances.

"Novell Suse, however, will move on with future versions of Suse"

Since the Kernel will never be GPLV3, Novell will just stop upadating those few packages that use the GPLV3.

GPLV3 is dead.

Bruce;
Novell has already said there will be GPL V3 programs in future releases. Linus T. has not said for sure he won't use GPL v3 licensing for the kernel, only at this point he perferrs GPL v2, but that could change if he thinks the kernel may need extra protection from the likes of M$. The kernel is only a small part of a GNU/Linux distro, like Suse.

Microsoft did not sign the GPLv3. They established programs and relationships before it's adoption. If the GPL were a law, Microsoft would be "grandfathered" in with what they've been doing. Instead it sure gives the appearance that the FSF is trying to hobble Microsoft with the GPLv3, clearly aimed at breaking up the relationship they've established with Novell.

The most amusing part of everything I read from the Microsoft Hating contingent is that they have no clue what the company is like, what it's about and how wrong they are in their assessment of "Evil".

I run Ubuntu, side by side with Vista. I have no moral or religious convictions about which "tool" I use to accomplish the work in front of me. It would be like a group of mechanics who use Snap-On tools tearing up Matco tools at every turn, calling the Matco reps "evil", blaming the Matco guys for everything wrong in the world. A tool is a tool, if it doesn't fit the job you do, don't use it.

Honestly the worst thing that's ever happened to my computer was when Sun won their lawsuit. I've been updating the damn Sun Java Machine every week since then all 200+MB of it.

I can see it now.....eBay listings from people who received one of these disks, containing GPLv3 code, via the MS paperwork. "For sale, a fish hook with Microsoft dangling on the end - best offer:.

GPLv3 was written specifically as a response to the MS/Novell transaction. It wasn't written to benefit any users, only to try to cause MS harm.

In the long run this will cause problems for Open Source. The goal should be for computers to work together, not to have a monopoly. To get the MS computers working better with the Linux computers should be a goal people work towards, not something you try to fight.

Now, if Apple had inked the same deal with Novell would there be all this fighting?

GPL v3 was written to make sure, that Corporations that used,or distributed GPL v3 programs would have to give something back, in MS case, should it elect to distribute Suse distros that will contain GPL v3 programs, it will not be able to sue those GPL v3 license holders, who MS has used, distributed through coupons, without giving up any patent lawsuit against such. That is the price of using the software.

MS knows this, and wants to profit off GPL software as a commission, without doing anything in return. And M$ complains because they have to give something back to have the right to distribute by coupon, GPL v3 software. Question, do you complain when you have to pay for Microsoft software? In both MS and GPL software, the terms of the license (eula in MS) are enforced.

It dosen't even have to go to court right now, for the FSF to use this line of defense, Later in any patent lawsuit brought by MS against an GPL v3 software provider that MS will distribute is when the FSF can use this.

As far as GPL v3 being dead as one poster suggested;

http://news.com.com/Samba+will+move+to+GPLv3/2100-7344_3-6195601.html?tag=nefd.top

I do not see anyway that Novell Suse will not put the newest versions of Samba in its distros.

This is classic Microsoft behavior. It's a psychological ploy that 99% of the public buys into and it's a tragedy that it's allowed to continue, and yet it does. Basically because Microsoft, in the eyes of the average-Joe, is a big "trustworthy, reliable, and helpful company", it necessarily means they're experts on all things computer related. So when Microsoft makes a sweeping statement, it does so with an image of being in control and knowing more than everyone else in the industry. Just by posture alone, and public opinion, what Microsoft says is taken as truth. The trick is in the assumed authority of Microsoft. The assumed authority leads to a group think mentality, which in turn most companies, managers, and the average user mentally relinquish "control" to Microsoft. In psychological terms this is called "group think", where people are nearly blindly following, and are giving decision making control to an assumed authority. Frankly it's dangerous in the long term, and can lead to... well... Microsoft. Sigh...

Oh yes, poor MS, the hunter that fell in its own trap (possibly.)Ms wanted to be a falcon and ends up being a dove (possibly -I repeat-), sorry but I cannot cry.
Dean; defence never was a synonym of harm (except when the aggressor harms itself.)
Mike; I also run Ubuntu and XP. XP is not the problem (TOOL), the problem is the abuse to which MS subjects us (I don't believe I have to explain, since we all know.)

To Mike, Dean, and Bruce

Consider this, MS has done so many things to break interoperabilites with Linux through the years. Linux coders are the ones providing true interoperabily between Windows OS, and Office. Each time MS break something on purpose to delay people moving to Linux, the Linux coders work and fix it. A lot of work, and bet that those linux coders are not fond of MS, because of it.

Now Linux end user of Desktop OS, are mostly former Windows users. Many will not pay $400 to a monopoly for it software. Many were sick of the terrible virus problems of MS, that never seem to get fix with the latest and greatest. Some moved to Linux because they just wanted something better. Some because they did not want Bill spying on them. Some will because of the excessive DRM in Vista.

Anyway, you might begin to see why most Linux users have a low opionion of MS.

But it seems even MS so far cannot stop the increase of users fleeing to Linux and Mac. So my point is, if MS continues to generate this bad feeling about it in Linux community, "what will happen to MS, if, Linux ever becomes the dominant OS"?

Perhaps MS will have a hard time selling their software programs on Linux systems if that day ever comes. I am not saying it will come, but seems that a company would still want to sell software if that day comes. And to do so, it will need the goodwill of those Linux users.

Do think we will see MS lose some market share of desktop OS this year due to Vista. Mac is probably to gain the most in the short term. But Linux will also gain some. A few percentage points is billions of dollars to M$.

chips b malroy,

Sure, when you don't pay any licensing fees and just steal peoples IP you have to do some extra work to "interoperate".

But face it ... nothing Linux does is innovative. It justs steals and/or clones.

As for fleeing to Linux and Mac ... I don't see any of it going to Linux.

400$ for Windows?????

As Dell has shown, they charge the customer about $50 for Vista Home Premium. Still a great deal.

"According to IDC, this [Q1 2007] was the first quarter since IDC began tracking Linux server spending in 1998 that Windows server revenue has grown faster than Linux server revenue."

Linux will never, ever catch up.

Bruce;
Don't fall for the M$ koolaid, they don't have one patent they can point to at all, only vague "patents." More than likely, its M$ that is the one infringing on Linux.

Lets talk about stealing code, google this; Stac electronics vs MS. Right, you mean MS is innovative? They did not get all their idea's from Mac?

And yes, you can pay up to $400 us for Vista Ultimate the full boxed version in the USA. I know you will love it, its made just for you.

I was just wondering how many attacking MS here have actually installed Vista? Everybody was complaining when MS was changing its license terms and imposing it to everybody, now FSF does the same and it is considered normal and MS is blamed again for not accepting it. And finally since everybody here seems to dream about MS disapearance, how long do you thing IBM, RedHat and others that already today make billions with Linux will keep the software free once the counterweight (MS) has disapeared.

"But face it ... nothing Linux does is innovative. It justs steals and/or clones." -- Bruce
Bruce, that's simply not true (ref. Beowulf, parallel programming in general, etc.)... besides, linux is not a company, but an OS designed by a network of programmers adding their little bit. I run both Windows and Linux on my machines, both have their uses, and both have their drawbacks. The right tool for the right job. What people are annoyed with is the idiotic notion that MS is the end-all OS, and that MS is perfect. Try and remember where Windows originated from. Unix gave root to the notion of "windows" and the need for UI environments... Also if you have time, take a look at early Mac windowing environments and cross reference that functionality with what evolved in windows. Mac traditionally has been stellar at UI design and user experience (but up until OSX, it was a piss poor OS to use and you were vapor-locked into using Apple support for anything). And now with Vista, windows has basically (finally) implemented the same type of user account/space controls that have existed in *nix systems since their inception. Windows claims that the "security" is new and improved... not really, it's just ripped off from old *nix standards and polished up to look pretty and add a few user account monitoring functions. While there are is lot of open source software which purports to clone MS software, the reality is that people tend to like to stick with whatever is "standard" at the moment. At this time MS is setting the "standard" via "group think" (see my post above). So it's natural that *nix programmers will basically mimic whatever MS is doing to some extent. Thank goodness MS sets the bar so low! :-)
But to say that linux doesn't do anything innovative is just stupid.

to ixul.
Quoting you here;
"how long do you thing IBM, RedHat and others that already today make billions with Linux will keep the software free once the counterweight (MS) has disapeared."
--------------------------------------------------
What have you been smoking and drinking? Some heavy duty drugs is my guess.

First MS is not a "counterweight," more of a dead weight on software pricing. Second, Linux is free for most home desktop users. It will always be free, depending on the distro you choice to use. That because of the GPL.

"Always be free" ? We live in a capitalist world, remember. You live in a dream. When do you think IBM, Novell and RedHat will start to cash in more than they do now? The GPL would prevent it? It weights low compared to those three and would be financially dead before the others have even spend their pocket money. Now with MS they have somebody to compare to , show that they are better and more cost effective. But after...

to ixul
""Always be free" ? We live in a capitalist world, remember. You live in a dream. When do you think IBM, Novell and RedHat will start to cash in more than they do now?"

You're showing your complete Ignorance, read the GPL and maybe you'll get a clue.

Bruce -
"But face it ... nothing Linux does is innovative. It justs steals and/or clones."

Why don't you stop being a MS troll? Why won't MS identify the so called "IP violations" it claims? Because it has NOTHING, if they sued their IP portfolio would collapse!

Come on people...There's no need to argue.

Do you want to know why? Opensource is inevitable.

Since 2001, MS has been acknowledging this threat (to them). They've tried FUD, they've tried to emulate, they've tried using the law (fund a proxy war using SCO), they've even tried skimming around the GPL! ALL have FAILED!

The fact is, even MS know opensource is inevitable. (They admit this in subtle ways). Opensource is the massive tide that even MS isn't able to stop...And they know it.

Both ixul and Bruce will eventually realise this. They can be vocal and negative about opensource. I suspect they've been paid by a third party to help curb negative opinion about Microsoft. That's OK. Let them blab their BS. They'll wake up to what's really happening in the future. ;)

The point raised about Red Hat and IBM, is that unlike many corporations, they respect and comply with the GPL. They contribute, promote, and even defend opensource in court.

The reactions of the community from Novell, Xandros, and Linspire's actions clearly show companies should respect the community. The community is what opensource is all about. Its something MS will never be a part of.

Why? They have a history. The community knows MS doesn't compete fairly on a level playing field. They will do everything and anything to win, destroy and dominate. They're the tyrant. One moment you're friends with them, next minute, you'll find yourself with a knife in your back.

They have always been that way...And that's exactly what is gonna destroy them. Their lies and BS is getting old.

It doesn't matter if you're a consumer or a business. MS needs to bribe, pay off and corner people into using and promoting their products. When people use opensource, they want to. That's the difference.

As for Intellectual Property in software? I bet you US$100 MS doesn't really have a leg to stand on. None of their 235 claims against Linux has been put through court. ie: Its like playing poker. They're bluffing. Have you not notice they won't detail what those patent infringements are?

Do you honestly think MS will risk and all out patent war? It'll be like a Mutually Assured Destruction scenario.

MS can bluff and lie to everyone. But the ones that won't believe their BS, are the very geeks and nerds who write opensource apps. Don't expect to survive if you conduct an all out war on opensource.

Come on people...There's no need to argue.

Do you want to know why? Opensource is inevitable.

Since 2001, MS has been acknowledging this threat (to them). They've tried FUD, they've tried to emulate, they've tried using the law (fund a proxy war using SCO), they've even tried skimming around the GPL! ALL have FAILED!

The fact is, even MS know opensource is inevitable. (They admit this in subtle ways). Opensource is the massive tide that even MS isn't able to stop...And they know it.

Both ixul and Bruce will eventually realise this. They can be vocal and negative about opensource. I suspect they've been paid by a third party to help curb negative opinion about Microsoft. That's OK. Let them blab their BS. They'll wake up to what's really happening in the future. ;)

The point raised about Red Hat and IBM, is that unlike many corporations, they respect and comply with the GPL. They contribute, promote, and even defend opensource in court.

The reactions of the community from Novell, Xandros, and Linspire's actions clearly show companies should respect the community. The community is what opensource is all about. Its something MS will never be a part of.

Why? They have a history. The community knows MS doesn't compete fairly on a level playing field. They will do everything and anything to win, destroy and dominate. They're the tyrant. One moment you're friends with them, next minute, you'll find yourself with a knife in your back.

They have always been that way...And that's exactly what is gonna destroy them. Their lies and BS is getting old.

It doesn't matter if you're a consumer or a business. MS needs to bribe, pay off and corner people into using and promoting their products. When people use opensource, they want to. That's the difference.

As for Intellectual Property in software? I bet you US$100 MS doesn't really have a leg to stand on. None of their 235 claims against Linux has been put through court. ie: Its like playing poker. They're bluffing. Have you not notice they won't detail what those patent infringements are?

Do you honestly think MS will risk and all out patent war? It'll be like a Mutually Assured Destruction scenario.

MS can bluff and lie to everyone. But the ones that won't believe their BS, are the very geeks and nerds who write opensource apps. Don't expect to survive if you conduct an all out war on opensource.