-------------- Original message ---------------------- From: "David Nicol" davidnicol@gmail.com
but they do have a microsoft linux; it's called "Interix" and it is now a free download, called "Microsoft Services for Unix"
I am wondering how long that stays. Part of what was in it, at least at one time was GPL. Now with GPL3 and it's Patent protection parts (that's argued, but hasn't been tried), I wonder how long Microsoft will distribute it.
As for SCO, I DO want them to face the judge, get declaratory statements about things like they did contribute (shown in court), and distribute Linux, despite what their current SCO "allegedly" thinks. I do want them declared in VIOLATION of the GPL, on IBM's account (as well as others whose works are in there). And I do want them to have judgments against them and face the SEC for fraud investigations.
On Saturday 22 September 2007, lerninlinux@comcast.net wrote:
From: "David Nicol" davidnicol@gmail.com
but they do have a microsoft linux; it's called "Interix" and it is now a free download, called "Microsoft Services for Unix"
I am wondering how long that stays. Part of what was in it, at least at one time was GPL. Now with GPL3 and it's Patent protection parts (that's argued, but hasn't been tried), I wonder how long Microsoft will distribute it.
The GPL doesn't force automatic upgrades. If Microsoft started using it under GPLv2, nobody can stop them from continuing to use it under GPLv2.
On 9/22/07, Luke -Jr luke@dashjr.org wrote:
a free download, called "Microsoft Services for Unix"
The GPL doesn't force automatic upgrades. If Microsoft started using it
under GPLv2, nobody can stop them from continuing to use it under GPLv2.
If they're using GPL software (which isn't also offered under some other license), then they have to distribute it, and any works derived therefrom, under a GPL-compatible license (one which gives downstream all the rights the GPL requires). I don't believe that Microsoft distributes GPL software (because I don't buy the idea that selling coupons redeemable at Novell constitutes 'distribution' any more than giving McDonald's gift certificates to my daughter would make me a restaurant).
However, as Linus has pointed out, anyone using software that is licensed under "GPLv2" (as opposed to "GPLv2+") is required by the terms of the license to distribute it downstream under GPLv2 or a compatible license. GPLv3 is NOT compatible with GPLv2 because it imposes additional restrictions upon those downstream users. Only in the case where the changes are deeded back to the upstream maintainer can the license be changed to GPLv3.
distributes GPL software (because I don't buy the idea that selling coupons redeemable at Novell constitutes 'distribution' any more than giving McDonald's gift certificates to my daughter would make me a restaurant).
It doesn't have to "make you a restaurant". Does it, OTOH, to use a closer analogy, make you "involved in conveying McDonald's gift certificates"?
GPLv3 has been re-written by smart guys SPECIFICALLY to try to make it so what MS is doing IS considered "conveyance" of the covered software, and therefore covered by the license.
Don't get me wrong, I agree with you, and think that kind of "logic" is shaky AT BEST. But law does not specialize in logic. And, you and I ain't lawyers, and even if we were, it STILL wouldn't matter what we thought -- just what a judge / jury thinks if the thing ever goes to court ....
Given the current US "IP" climate of "creating a copyrighted work gives you absolute, ultimate, and total control of how anyone and everyone anywhere talks, looks, sends, copies, or even THINKS about it" -- who knows what might happen in such a circumstance ...
JOE
On 9/23/07, Joe Fish reverend.joe@gmail.com wrote:
distributes GPL software (because I don't buy the idea that selling
coupons redeemable at Novell constitutes 'distribution' any more than giving McDonald's gift certificates to my daughter would make me a restaurant).
It doesn't have to "make you a restaurant". Does it, OTOH, to use a closer analogy, make you "involved in conveying McDonald's gift certificates"?
But the gift certificates aren't food. And a Novell support voucher isn't GPLed software. The argument that MS giving such a voucher is 'distributing software' is just ridiculous, and I can't believe that otherwise reasonable people are pushing it.
GPLv3 has been re-written by smart guys SPECIFICALLY to try to make it so
what MS is doing IS considered "conveyance" of the covered software, and therefore covered by the license.
I don't see how it's possible. Furthermore, I think that the FSF might have gotten hustled. This only plays into the "GPL is viral; if you use any GPL software the FSF pwns j00!!!!11111" FUD. Only it isn't entirely FUD anymore with the FSF making such claims.
But the gift certificates aren't food. And a Novell support voucher isn't
GPLed software. The argument that MS giving such a voucher is
'distributing software' is just ridiculous, and I can't believe that
otherwise reasonable people are pushing it.
Hey, its not ME that started the food analolgy. As I said, the terms of GPLv3 have changed -- it is no longer based on "distribution", it is based on "conveyance". And, without GPLv3 enabling MS to "assist in the conveyance of" GPLv3 software, they have NO RIGHTS regarding that software at all, under US copyright laws, anyway.
Does it seem plausible that MS could be restricted in distributing certificates by copyright law? Not to me, but, again, its not ME you have to convince. From my OP:
" ... law does not specialize in logic."
It doesn't seem plausible to me that I could be arrested on criminal charges and have my life savings taken away and spend most of the rest of my life in jail for humming a few songs I heard on the radio out in public, but that definitely IS plausible under current "IP" laws (though those provisions are obviously not enforced).
The fact is, if MS sells / distributes a voucher that results in software copyrighted by FSF and licensed under GPLv3 being "conveyed" to a user, its unclear what the law is regarding MS' responsibilities under the GPLv3. And those responsibilities are determined as much by the judge / jury's mood and whether they may've gotten a bad breakfast at Denny's as much as they are by what you or I think is logical.
A court could rule that no one "forced" MS to sign the Novell agreement, and there's nothing saying that they can't choose to dishonor that agreement, rather than dishonoring the terms of GPLv3 if they don't like them.
The fact that this is even a discussion is a sign of the larger problem to me: that "IP" laws in this country are expanding in strength and scope exponentially, to the detriment of the public.
Is the idea that MS could be held to the terms of software they are "assisting in the conveyance of" any more ridiculous than something like the story at the following link, or with Boy Scouts being sued for singing songs around the campfire?
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070830/143225.shtml
JOE
On 9/24/07, Monty J. Harder mjharder@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/23/07, Joe Fish reverend.joe@gmail.com wrote:
distributes GPL software (because I don't buy the idea that selling
coupons redeemable at Novell constitutes 'distribution' any more than giving McDonald's gift certificates to my daughter would make me a restaurant).
It doesn't have to "make you a restaurant". Does it, OTOH, to use a closer analogy, make you "involved in conveying McDonald's gift certificates"?
But the gift certificates aren't food. And a Novell support voucher isn't GPLed software. The argument that MS giving such a voucher is 'distributing software' is just ridiculous, and I can't believe that otherwise reasonable people are pushing it.
GPLv3 has been re-written by smart guys SPECIFICALLY to try to make it so
what MS is doing IS considered "conveyance" of the covered software, and therefore covered by the license.
I don't see how it's possible. Furthermore, I think that the FSF might have gotten hustled. This only plays into the "GPL is viral; if you use any GPL software the FSF pwns j00!!!!11111" FUD. Only it isn't entirely FUD anymore with the FSF making such claims.
On 9/24/07, Joe Fish reverend.joe@gmail.com wrote:
Hey, its not ME that started the food analolgy. As I said, the terms of GPLv3 have changed -- it is no longer based on "distribution", it is based on "conveyance". And, without GPLv3 enabling MS to "assist in the conveyance of" GPLv3 software, they have NO RIGHTS regarding that software at all, under US copyright laws, anyway.
The GPL grants permission to perform certain acts that would otherwise be against copyright law. If MS isn't doing any of those things, it doesn't need any license. The GPL can say that driving a Chevy is forbidden, which would deprive me of my rights to distribute GPLed software, but it wouldn't affect MS, who isn't distributing GPLed software, and will studiously avoid doing so.
The GPL grants permission to perform certain acts that would otherwise be against copyright law. If MS isn't doing any of those things, it doesn't need any license. The GPL can say that driving a Chevy is forbidden, which would deprive me of my rights to distribute GPLed software, but it wouldn't affect MS, who isn't distributing GPLed software, and will studiously avoid doing so.
Ah, an even worse analogy -- you still seem to be missing my whole point. We're NOT talking about something totally unrelated, like driving a Chevy, we're talking about conveying certificates redeemable for GPLv3 software. Something FSF has tried to specifically MAKE covered by the GPLv3 language. "Conveying certificates" may not seem to YOU to be something that copyright law forbids, and therefore irrelevant to the MS/Novell deal, but what YOU think STILL doesn't matter (unless you happen to be in the venue in which the suit is brought, and happen to get called and selected for jury duty ... ).
Copyright laws on the books SPECIFICALLY say you CAN'T copyright facts or titles, both of which are things people have variously sued others over the reproduction or derivation of, some successfully, some not -- the legal system is a crapshoot, and there is SIMPLY NO WAY of knowing what would happen in a FSF v MS lawsuit over the conveyance of certificates redeemable for GPLv3 software.
JOE
On 9/25/07, Joe Fish reverend.joe@gmail.com wrote:
we're talking about conveying certificates redeemable for GPLv3 software.
The GPL does not forbid charging money for software; it only restricts additional charges made for access to the source code. So if I want to sell GPLed software for $20, a Federal Reserve Note bearing the visage of Andrew Jackson becomes a "certificate redeemable for GPLv3 software", and everyone who spends one is now bound by the GPL.
This is why I went for the gift certificate analogy in the first place. A gift certificate is a promise made by its issuer to provide some goods and/or services to a third party, who could otherwise purchase same for cash. These vouchers, issued by Novell, grant permission to receive support services, including downloads of updates from Novell's servers, which would otherwise require payment to Novell. It is Novell that makes the promise, and Novell that makes it good. Microsoft does nothing to make itself liable for copyright infringement, either primarily or secondarily, by reselling these certificates, any more than I make myself liable for health code violations at a McDonald's by redistributing or reselling their gift certificates or $20 bills.
The GPL does not forbid charging money for software; it only restricts additional charges made for access to the source code. So if I want to sell GPLed software for $20, a Federal Reserve Note bearing the visage of Andrew Jackson becomes a "certificate redeemable for GPLv3 software", and everyone who spends one is now bound by the GPL.
Another bad analogy -- money is not a "certificate redeemable for GPLv3 software" -- it is legal tender that can be used to purchase ANYTHING -- are you saying that having money to purchase anything makes you as closely-related to the "conveyance" of all purchased goods as MS is to the redemption of Novell SLED coupons? Bit of a stretch, if you ask me.
This is why I went for the gift certificate analogy in the first place. A
gift certificate is a promise made by its issuer to provide some goods and/or services to a third party, who could otherwise purchase same for cash. These vouchers, issued by Novell, grant permission to receive support services, including downloads of updates from Novell's servers, which would otherwise require payment to Novell. It is Novell that makes the promise, and Novell that makes it good. Microsoft does nothing to make itself liable for copyright infringement, either primarily or secondarily, by reselling these certificates, any more than I make myself liable for health code violations at a McDonald's by redistributing or reselling their gift certificates or $20 bills.
Another bad anology -- health code laws are about as different from copyright laws in both their written form, and their interpretations in court, as two things can be and both still be called "LAWS". You're still missing my point -- the trend in this country is to try to create "IP" law (both written laws and case laws) that gives the creator of something ULTIMATE, TOTAL, AND ABSOLUTE CONTROL UNTIL THE END OF TIME of the thing they've created. Can you really say the same seems to apply to laws that govern health conditions at McDonald's?
Hate to sound like a broken record here, but you saying "Microsoft does nothing to make itself liable for copyright infringement", doesn't make that statement any more true than it was the last time you stated it. All that matters is the judge and jury's opinion of whether MS is liable (that, and the price of the shoes worn by the lawyers for the respective parties ... ).
JOE
On 9/25/07, Joe Fish reverend.joe@gmail.com wrote:
Another bad anology -- health code laws are about as different from copyright laws in both their written form, and their interpretations in court, as two things can be and both still be called "LAWS". You're still missing my point -- the trend in this country is to try to create "IP" law (both written laws and case laws) that gives the creator of something ULTIMATE, TOTAL, AND ABSOLUTE CONTROL UNTIL THE END OF TIME of the thing they've created. Can you really say the same seems to apply to laws that govern health conditions at McDonald's?
Health codes are designed to give the public some assurance, absolutely, totally, and until the end of time, that you will not get food sickness by eating at a compliant restaurant within city limits.
That said, loading my bowl with sliced clams right before closing at Genghis Khan was stupid and I harbor no ill will against the place.
That's funny, but isn't the purpose of health code laws quite different than that?
I'm not sure, but I thought that the laws regarding health codes (well, federal laws anyway) came under the adjudication of the FDA.
Which if you look it up, is explicitly NOT an organization whose charter is to promote (or even protect) public health. Rather, its charter states that its raison'd'etre is to promote the sale of U.S. agricultural products ...
Interesting, even if they're NOT the ones that monitor health regulations ...
JOE
On 9/25/07, David Nicol davidnicol@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/25/07, Joe Fish reverend.joe@gmail.com wrote:
Another bad anology -- health code laws are about as different from copyright laws in both their written form, and their interpretations in court, as two things can be and both still be called "LAWS". You're
still
missing my point -- the trend in this country is to try to create "IP"
law
(both written laws and case laws) that gives the creator of something ULTIMATE, TOTAL, AND ABSOLUTE CONTROL UNTIL THE END OF TIME of the thing they've created. Can you really say the same seems to apply to laws
that
govern health conditions at McDonald's?
Health codes are designed to give the public some assurance, absolutely, totally, and until the end of time, that you will not get food sickness by eating at a compliant restaurant within city limits.
That said, loading my bowl with sliced clams right before closing at Genghis Khan was stupid and I harbor no ill will against the place.
On Tuesday 25 September 2007, Joe Fish wrote:
Which if you look it up, is explicitly NOT an organization whose charter is to promote (or even protect) public health. Rather, its charter states that its raison'd'etre is to promote the sale of U.S. agricultural products
And the sale of drugs... Certainly explains why they approve so much food that CAN make us sick.
Hello All:
I am totally new to this group, so forgive me if I overstep. I am also not an expert on ANY version of the GPL. But I am reading your posts and am actually learning a bit about them. For that, I thank you.
If I am right, I believe what Joe is talking about is not necessarily the law, but how people might distort the law for their own ends. All mothers have baby pictures of their kids naked. (or maybe they don't and I need some therapy :0)) Does this mean they're guilty of child pornography? Practically, no. Technically, yes.
Again, I am just a lowly programmer and know very little about the technicalities of the GPL, so forgive me if I sound stupid or am talking out of my hind parts.
I am also very interested in what the MAIN differences are between GPL V1, 2 and 3. Is there somewhere to get a simple explanation of these from someone who has no stake? You can read some things about them on blogs, but they are always bashing v3 or loving it. I haven't found a place with someone just explaining the licenses.
Thanks again, Lee
On Mon, 2007-09-24 at 12:11 -0500, Joe Fish wrote:
But the gift certificates aren't food. And a Novell support voucher
isn't GPLed software. The argument that MS giving such a voucher is
'distributing software' is just ridiculous, and I can't believe that
otherwise reasonable people are pushing it.
Hey, its not ME that started the food analolgy. As I said, the terms of GPLv3 have changed -- it is no longer based on "distribution", it is based on "conveyance". And, without GPLv3 enabling MS to "assist in the conveyance of" GPLv3 software, they have NO RIGHTS regarding that software at all, under US copyright laws, anyway.
Does it seem plausible that MS could be restricted in distributing certificates by copyright law? Not to me, but, again, its not ME you have to convince. From my OP:
" ... law does not specialize in logic."
It doesn't seem plausible to me that I could be arrested on criminal charges and have my life savings taken away and spend most of the rest of my life in jail for humming a few songs I heard on the radio out in public, but that definitely IS plausible under current "IP" laws (though those provisions are obviously not enforced).
The fact is, if MS sells / distributes a voucher that results in software copyrighted by FSF and licensed under GPLv3 being "conveyed" to a user, its unclear what the law is regarding MS' responsibilities under the GPLv3. And those responsibilities are determined as much by the judge / jury's mood and whether they may've gotten a bad breakfast at Denny's as much as they are by what you or I think is logical.
A court could rule that no one "forced" MS to sign the Novell agreement, and there's nothing saying that they can't choose to dishonor that agreement, rather than dishonoring the terms of GPLv3 if they don't like them.
The fact that this is even a discussion is a sign of the larger problem to me: that "IP" laws in this country are expanding in strength and scope exponentially, to the detriment of the public.
Is the idea that MS could be held to the terms of software they are "assisting in the conveyance of" any more ridiculous than something like the story at the following link, or with Boy Scouts being sued for singing songs around the campfire?
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070830/143225.shtml
JOE
On 9/24/07, Monty J. Harder mjharder@gmail.com wrote: On 9/23/07, Joe Fish reverend.joe@gmail.com wrote: distributes GPL software (because I don't buy the idea that selling coupons redeemable at Novell constitutes 'distribution' any more than giving McDonald's gift certificates to my daughter would make me a restaurant).
It doesn't have to "make you a restaurant". Does it, OTOH, to use a closer analogy, make you "involved in conveying McDonald's gift certificates"? But the gift certificates aren't food. And a Novell support voucher isn't GPLed software. The argument that MS giving such a voucher is 'distributing software' is just ridiculous, and I can't believe that otherwise reasonable people are pushing it. GPLv3 has been re-written by smart guys SPECIFICALLY to try to make it so what MS is doing IS considered "conveyance" of the covered software, and therefore covered by the license. I don't see how it's possible. Furthermore, I think that the FSF might have gotten hustled. This only plays into the "GPL is viral; if you use any GPL software the FSF pwns j00!!!! 11111" FUD. Only it isn't entirely FUD anymore with the FSF making such claims.
Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
Aside from any copyright violations that Microsoft's Linux vouchers present, their software collectively violates more than 2500 open source patents and copyrights. It is thus a SEVERE liability to use Microsoft products.
On 9/25/07, leenix leenix@kc.rr.com wrote:
Hello All:
I am totally new to this group, so forgive me if I overstep. I am also not an expert on ANY version of the GPL. But I am reading your posts and am actually learning a bit about them. For that, I thank you.
If I am right, I believe what Joe is talking about is not necessarily the law, but how people might distort the law for their own ends. All mothers have baby pictures of their kids naked. (or maybe they don't and I need some therapy :0)) Does this mean they're guilty of child pornography? Practically, no. Technically, yes.
Again, I am just a lowly programmer and know very little about the technicalities of the GPL, so forgive me if I sound stupid or am talking out of my hind parts.
I am also very interested in what the MAIN differences are between GPL V1, 2 and 3. Is there somewhere to get a simple explanation of these from someone who has no stake? You can read some things about them on blogs, but they are always bashing v3 or loving it. I haven't found a place with someone just explaining the licenses.
Thanks again, Lee
On Mon, 2007-09-24 at 12:11 -0500, Joe Fish wrote:
But the gift certificates aren't food. And a Novell support voucher
isn't GPLed software. The argument that MS giving such a voucher is
'distributing software' is just ridiculous, and I can't believe that
otherwise reasonable people are pushing it.
Hey, its not ME that started the food analolgy. As I said, the terms of GPLv3 have changed -- it is no longer based on "distribution", it is based on "conveyance". And, without GPLv3 enabling MS to "assist in the conveyance of" GPLv3 software, they have NO RIGHTS regarding that software at all, under US copyright laws, anyway.
Does it seem plausible that MS could be restricted in distributing certificates by copyright law? Not to me, but, again, its not ME you have to convince. From my OP:
" ... law does not specialize in logic."
It doesn't seem plausible to me that I could be arrested on criminal charges and have my life savings taken away and spend most of the rest of my life in jail for humming a few songs I heard on the radio out in public, but that definitely IS plausible under current "IP" laws (though those provisions are obviously not enforced).
The fact is, if MS sells / distributes a voucher that results in software copyrighted by FSF and licensed under GPLv3 being "conveyed" to a user, its unclear what the law is regarding MS' responsibilities under the GPLv3. And those responsibilities are determined as much by the judge / jury's mood and whether they may've gotten a bad breakfast at Denny's as much as they are by what you or I think is logical.
A court could rule that no one "forced" MS to sign the Novell agreement, and there's nothing saying that they can't choose to dishonor that agreement, rather than dishonoring the terms of GPLv3 if they don't like them.
The fact that this is even a discussion is a sign of the larger problem to me: that "IP" laws in this country are expanding in strength and scope exponentially, to the detriment of the public.
Is the idea that MS could be held to the terms of software they are "assisting in the conveyance of" any more ridiculous than something like the story at the following link, or with Boy Scouts being sued for singing songs around the campfire?
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070830/143225.shtml
JOE
On 9/24/07, Monty J. Harder mjharder@gmail.com wrote: On 9/23/07, Joe Fish reverend.joe@gmail.com wrote: distributes GPL software (because I don't buy the idea that selling coupons redeemable at Novell constitutes 'distribution' any more than giving McDonald's gift certificates to my daughter would make me a restaurant).
It doesn't have to "make you a restaurant". Does it, OTOH, to use a closer analogy, make you "involved in conveying McDonald's gift certificates"? But the gift certificates aren't food. And a Novell support voucher isn't GPLed software. The argument that MS giving such a voucher is 'distributing software' is just ridiculous, and I can't believe that otherwise reasonable people are pushing it. GPLv3 has been re-written by smart guys SPECIFICALLY to try to make it so what MS is doing IS considered "conveyance" of the covered software, and therefore covered by the license. I don't see how it's possible. Furthermore, I think that the FSF might have gotten hustled. This only plays into the "GPL is viral; if you use any GPL software the FSF pwns j00!!!! 11111" FUD. Only it isn't entirely FUD anymore with the FSF making such claims.
Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
--- Joe Fish reverend.joe@gmail.com wrote:
It doesn't seem plausible to me that I could be arrested on criminal charges and have my life savings taken away and spend most of the rest of my life in jail for humming a few songs I heard on the radio out in public, but that definitely IS plausible under current "IP" laws (though those provisions are obviously not enforced).
No it isn't plausible. RIAA and others would like you to believe this, but judges have repeatedly made it clear that fair use is Constitutionally protected. You're buying into FUD when you make statements like this.
This might be what the RIAA would like but it's not going to happen no one is ever going to get the constitution changed to allow it, and no judge is going to issue a ruling like this, and not have it overturned.
Now back to the issue with GPL 3 and coupons and distributing vs conveying. You're all looking at it wrong.
The MS coupons are the equivalent of a free TV, but the coupons ca only be obtained from one place, b y a contractual agreement in which money has changed hands. This is entirely different from me getting coupons from McDonald's and conveying them to hundreds. This is equivalent to me buying gift certificates from McDonald's and then distributing them to hundreds. This in effect makes me a conveyor of McDonald's meals. Now since these MS-Novell coupons give you the store bought version of SuSE with support, they have in effect bought these versions and are effectively giving them away by conveyance. This is to me a very logical legal argument to say that they are bound by terms of the GPL3.
Now back to the original topic. Chapter 11 isn't the death of SCO, they are simply using this to spend all tha money they have before chapter 7 is forced on them. It's really a very childish ploy. I can here Darl now "Nah Nah Nah Nah Nah!". I hop the BK Judge puts a quick stop to this and and causes all the conspiring parties to be properly prosecuted. They spent over $500,000 in retainer's fees for the BK lawyers, and started spending money like crazy just before they filed . I hope the judge really guves it to them. SCO is dead, and has been ever since IBM and Novell fought back. Which is why I'm left with this bad taste in my mouth about the bi-polar Novell (good one minute, bad the next).
-
Billy Crook -
David Nicol -
Jack -
Joe Fish -
leenix -
lerninlinux＠comcast.net -
Luke -Jr -
Monty J. Harder