>>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.
<br><span class="q"><br>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.
<br><br>Does it seem plausible that MS could be restricted in distributing certificates by copyright law? Not to me, but, a</span>gain, its not ME you have to convince. From my OP:<br><br>" ... law does not specialize in logic."
<br><br>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).
<br><br>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.
<br><br>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.
<br><br>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. <br><br>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?
<br><br><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070830/143225.shtml">http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070830/143225.shtml</a><br><br><br><br><br><br>JOE<br><br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 9/24/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">
Monty J. Harder</b> <<a href="mailto:mjharder@gmail.com">mjharder@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<span class="q">On 9/23/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Joe Fish</b> <<a href="mailto:reverend.joe@gmail.com" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">reverend.joe@gmail.com</a>> wrote:
</span><div><span class="q"><span class="gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<span><div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> 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).
<br></blockquote></div><br></span>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"?</blockquote>
</span><div><br>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.
<br></div><span class="q"><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">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.
</blockquote></span><div><br>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.
<br></div><br></div><br>
</blockquote></div><br>