On 9/23/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Joe Fish</b> <<a href="mailto:reverend.joe@gmail.com">reverend.joe@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<div><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 class="q"><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>
<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><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><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>