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.<br><br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 9/25/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">leenix</b> <<a href="mailto:leenix@kc.rr.com">leenix@kc.rr.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;">
Hello All:<br><br>I am totally new to this group, so forgive me if I overstep. I am also<br>not an expert on ANY version of the GPL. But I am reading your posts and<br>am actually learning a bit about them. For that, I thank you.
<br><br>If I am right, I believe what Joe is talking about is not necessarily<br>the law, but how people might distort the law for their own ends. All<br>mothers have baby pictures of their kids naked. (or maybe they don't and
<br>I need some therapy :0)) Does this mean they're guilty of child<br>pornography? Practically, no. Technically, yes.<br><br>Again, I am just a lowly programmer and know very little about the<br>technicalities of the GPL, so forgive me if I sound stupid or am talking
<br>out of my hind parts.<br><br>I am also very interested in what the MAIN differences are between GPL<br>V1, 2 and 3. Is there somewhere to get a simple explanation of these<br>from someone who has no stake? You can read some things about them on
<br>blogs, but they are always bashing v3 or loving it. I haven't found a<br>place with someone just explaining the licenses.<br><br>Thanks again,<br>Lee<br><br><br>On Mon, 2007-09-24 at 12:11 -0500, Joe Fish wrote:<br>
> >>But the gift certificates aren't food. And a Novell support voucher<br>> isn't GPLed software. The argument that MS giving such a voucher is<br>> >>'distributing software' is just ridiculous, and I can't believe that
<br>> otherwise reasonable people are pushing it.<br>><br>> Hey, its not ME that started the food analolgy. As I said, the terms<br>> of GPLv3 have changed -- it is no longer based on "distribution", it
<br>> is based on "conveyance". And, without GPLv3 enabling MS to "assist<br>> in the conveyance of" GPLv3 software, they have NO RIGHTS regarding<br>> that software at all, under US copyright laws, anyway.
<br>><br>> Does it seem plausible that MS could be restricted in distributing<br>> certificates by copyright law? Not to me, but, again, its not ME you<br>> 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<br>> charges and have my life savings taken away and spend most of the rest<br>> of my life in jail for humming a few songs I heard on the radio out in
<br>> public, but that definitely IS plausible under current "IP" laws<br>> (though those provisions are obviously not enforced).<br>><br>> The fact is, if MS sells / distributes a voucher that results in
<br>> software copyrighted by FSF and licensed under GPLv3 being "conveyed"<br>> to a user, its unclear what the law is regarding MS' responsibilities<br>> under the GPLv3. And those responsibilities are determined as much by
<br>> the judge / jury's mood and whether they may've gotten a bad breakfast<br>> 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
<br>> agreement, and there's nothing saying that they can't choose to<br>> dishonor that agreement, rather than dishonoring the terms of GPLv3 if<br>> they don't like them.<br>><br>> The fact that this is even a discussion is a sign of the larger
<br>> problem to me: that "IP" laws in this country are expanding in<br>> 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
<br>> "assisting in the conveyance of" any more ridiculous than something<br>> like the story at the following link, or with Boy Scouts being sued<br>> 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>> On 9/24/07, Monty J. Harder <
<a href="mailto:mjharder@gmail.com">mjharder@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>> On 9/23/07, Joe Fish <<a href="mailto:reverend.joe@gmail.com">reverend.joe@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>> distributes GPL software (because I don't buy
<br>> the idea that selling coupons redeemable at<br>> Novell constitutes 'distribution' any more<br>> than giving McDonald's gift certificates to my
<br>> daughter would make me a restaurant).<br>><br>> It doesn't have to "make you a restaurant". Does it,<br>> OTOH, to use a closer analogy, make you "involved in
<br>> conveying McDonald's gift certificates"?<br>><br>> But the gift certificates aren't food. And a Novell support<br>> voucher isn't GPLed software. The argument that MS giving
<br>> such a voucher is 'distributing software' is just ridiculous,<br>> and I can't believe that otherwise reasonable people are<br>> pushing it.<br>><br>><br>> GPLv3 has been re-written by smart guys SPECIFICALLY
<br>> to try to make it so what MS is doing IS considered<br>> "conveyance" of the covered software, and therefore<br>> covered by the license.<br>><br>
> I don't see how it's possible. Furthermore, I think that the<br>> FSF might have gotten hustled. This only plays into the "GPL<br>> is viral; if you use any GPL software the FSF pwns j00!!!!
<br>> 11111" FUD. Only it isn't entirely FUD anymore with the FSF<br>> making such claims.<br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>> _______________________________________________<br>
> Kclug mailing list<br>> <a href="mailto:Kclug@kclug.org">Kclug@kclug.org</a><br>> <a href="http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug">http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug</a><br><br>_______________________________________________
<br>Kclug mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Kclug@kclug.org">Kclug@kclug.org</a><br><a href="http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug">http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug</a><br></blockquote></div><br>