<div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div><div>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.
<br></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br>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 ... ).
<br><br>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.
<br><br><br><br><br>JOE<br><br>