On 9/23/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Joe Fish</b> &lt;<a href="mailto:reverend.joe@gmail.com">reverend.joe@gmail.com</a>&gt; 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;">&nbsp;distributes GPL software (because I don&#39;t buy the idea that selling coupons redeemable at Novell constitutes &#39;distribution&#39; any more than giving McDonald&#39;s gift certificates to my daughter would make me a restaurant).
<br></blockquote></div><br></span>It doesn&#39;t have to &quot;make you a restaurant&quot;.&nbsp; Does it, OTOH, to use a closer analogy, make you &quot;involved in conveying McDonald&#39;s gift certificates&quot;?</blockquote>
<div><br>But the gift certificates aren&#39;t food.&nbsp; And a Novell support voucher isn&#39;t GPLed software.&nbsp; The argument that MS giving such a voucher is &#39;distributing software&#39; is just ridiculous, and I can&#39;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 &quot;conveyance&quot; of the covered software, and therefore covered by the license.
</blockquote><div><br>I don&#39;t see how it&#39;s possible.&nbsp; Furthermore, I think that the FSF might have gotten hustled.&nbsp; This only plays into the &quot;GPL is viral; if you use any GPL software the FSF pwns j00!!!!11111&quot; FUD.&nbsp; Only it isn&#39;t entirely FUD anymore with the FSF making such claims.
<br></div><br></div><br>