Say "Bye-Bye SCO!"

[Joe Fish]

>>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.

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.

Does it seem plausible that MS could be restricted in distributing
certificates by copyright law?  Not to me, but, again, its not ME you have
to convince.  From my OP:

" ... law does not specialize in logic."

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).

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.

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.

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.

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?

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070830/143225.shtml





JOE


On 9/24/07, Monty J. Harder <mjharder at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 9/23/07, Joe Fish <reverend.joe at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >  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).
> > >
> >
> > 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"?
>
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://kclug.org/pipermail/kclug/attachments/20070924/2fc16ebe/attachment.htm