Say "Bye-Bye SCO!"

Tue Sep 25 07:02:31 CDT 2007

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.

On 9/25/07, leenix <leenix at kc.rr.com> wrote:
>
> Hello All:
>
> I am totally new to this group, so forgive me if I overstep. I am also
> not an expert on ANY version of the GPL. But I am reading your posts and
> am actually learning a bit about them. For that, I thank you.
>
> If I am right, I believe what Joe is talking about is not necessarily
> the law, but how people might distort the law for their own ends. All
> mothers have baby pictures of their kids naked. (or maybe they don't and
> I need some therapy :0)) Does this mean they're guilty of child
> pornography? Practically, no. Technically, yes.
>
> Again, I am just a lowly programmer and know very little about the
> technicalities of the GPL, so forgive me if I sound stupid or am talking
> out of my hind parts.
>
> I am also very interested in what the MAIN differences are between GPL
> V1, 2 and 3. Is there somewhere to get a simple explanation of these
> from someone who has no stake? You can read some things about them on
> blogs, but they are always bashing v3  or loving it. I haven't found a
> place with someone just explaining the licenses.
>
> Thanks again,
> Lee
>
>
> On Mon, 2007-09-24 at 12:11 -0500, Joe Fish wrote:
> > >>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.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Kclug mailing list
> > Kclug at kclug.org
> > http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
>
> _______________________________________________
> Kclug mailing list
> Kclug at kclug.org
> http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://kclug.org/pipermail/kclug/attachments/20070925/41cfa28e/attachment-0001.htm 