But Mr. Gates...it was just one little mistake!!!

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070518124020691

  1. Microsoft makes nasty deal with Novell agreeing that it won’t sue Novell’s (paying) Linux customers for patent violations.

  2. Microsoft prints many many vouchers for copies of Novell Linux.

  3. The vouchers don’t have an expiration date.

  4. The GPL v3 goes into effect. At that point when someone turns in a voucher, Microsoft will be distributing code under GPL v3 and will be bound by the terms of that license.

  5. Verbage from the GPL 3:

If, pursuant to or in connection with a single transaction or arrangement, you convey, or propagate by procuring conveyance of, a covered work, and grant a patent license providing freedom to use, propagate, modify or convey a specific copy of the covered work to any of the parties receiving the covered work, then the patent license you grant is automatically extended to all recipients of the covered work and works based on it.

  1. So all Linux users will be automatically protected from being sued by Microsoft for patent violations under Microsoft’s own agreement with Novell. :astonished:

  2. All because someone left off the expiration date on the vouchers. :laughing:

Oops!!! :smiley:

–James

But I don’t get it. Wouldnt only the people who got Linux using the voucher have protection against being sued?

Nope, that’s the beauty of GPL 3: it includes as part of the license that if you grant a patent license to anyone to use all or part of the software, you are also extending that patent license to all users of that software.

They didn’t word the GPL 3 this way to try to trick Microsoft; they did it so that a company (like Microsoft but could just as easily be IBM or Sun or anyone else who holds patents) doesn’t try to take one sort of Linux (like, say, Novell SuSE) and grant only the paying customers of that version of Linux the right to use the patented software.

The reason this is a Bad Thing is that you wind up with one “Microsoft Linux” that’s considered “safe” (and then only if you’ve paid for a license), and the use of any other Linux would put you at risk of being sued.

Also, it puts the folks who participate in Linux development and distribution at risk for patent violation lawsuits.

That’s why the GPL 3 includes this language.

What is funny is that Microsoft evidently didn’t do their homework on this one. There is great irony when the schemes of those who consistently play nasty rebound on them to the ruin of their own plans.

–James

Update:

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070705205728953

Favorite quote (from the comments section):

Microsoft has always, ALWAYS had a final solution for lawsuits. Fight, whine, FUD, complain to the Govt, and finally, if none of that works, throw money at the people that caught you with your hands in the cookie jar until they smile and go away (and sign a partnership deal with you so that they are out of business in a few years).

Someone at M$ just got hit with the clue bat and realized that that won’t work this time. The people and organizations that have the IP rights tied up by the GPL simply won’t go away when you throw money at them.

I’m quite certain that this scares the daylights out of many many someones at M$.

–James

Oh I so hope there isn’t a get-out for MS to slime through.

I barely understand this issue, but I like what I am perceiving here.

In really truncated terms, it’s just more of the same dog and pony show that Microhard has been perpitrating for ages.

Hey, uh, didn’t the gubmint spend all that money to break up Microhard so things like this wouldn’t happen anymore :laughing: , or maybe that’s AT$T I’m thinking of :laughing:

is our corporations learning? that’s the ral qwestion!!

Eben Moglen on GPLv3


Here is a video of a speech Eben Moglen gave last week on the GPLv3. Apart from interesting background on the 18-months-long process, Eben discusses the social and legal effects of modern information technology, which has lowered the marginal cost of distributing knowledge to zero. Here is a taste from the transcript:

Galileo Galilei’s decision to publish in Italian is as important as his decision to risk confrontation with the Church, for what it says about the fundamental pillars of free science in the history of the West. Not merely, in other words, an insistence upon the freedom of ideas to work their will in skilled hands, but a determination that the ideas which motivate the world, which explain its behaviour, and which render it controllable, should be universally accessible to people regardless of their ability to acquire enough social surplus to have Latin.

We have come, at the end of the 20th, and the beginning of the 21st centuries, to an equivalently important moment in the history of human civilisation. A moment at which the principle of the universalisation of free knowledge becomes, for technical reasons, universally fulfillable. Where it becomes, for technical reasons, possible for the first time in the history of human beings, to bring all useful and beautiful knowledge to everybody without regard to the ability to pay. We are, to be sure, at a minimum a generation from the achievement of that goal, but we have never in the history of human beings been within one generation of the achievement of that goal before.

The principal social alteration which brings about this epochal change in the nature of human society is the digitisation of knowledge. The onset of a frictionless mechanism for storing and forwarding information, for switching it in any direction that it is desired to go, by either of the endpoints in any point-to-point transaction for knowledge. We have now learned, at the end of the 20th and beginning of the 21st centuries, how to use the common property in the electromagnetic spectrum, and common physical materials, cheaply integratable into mechanical and electro-mechanical devices, to spread knowledge infinitely wide and infinitely thin.

We can produce anything of value, utility, or beauty that can be represented by a bitstream, which increasingly means all beautiful and useful human activity, anywhere, at any time, to anyone, at no more cost than the fixed cost which created the first copy of the relevant bitstream. That fixed cost may be, under certain circumstances, very substantial. There is no question that it continues to cost money to acquire knowledge and to represent it in beautiful and useful ways.

But what has changed is that the marginal cost of the additional copy of each bitstream has gone to zero, and with that change fundamental economic reordering begins in global society. By the end of the first quarter of the 21st century, almost everything which it has been in the past the purpose of industrial civilisation to put into analogue representations of information - music, video, art, useful information concerning the operation of the physical environment, political ideas, comedy, drama - will all be universally represented in dephysicalised forms that it costs nothing to make, move, and deliver.

This is a ridiculous, heartless point of view that belittles the beauty of true, live human interaction – including live unamplified music, which I’m sure many people here realize has a beauty which cannot be digitized. Unfortunately, I think as our culture is becoming more celebrity-obsessed and fetishistically materialistic, more and more people believe the photograph or the video or the recording IS the object or the moment.

Our geometrically increasing ability to do things should be a means of enriching life. I think it is a case of people mistaking the technology for the culture it should enrich.

True as far as it goes.

I do think we may be on the edge of a pretty substantial change in how we view and access information.

However, I don’t think digital media is really “all that;” I still like vinyl records, myself, and best yet is simply live, acoustic music.

A copy is simply never as good as the real thing, IMHO.

It will be interesting to see how this little Micro$oft SNAFU will play out–it just may be this is one battle that can’t be won with just money.

But I may be mistaken: Micro$oft has LOTS of money to play with, and we tend to have the best government money can buy.

–James

I said the ability to do things should be a way to help enrich lives, not the way to enrich lives. New abilities to do things simply changes what people can do with their lives. I feel that living simply and well and having high technology are not incompatible. I put thought into my life. I think that is the secret.

Not enough people do put thought into things, so we get things like the MacroShaft monopoly. Free enterprise is the people practicing their civic duty to make informed decisions as what they will spend money on, so the better products get the financial support they deserve. I purchased Windows 98 and MacroShaft Offal 2000 with my present computer, my first and last MacroShaft purchase. My next computer will run Linux. MacroShaft is falling apart because it is a monopoly and doesn’t need to clean up its internal act to be competitive. Hopefully it implodes in on its self. Any company that spends billions a year on security, when a bunch of hobbyists with free time can make their operating system more secure has real problems.

I think you misunderstand Moglen - the point is not that it is good or desirable to replace things with digitalized forms of them. The point is that through a shift in technology representations of information or art or whatever can be distributed costlessly. That’s a big shift from before because back in the day you either (1) had to be there, or (2) have the money to buy a scroll or book or painting to find out.

Imagine if we might reach a day where all information is stored digitally and we are long past the point of preserving physical versions like books and pages and paintings and so on, and imagine some event, possibly man-made, possibly extraterrestrial, that releases this big burst of energy that ionizes all the storage media so that all the digital information is wiped out, so that we suddenly have no history or information or …

Whadda-ya mean, it’s already been done? :angry:

djm

Maybe even more than once?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OOPART

–James

I understood that point, I’m just making a different one. I think his almost thowaway comment about it being possible to digitize anything worthwhile is an example of an emotionally disconnected, mass-produced relationship with art and human interaction that is becoming more and more prevalent. It’s a completely different thing to sing to your baby (or with your baby), than it is to play a recording for your baby. But fewer and fewer people sing to their children, largely because they feel they don’t measure up to recorded professionals. So children miss out on a bonding experience, and an opportunity to sing along and experiment with music and sound. I know he’s not saying digitized versions of things are as good as the original, but in making his point, I feel he’s revealing a bias for mass-produced commercial “art” and undervaluing the beautiful empathic connections between people that can only happen face-to-face.

What both peeplj and BoneQuint are talking about is called “thread drift.” Neither OOPArt nor the “live versus recorded” have anything to do with freedom of information in the digital information age.

djm