Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-amd64 (26 mails)
| < Previous | Next > |
Re: [opensuse-amd64] OpenSuSE and MS-Novell deal.
- From: "Paul C. Leopardi" <paul.leopardi@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2006 16:10:06 +1100
- Message-id: <200611181610.06679.paul.leopardi@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Hi Jim,
Thanks. I'll take it point by point below.
Best, Paul
On Saturday 18 November 2006 15:34, Jim Stalewski wrote:
> OK, I'll try to explain it to you.
> Read on.
>
> --- "Paul C. Leopardi" <paul.leopardi@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> wrote:
...
> > As to specifics, under "Non-Assertion of Patents
> > Pledge" is stated:
> > "Microsoft hereby covenants not to assert Microsoft
> > Patents against each
> > Individual Contributor (also referred to as
> > “You”) for Your distribution of
> > Your personally authored original work (“Original
> > Work”) directly to
> > openSUSE.org, but only if, and to the extent, (i)
> > Your Original Work becomes
> > part of SUSE Linux, SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop or
> > SUSE Linux Enterprise
> > Server, and (ii) You ensure that as a result of Your
> > contribution,
> > openSUSE.org, and all further recipients of Your
> > Original Work, do not
> > receive any licenses, covenants or any other rights
> > under any Microsoft
> > intellectual property. This pledge is personal to
> > You and does not apply to
> > any use or distribution of Your Original Work by
> > others."
>
> What that means is, if anything contributed to
> OpenSuSE makes its way into SuSE Linux Enterprise,
> then Microsoft promises not to try to extort anything
> from you based on a claim of Microsoft IP being part
> of whatever you contributed to.
Read it again. It doesn't say just "SuSE Linux Enterprise". It says
"SUSE Linux, SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop or SUSE Linux Enterprise
Server". It specifically says "SUSE Linux". And you know as well as I do that
that is the same distro as "openSUSE" as at version 10.2.
> Again, that's 1) not laying claim to the existence of
> M$ IP in Linux, whatever the distro - it's a promise
> that IF (big if) they find something in Linux that
> happens to be part of the project you contributed to
> under the OpenSuSE project, and it's been accepted as
> part of a SuSE Linux Enterprise release, you won't be
> a party to any action, and 2) does not affect OpenSuSE
> or any of the associated projects in any way.
> Essentially, the change is only for anything that gets
> into SuSE Linux Enterprise, and it's a promise not to
> exercise IP "rights." Without this agreement, there
> is NO promise not to exercise IP "rights" against ANY
> contributor to ANY OSS project. Duh.
It *does* affect openSUSE. What do think "SUSE Linux" is?
> As to provision ii - that's leaving M$ an "out" to
> allow them to pursue royalties if you distribute
> otherwise-licensed-by-Microsoft IP. That doesn't
> violate the "copyleft." It affirms it - under the
> GPL, you're not supposed to be able to legally
> distribute someone else's otherwise-licensed IP. The
> GPL covers that - and is why things like Macromedia
> Flash doesn't get distributed in "free" GPL-based
> distros but have to be obtained through other means
> (also free, but not GPL.)
It does not say "otherwise-licensed-by-Microsoft IP". It specifically says
"any licenses, covenants or any other rights under any Microsoft intellectual
property". Read that again. *Any* licenses. *Any* Microsoft intellectual
property. "Any licenses" must include the GPL, if applicable, just as "Any
Microsoft intellectual property" must include Microsoft copyright.
> > One important thing to note here is that "SUSE
> > Linux" is now "openSUSE".
> > See
>
> http://lists.opensuse.org/archive/opensuse-announce/2006-Jul/msg00001.html
>
>
> Yes, but the agreement is NOT for "SuSE Linux AKA
> OpenSuSE." It is for SuSE Linux Enterprise, which is
> the commercial Novell distro (server and desktop) that
> are only available for a fee. Don't try to twist the
> language to fit your interpretation by equating the
> rename of the OSS project to the name of the
> commercial distro.
I am commenting on the patent pledge, not on anything else. There is nothing
in the patent pledge which distinguishes between SUSE Linux", SUSE Linux
Enterprise Desktop and SUSE Linux Enterprise Server.
> > Condition (ii) is of most interest to me. It refers
> > to "any Microsoft
> > intellectual property" but does not refer to any
> > definition of this. I will
> > now give a hypothetical example which at least to me
> > shows how this condition
> > potentially violates the GPL and any similar
> > "copyleft" licences.
> >
> > Let's say that Microsoft releases some software
> > ("A") under the GPL.
> > ( This is not impossible. For example, parts of
> > "Utilities and SDK for
> > UNIX-based Applications" are licenced via the GPL.
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/R2/unixcomponents/webinstall.msp
>x
>
> > )
> > Now, what happens when Microsoft updates or patches
> > the GPL code "A"? In order
> > for Microsoft to continue distributing code "A"
> > under the GPL, Microsoft must
> > distribute the patch ("B") under the GPL. That is,
> > Microsoft intellectual
> > property, that is the copyright for patch "B", must
> > be licenced using the
> > GPL. Now, lets say you as a developer receive GPL
> > code "A" with Microsoft
> > patch "B", and you want to add to it and contribute
> > it to openSUSE.org. Under
> > condition (ii) you must ensure that "as a result of
> > Your contribution,
> > openSUSE.org, and all further recipients of Your
> > Original Work, do not
> > receive any licenses, covenants or any other rights
> > under any Microsoft
> > intellectual property". But you can't ensure this,
> > because code "A" with
> > patch "B" is licensed under the GPL, which is
> > incompatible with condition
> > (ii). The GPL is incompatible with condition (ii)
> > because it insists that all
> > recipients have the right to further distribution
> > under the GPL.
>
> That's where your logic falls apart. If M$
> distributes patch B under the GPL, they can't lay
> claim to any other licensing rights to the IP - the
> GPL forces them to give that IP to the OSS community.
> If they try to charge for it, they are in violation of
> the GPL and are open to legal judgment against them.
It does not matter whether or not Microsoft claims any *other* licensing
rights. Condition (ii) says that I as a developer ensure that recipients do
not receive *any* licenses under *any* Microsoft intellectual property. As I
explain above, this *must* include the GPL, where applicable. So the GPL
itself ensures that Condition (ii) cannot apply. So Condition (ii) is not
compatible with the GPL. So, as a developer, I cannot agree to Condition (ii)
if GPL software is involved, just in case some portion the software might
have a Microsoft copyright attached to it.
> > I am not a lawyer, but I think my understanding of
> > this hypothetical case is
> > pretty watertight. If you can do so, please hire a
> > lawyer to show me where my
> > reasoning is faulty.
>
> Yah, like I'm gonna hire a lawyer to refute the
> opinion of an omitted non-lawyer in a newsgroup
> thread. I already pointed out the major flaw in your
> reasoning.
No you did not.
You yourself claim that the GPL overrides Condition (ii). "If M$ distributes
patch B under the GPL, they can't lay claim to any other licensing rights to
the IP - the GPL forces them to give that IP to the OSS community." More
exactly, if Microsoft distributes patch B under the GPL, it comes under the
copyleft provisions of the GPL and all recipients receive the GPL for patch
B, which is a license under Microsoft intellectual property, since patch B is
under Microsoft copyright.
> > ...
> > Do you or does anyone on this maling list know if
> > openSUSE.org plans to
> > include the provision 'openSUSE.org agrees ...
> > openSUSE.org.' above into
> > its "binding contribution agreement"? Who decides if
> > this provision is to be
> > included? Novell? If this provision is included,
> > would developers agree to
> > it? For example, would the Samba team agree to it?
> > http://news.samba.org/announcements/team_to_novell/
> >
> > OK, now, could again please explain to me how
> > "OpenSuSE is not part of the M$
> > agreement"?
>
> I have seen nothing to indicate that contributors to
> the OpenSuSE project will be asked to sign on to or
> otherwise agree to any kind of "binding contribution
> agreement" of the sort Microsoft is talking about in
> the blurb you quoted. Everything I've seen stresses
> Novell's commitment to the open source community and
> adherence to its principles.
OK, if there will be no "binding contribution agreement" then why is Microsoft
talking about it? Microsoft is one of the two parties to the deal. Are you
suggesting that Microsoft does not know what it is talking about?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-amd64+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-amd64+help@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Thanks. I'll take it point by point below.
Best, Paul
On Saturday 18 November 2006 15:34, Jim Stalewski wrote:
> OK, I'll try to explain it to you.
> Read on.
>
> --- "Paul C. Leopardi" <paul.leopardi@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> wrote:
...
> > As to specifics, under "Non-Assertion of Patents
> > Pledge" is stated:
> > "Microsoft hereby covenants not to assert Microsoft
> > Patents against each
> > Individual Contributor (also referred to as
> > “You”) for Your distribution of
> > Your personally authored original work (“Original
> > Work”) directly to
> > openSUSE.org, but only if, and to the extent, (i)
> > Your Original Work becomes
> > part of SUSE Linux, SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop or
> > SUSE Linux Enterprise
> > Server, and (ii) You ensure that as a result of Your
> > contribution,
> > openSUSE.org, and all further recipients of Your
> > Original Work, do not
> > receive any licenses, covenants or any other rights
> > under any Microsoft
> > intellectual property. This pledge is personal to
> > You and does not apply to
> > any use or distribution of Your Original Work by
> > others."
>
> What that means is, if anything contributed to
> OpenSuSE makes its way into SuSE Linux Enterprise,
> then Microsoft promises not to try to extort anything
> from you based on a claim of Microsoft IP being part
> of whatever you contributed to.
Read it again. It doesn't say just "SuSE Linux Enterprise". It says
"SUSE Linux, SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop or SUSE Linux Enterprise
Server". It specifically says "SUSE Linux". And you know as well as I do that
that is the same distro as "openSUSE" as at version 10.2.
> Again, that's 1) not laying claim to the existence of
> M$ IP in Linux, whatever the distro - it's a promise
> that IF (big if) they find something in Linux that
> happens to be part of the project you contributed to
> under the OpenSuSE project, and it's been accepted as
> part of a SuSE Linux Enterprise release, you won't be
> a party to any action, and 2) does not affect OpenSuSE
> or any of the associated projects in any way.
> Essentially, the change is only for anything that gets
> into SuSE Linux Enterprise, and it's a promise not to
> exercise IP "rights." Without this agreement, there
> is NO promise not to exercise IP "rights" against ANY
> contributor to ANY OSS project. Duh.
It *does* affect openSUSE. What do think "SUSE Linux" is?
> As to provision ii - that's leaving M$ an "out" to
> allow them to pursue royalties if you distribute
> otherwise-licensed-by-Microsoft IP. That doesn't
> violate the "copyleft." It affirms it - under the
> GPL, you're not supposed to be able to legally
> distribute someone else's otherwise-licensed IP. The
> GPL covers that - and is why things like Macromedia
> Flash doesn't get distributed in "free" GPL-based
> distros but have to be obtained through other means
> (also free, but not GPL.)
It does not say "otherwise-licensed-by-Microsoft IP". It specifically says
"any licenses, covenants or any other rights under any Microsoft intellectual
property". Read that again. *Any* licenses. *Any* Microsoft intellectual
property. "Any licenses" must include the GPL, if applicable, just as "Any
Microsoft intellectual property" must include Microsoft copyright.
> > One important thing to note here is that "SUSE
> > Linux" is now "openSUSE".
> > See
>
> http://lists.opensuse.org/archive/opensuse-announce/2006-Jul/msg00001.html
>
>
> Yes, but the agreement is NOT for "SuSE Linux AKA
> OpenSuSE." It is for SuSE Linux Enterprise, which is
> the commercial Novell distro (server and desktop) that
> are only available for a fee. Don't try to twist the
> language to fit your interpretation by equating the
> rename of the OSS project to the name of the
> commercial distro.
I am commenting on the patent pledge, not on anything else. There is nothing
in the patent pledge which distinguishes between SUSE Linux", SUSE Linux
Enterprise Desktop and SUSE Linux Enterprise Server.
> > Condition (ii) is of most interest to me. It refers
> > to "any Microsoft
> > intellectual property" but does not refer to any
> > definition of this. I will
> > now give a hypothetical example which at least to me
> > shows how this condition
> > potentially violates the GPL and any similar
> > "copyleft" licences.
> >
> > Let's say that Microsoft releases some software
> > ("A") under the GPL.
> > ( This is not impossible. For example, parts of
> > "Utilities and SDK for
> > UNIX-based Applications" are licenced via the GPL.
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/R2/unixcomponents/webinstall.msp
>x
>
> > )
> > Now, what happens when Microsoft updates or patches
> > the GPL code "A"? In order
> > for Microsoft to continue distributing code "A"
> > under the GPL, Microsoft must
> > distribute the patch ("B") under the GPL. That is,
> > Microsoft intellectual
> > property, that is the copyright for patch "B", must
> > be licenced using the
> > GPL. Now, lets say you as a developer receive GPL
> > code "A" with Microsoft
> > patch "B", and you want to add to it and contribute
> > it to openSUSE.org. Under
> > condition (ii) you must ensure that "as a result of
> > Your contribution,
> > openSUSE.org, and all further recipients of Your
> > Original Work, do not
> > receive any licenses, covenants or any other rights
> > under any Microsoft
> > intellectual property". But you can't ensure this,
> > because code "A" with
> > patch "B" is licensed under the GPL, which is
> > incompatible with condition
> > (ii). The GPL is incompatible with condition (ii)
> > because it insists that all
> > recipients have the right to further distribution
> > under the GPL.
>
> That's where your logic falls apart. If M$
> distributes patch B under the GPL, they can't lay
> claim to any other licensing rights to the IP - the
> GPL forces them to give that IP to the OSS community.
> If they try to charge for it, they are in violation of
> the GPL and are open to legal judgment against them.
It does not matter whether or not Microsoft claims any *other* licensing
rights. Condition (ii) says that I as a developer ensure that recipients do
not receive *any* licenses under *any* Microsoft intellectual property. As I
explain above, this *must* include the GPL, where applicable. So the GPL
itself ensures that Condition (ii) cannot apply. So Condition (ii) is not
compatible with the GPL. So, as a developer, I cannot agree to Condition (ii)
if GPL software is involved, just in case some portion the software might
have a Microsoft copyright attached to it.
> > I am not a lawyer, but I think my understanding of
> > this hypothetical case is
> > pretty watertight. If you can do so, please hire a
> > lawyer to show me where my
> > reasoning is faulty.
>
> Yah, like I'm gonna hire a lawyer to refute the
> opinion of an omitted non-lawyer in a newsgroup
> thread. I already pointed out the major flaw in your
> reasoning.
No you did not.
You yourself claim that the GPL overrides Condition (ii). "If M$ distributes
patch B under the GPL, they can't lay claim to any other licensing rights to
the IP - the GPL forces them to give that IP to the OSS community." More
exactly, if Microsoft distributes patch B under the GPL, it comes under the
copyleft provisions of the GPL and all recipients receive the GPL for patch
B, which is a license under Microsoft intellectual property, since patch B is
under Microsoft copyright.
> > ...
> > Do you or does anyone on this maling list know if
> > openSUSE.org plans to
> > include the provision 'openSUSE.org agrees ...
> > openSUSE.org.' above into
> > its "binding contribution agreement"? Who decides if
> > this provision is to be
> > included? Novell? If this provision is included,
> > would developers agree to
> > it? For example, would the Samba team agree to it?
> > http://news.samba.org/announcements/team_to_novell/
> >
> > OK, now, could again please explain to me how
> > "OpenSuSE is not part of the M$
> > agreement"?
>
> I have seen nothing to indicate that contributors to
> the OpenSuSE project will be asked to sign on to or
> otherwise agree to any kind of "binding contribution
> agreement" of the sort Microsoft is talking about in
> the blurb you quoted. Everything I've seen stresses
> Novell's commitment to the open source community and
> adherence to its principles.
OK, if there will be no "binding contribution agreement" then why is Microsoft
talking about it? Microsoft is one of the two parties to the deal. Are you
suggesting that Microsoft does not know what it is talking about?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-amd64+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-amd64+help@xxxxxxxxxxxx
| < Previous | Next > |