Getting Ready for GPL 3.0: Call the Lawyers

Arggggggggggghh!! Stop quoting Microsoft shills. Don't you know that Microsoft is using its proxies to make people scared of the GPLv3?

Open sourcerers do battle for GPLv3

,----[ Quote ] | Mark Taylor, a former head of the Open Source Consortium in the UK, | thinks the whole thing is being blown out of all proportion. | | He told us: "The only people worrying about the GPL draft are people | like ACT. Everyone else is really pleased with the draft. The original | GPL aimed to prevent deals like the one between Novell and Microsoft. | They just found a loophole. This draft closes it." `----

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/04/10/open_gpl3/

Clearing up anti-GPL3 FUD

,----[ Quote ] | Some of the bad publicity about GPL3 is deliberate. A particularly | bad article by Dan Lyons of Forbes magazine painted an offensive | picture of GPL3 and Richard Stallman, even accusing Stallman of | having sex with flowers (!!!) after Lyons failed to comprehend | a scientific joke. `----

http://technocrat.net/d/2007/3/22/16651/

Perens Lashes Out at Claims GPL 3 Brings Legal Risks

,----[ Quote ] | "Let's make it clear that [ACT] is Microsoft's lobbying front and | that they are going to paint as negative a picture as they can," | Perens told eWEEK in an interview. | | "Obviously, GPL software is displacing Microsoft enough to have | them concerned, and it's doing it at customers who are important | to them. A lawyer's job is to scare the other side if they can--because | they know it's cheaper than winning a case in court," he said. `----

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2112267,00.asp

ACT ['Microsoft pressure group?'] Warns of Legal Risk with Latest GPL Draft

,----[ Quote ] | But ACT, a Washington-based technology lobby group whose membership | includes large companies like eBay, Oracle, Orbitz and VeriSign, and | which was founded in 1998 in response to the Microsoft antitrust case, | is largely dismissed by those in the open-source community as nothing | more than a lobby group for the interests of Microsoft and those | other large corporations. `----

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Association_for_C...

,----[ Quote ] | "ACT has been accused of being an industry front for Microsoft, | promoting a Microsoft-friendly agenda in relation to property rights | and anti-trust legislation." `----

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Association_for_C...

,----[ Quote ] | Long before it employed bloggers to do the job for it, Microsoft hired | sympathetic members of the public to make its case in online forums, | posing as disinterested citizens. Things got much more professional as | the antitrust trial unfurled. After hiring DCI in the late 1990s, | Microsoft created two new trade groups, the Association for Competitive | Technology (ACT), and the Americans for Technology Leadership (ALT), | and marshaled campaigns such as "Freedom to Innovate" - encouraging | Windows users the chance to make spontaneous gestures of support for | Chairman Bill. | | These weren't always too successful. A campaign in 2001 to petition 17 | state's Attorney Generals - who had pooled resources to bring their | own antitrust action against Microsoft - resulted in supportive letters | being written by dead people. | | And the astroturf taint continues today. | | Most recently, a spoof video portraying Al Gore as a Penguin was reported | to have originated from a computer registered to the DCI Group, although | the lobby group said it did not fund or approve the video. `----

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/14/google_lobby/

Related:

Rob Enderle: 'I started writing about Linux because I was told I couldn't and the more people told me I couldn't, and particularly when they said 'or else,' the more the Linux dirty laundry became attractive to me'

Rob Enderle: 'I saw what appeared to be a word-for-word copy of about every third line of code in the central module of the Linux kernel'

Rob Enderle: 'many Linux supporters are a bunch of potty-mouthed malcontents. Enterprises are better off staying away from Linux and open source'

Rob Enderle: 'Linux is being widely used on the desktop in the third world, where applications are limited and labor is inexpensive..' Rob Enderle

Rob Enderle: 'I have a hard time seeing the Zealots as any different from terrorist... I strongly believe that if September 11 showed us anything, it was that zealots'

Linux fails to defend itself against imaginary FUD problem

,----[ Quote ] | I wouldn't normally respond to pleas for attention, but Rob Enderle's | latest piece on Linux and FUD cannot escape comment. `----

http://www.businessreviewonline.com/os/archives/2007/02/linu...

Microsoft Xbox to Join the Battle for Video Downloading

,----[ Quote ] | Editors' Note: November 10, 2006, Friday An article in Business Day | on Tuesday described a decision by Microsoft to offer movies and | episodes of television shows for downloading through its Xbox Live | online service in the United States. | | The article quoted Rob Enderle, principal analyst at the Enderle | Group, discussing the features that set Xbox Live service apart | and its position in the market. | | But the article did not note that Mr. Enderle had Microsoft as a client, | a fact later pointed out by a reader. Mr. Enderle does consulting work | for several of Microsoft's product groups, though not for the one | developing the Xbox; still, had The Times known of Mr. Enderle's work | for Microsoft, it would not have sought out his opinion on the product. `----

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50713F83A5B... http://tinyurl.com/y3avsv

NY Times bans Microsoft analysts from Microsoft stories

,----[ Quote ] | The New York Times continues to perplex with its analyst- quoting | policy. Rather than having analysts declare their ties to clients, | the paper would prefer to quote analysts that have no experience | with a client - a protocol which seems to undermine the very point | of citing analysts. | | The Register this week started pushing the Times to explain its | quoting stance after noticing that Rob Enderle - the most quoted | technology analyst on the planet - had been blocked from commenting | on companies with which he has a financial relationship. The ban | against Enderle appeared odd, given that Times reporters continue | to cite analysts from larger firms who also have financial | relationships with the companies discussed. | | [...] | | As it turns out, there's a cottage industry devoted to Rob | Enderle, where Linux zealots fire off this form letter to editors | whenever Enderle appears talking about Microsoft. Perhaps the Linux | crowd could put its fabled collective mind toward creating letters | for all the major analysts. Lord knows, the Times could use | some help. `----

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/12/15/nytimes_ms_ban/

To free software partisans that subscribe to RMS's philosophy on software, this article reeks of ignorance. I'm probably being trolled for responding like this.

> What makes the GPL different is that it has built within it provisions that ensure people who develop custom code on GPL’d products contribute to the overall software effort. In effect, it has built-in payment terms, but in this case the payment is intellectual property, not cash.

GPL is not about "contributing to the overall software effort"; the GPL is all about __ensuring the user has the right to **use, modify, share AND publish improvements** to the software that the user runs on their **own computer systems**__. There is no payment of IP; it is about ensuring the user's freedom.

> The Free Software Foundation, the organization driving this license type, has as a primary goal the elimination of software intellectual property rights to promote broader collaboration and increase innovation.

Wrong. The FSF's goal is to advocate the use of "free software" through education and supporting the development of various free software projects.

> Enforcing the 3.0 version of the GPL will be a nightmare, largely due to its complexity,

If you understand GPLv2, it's not difficult to understand GPLv3. Enforcing works covered under GPLv3 is just as difficult as enforcing any other copyrighted work.

> I doubt we will know the full scope of the license change for some time after it is put into place. ... I doubt we will know the full scope of the license change for some time after it is put into place.

If you read the licence, it tells you the scope. The majority of the terms of the licence applies to **redistribution** requirements and restrictions for a covered program.

> You can’t hide from it [GPLv3] or dodge it [GPLv3], and eventually it will either be used to your benefit or used to your detriment. The key difference is knowledge.

This is probably the most insightful thing in this article.

> So What Is the Real Truth Behind GPL 3.0? It is a contract, one you probably can’t change, one that needs appropriate approval, and one you should treat with the same deference and concern as any other contract.

The GNU General Public **License** is NOT A CONTRACT. The GPL is a licence agreement. Nobody has signed any contract. The owner of the code licenses the redistribution of the code to the user through the GPL. The only time that the licensing agreement takes place is when the user chooses to **redistribute any part of the covered work**.