Microsoft's reignites its war on Linux

"every dog has his day"

I'm just thinking this dog might be smarter than we think.

MS already had its day. They're just screaming on their way down.

I'm talking about a different dog

>MS already had its day. They're just screaming on their way down.

Problem is that it's a long trip and lots of mischief can be made during the ride.

Bill's dog was always an ankle biter. As a pup, he piddled in inappropriate places and as he got bigger that behavior got even worse.Now a huge poorly controlled monster, he not only pees in the corner, but, poops on the rug as well. No one wants to go near him for fear of being bitten. It's such a shame when a potentially good dog goes this bad. My understanding is that even the dog whisperer has turned this one down. The humane thing is to put him down.

>I'm talking about a different dog

not one of these dogs then?..... ;-P

http://blogs.business2.com/business2blog/2007/05/yahoo_and_m...

More like http://www.pecancitypedalers.org/images/bad_dog.jpg

Microsoft: If you can't innovate, then litigate.

Dave

I'm talking about a rather Novel dog. One that Bill kicked around a bit, the same one that recently got kicked around by a different community.

Quoting:Why should Microsoft care? Because, Microsoft, by distributing SLES (SUSE Linux Enterprise Server) certificates to customers such as Dell, as part of the Novell/Microsoft partnership, may have just placed any IP they might or might not have in Linux, under the GPL.

No, that's not just open-source fanboy talk. Prominent open-source lawyers, like Eben Moglen, the executive director of the Software Freedom Law Center, believe that by distributing the SLES certificates, Microsoft has become a Linux distributor, and therefore subject to the GPL.

For Microsoft, being subject to the GPL in any way, shape, or form would be a nightmare scenario. If they can get some leverage in their fight to get away from the GPL by getting people frightened of open source, they will.

Are we all missing something?

Interesting but I'm not sure how well that argument holds up.

You can intentionally include proprietary stuff in a linux distro that is not released under the GPL. Which means that even if they distribute an "infringing" product it in no way frees that code to GPL. They have the legal right to distribute their IP in any way they choose.

So under GPL2 and possibly 3 depending on how MS lawyers manage to twist things, its a big ... so what.

Picture this, M$ could do their own linux under GPL whatever and include their own IP without having to release their proprietary code or patents to the GPL. It would come in under "added value".

I'm sorry but it is going to take a heck of a lot more than MS passing linux CD's or certificated around to remove the IP monkey.

Yes, but by distributing alleged infringing code as FOSS under the GPL, they may have made themselves subject to the GPL.

The other thing, of course, is that their alleged patents are only worth anything, so long as they don't bring them out in the open, and they can spread enough FUD to panic enough people fast enough. But I can't see that happening.

Personally I don't see the monkey as being very big or very dangerous, it's more like a very small capuchin, very noisy yes.

>Yes, but by distributing alleged infringing code as FOSS under the GPL, they may have made themselves subject to the GPL.

No.

At most it makes them subject to copyright infringement actions. Nothing more and nothing less.

So Eben Moglen would be wrong?

Dino:

Doesn't distributing SuSE under the GPL mean that Microsoft acknowledges that the GPL license on the code is valid? If Microsoft has knowledge that the GPL licensing of that code is invalid (i.e., if they hold patents invalidating the license), they should not be distributing it.

It would seem to me that distributing it anyway would effectively grant an automatic exemption to the patents in question, as that's the only legal way they could be distributing it (edit: and of course we know Microsoft would never knowingly break the law).

Added: Of course, that assumes that selling the Novell licenses makes them a distributor. I think that's a point which could be argued.

jdixon -

Microsoft's acknowledgement of the GPL's validity has about as much relevance as the price of tea in China does to the Bulls' chances (good) against the Pistons tonight.

When distributing GPL'd software, Microsoft must abide by the terms of the GPL. Otherwise, they have no right to distribute and are subject to enforcement actions by the copyright holders.

Tracyanne -

Sorry, kneejerk on my part. Yes, if you distribute GPL'd software, you are obligated to obey the terms of the license. I'm used to the implication that Microsoft would then have to GPL its code, which it most certainly would not.

Your missing one point, their is no onus on them to release anything under anything if they are distributing their own code. This is further complicated by telling the producer of that distro that they can safely use any and all IP. That permission was given prior to MS moving a single unit which means that Novell/SUSE can freely use and include that same IP without Microsoft having to free anything, as whatever is in SUSE immediately becomes a non-issue.

tracyanne brings up a point that others have brought before, it would most likely be patent armageddon for M$ to pursue their claims.

Unfortunately it does not mean that it cant or wont, nor does all the "they have nothing anyway" wishful thinking mean that they don't actually have a couple of valid show stoppers. We dont actually KNOW that they don't.

IANAL so take all that with a grain of whatever you find handy. I'm just trying to put myself into their shoes, and with all their money and resources we would be crazy to assume that they didn't take into account what the ramifications of the Novell deal would bring..

> their is no onus on them to release anything under anything if they are distributing their own code

But remember that this gets into that boring business over what is a derivative work. If they are distributing GPL'd software, they would be in violation of the GPL (v2 or v3) if it contains their patents. If Linux really does include Microsoft patents, then anyone, including Microsoft, Novell, Dell, or Richard Stallman, is in violation of the GPL when distributing Linux.

That doesn't necessarily mean that Microsoft gives up their patents, but it does mean Microsoft is violating the license.

>That doesn't necessarily mean that Microsoft gives up their patents, but it does mean Microsoft is violating the license.

Yes, which is what I said in my post. They become subject to relief under copyright law.

Quoting:First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/mohandasga103630....

Bully Ballmer trying to raise the fight up a notch or two?

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then ... Dachau.

Ghandi's quote works well when you consider the frame of reference in which it was made. His passive resistance movement had something like a 10000:1 advantage over the foreign government that was devastating his country.

In this conflict "we" do not have the luxury of superior numbers, Sun Tzu is much more applicable here than Ghandi.

Numbers? Did anyone say numbers? We do have the numbers and they're growing every day. If you look at almost any site that has comments, it's like playing wack-a-mole with the Microsofties. Whenever one pops up, he gets hammered by a dozen comments. The only sites you won't see this on are the strictly Microsoft sites. Why is this? Because although 90% of computers run Windows, most of those users are none techies. Of the techies, we hold a majority. Either that or the Microsoft techies are too busy fixing their Windows installations.

> ...over the foreign government that was devastating his country.

I'd call that a mischaracterization (hmm, Firefox doesn't recognize the word, oh well) of Britain's rule over India. There is no doubt India should have been given it's independence, but saying Britain was "devastating" the country is probably not accurate.

>There is no doubt India should have been given it's independence, but saying Britain was "devastating" the country is probably not accurate.

Well...the potential was there. Had the Empire gone on another century, I'm sure British cuisine would have spread throughout the world. Talk about devastating!

> ...British cuisine would have spread throughout the world. Talk about devastating!

So I take it you're not a big fan of fish and chips. However, in general, I agree.

Fortunately, most of the transfer seems to have gone the other way. I understand curry is extremely popular in Britain.

Oh 'struth! Don't you blokes know anything about Cornish Pasties? How the world revolves on its axis without them is known only to the Queen!

Quoting:How the world revolves on its axis without them is known only to the Queen!

Which Queen? I know several in Sydney.

> Cornish Pasties dcparris: There is a capitol thought! Many of us however rather enjoy our quick bite o' scone or cake during afternoon tea at 16:00. This 16:00 tea is not limited at all to GMT by the way.

Quoting:The author of a report used by Microsoft as evidence of open source patent infringement has said that his report means the opposite of what Microsoft chief executive Steve Ballmer said it means.

http://www.out-law.com/page-8052

Oh, that rare combination of arrogance and stupidity.