Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Microsoft's GPL FAQ

0 views
Skip to first unread message

petilon

unread,
Jun 20, 2001, 1:56:21 PM6/20/01
to
Microsoft starts a massive FUD campaign against Linux:

http://www.microsoft.com/business/downloads/licensing/gpl_faq.doc

Erik Funkenbusch

unread,
Jun 20, 2001, 4:06:35 PM6/20/01
to
"petilon" <petilonS...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:9gqo4...@drn.newsguy.com...

> Microsoft starts a massive FUD campaign against Linux:
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/business/downloads/licensing/gpl_faq.doc

Hmm.. I don't see a lot of FUD there. In fact, it's quite reasonable and
asks some very reasonable and important questions.

There are a few items which seem to be FUDish, but the vast majority seems
quite reasonable and even mentions various benefits of the GPL. And above
all, they tell you to seek the advice of your own laywers.

Bob Tennent

unread,
Jun 20, 2001, 4:40:33 PM6/20/01
to
On Wed, 20 Jun 2001 15:06:35 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> Hmm.. I don't see a lot of FUD there. In fact, it's quite reasonable and
> asks some very reasonable and important questions.
>
> There are a few items which seem to be FUDish, but the vast majority seems
> quite reasonable and even mentions various benefits of the GPL. And above
> all, they tell you to seek the advice of your own laywers.
>

How kind of Microsoft! And where do they tell their users to seek the advice
of their own lawyers before accepting Microsoft's much more complex and
restrictive EULA?

Mart van de Wege

unread,
Jun 20, 2001, 4:59:52 PM6/20/01
to
In article <9gqo4...@drn.newsguy.com>, "petilon"
<petilonS...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:

> Microsoft starts a massive FUD campaign against Linux:
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/business/downloads/licensing/gpl_faq.doc
>

Start it? There is nothing new there, it's all been rehashed over and over
again before. Some of the arguments are so laughably inconsistent, that
*anyone* (yes even a PHB) can see them for what they are: mud slinging.
M$ FUD's the GPL. Film at 11.

Mart

--
Playing for the high one, dancing with the devil,
Going with the flow, it's all the same to me,
Seven or Eleven, snake eyes watching you,
Double up or quit, double stake or split, The Ace Of Spades

Erik Funkenbusch

unread,
Jun 20, 2001, 4:43:33 PM6/20/01
to
"Mart van de Wege" <mvd...@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
news:20010620.225952...@wanadoo.nl...

> In article <9gqo4...@drn.newsguy.com>, "petilon"
> <petilonS...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Microsoft starts a massive FUD campaign against Linux:
> >
> > http://www.microsoft.com/business/downloads/licensing/gpl_faq.doc
> >
> Start it? There is nothing new there, it's all been rehashed over and over
> again before. Some of the arguments are so laughably inconsistent, that
> *anyone* (yes even a PHB) can see them for what they are: mud slinging.
> M$ FUD's the GPL. Film at 11.

Which specific arguments from the faq do you see as laughable? If you don't
think all of the things mentioned in the FAQ are serious concerns, you
obviously have no concept of legal liability.

Bracy

unread,
Jun 20, 2001, 5:45:07 PM6/20/01
to
In article <oH7Y6.19230$Dd5.3...@ruti.visi.com>, ?Erik Funkenbusch?
<er...@visi.com> wrote:
> Hmm.. I don?t see a lot of FUD there. In fact, it?s quite reasonable and

> asks some very reasonable and important questions. There are a few
> items which seem to be FUDish, but the vast majority seems quite
> reasonable and even mentions various benefits of the GPL. And above
> all, they tell you to seek the advice of your own laywers.

ROFL!!! Ohhhh, that clinches it: You *MUST* be a Microsoft employee.
Normally, people aren't so dishonest unless they have something to gain.

First off, let's get one thing straight: Microsoft is not, nor has ever
been, in the business of "selling" software. They *rent* it. "Buying"
and "selling" necessitates a "transfer of ownership" but when one "buys"
a Microsoft product, no such transfer of ownership takes place --
ownership remains with Microsoft. All the customer receives for his or
her money is a "license"to install and use the product on a single
computer.

It would be analagous to having to buy a "license" every time I let
someone drive my car, or sleep in my guest room. Luckily, such is not
the case. If I buy a house, I *own* the house. I can make improvements
to the house: I can replace the carpet, paint the walls, replace the water
heater or the A/C unit. I can build an extra room onto the house, or a
garage. I can landscape the yard, plant flowers and bushes, and even add
a pool. These are the benefits of ownership. *Renting* a house would not
grant me these privileges, I would need permission from the owner, and even
THEN the improvements would belong to the owner.

(1) "The GPL was developed specifically to discourage the development of
commercial software and eliminate the creation of any long-term economic
value in intellectual property that emerges from a community development
process. "

This is pure bunk. The GPL doesn't discourage the development of
"commercial software," it discourages the development of
CLOSED-SOURCE, PROPRIETARY software. There's a big difference.
Red Hat, SuSE, Mandrake, Conectiva, Caldera, etc. are all "Commercial"
Linux distrubutions. The GPL does not discourage a company from selling
its software and making a profit. Instead, it ENCOURAGES the TRUE SALE
of software (i.e. a TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP). It simply discourages
the RENTAL of software.

Personally, I think it should be illegal for a company such as Microsoft
to claim that they "sell" software. They should be required to replace
the word "sell" in all of their advertising and other literature with the
word "rent" so that people would better understand what they are
receiving for their money.

(2) "This license diminishes, or even eliminates, the symbiotic relationship
between academic and government research and the entire business
community."

This is a blatant lie. The Free Software Movement *GREW OUT OF*
the "academic and government research" community and simply attempts
to maintain the same relationship it's always had. It encourages the
FREE SHARING of knowledge rather than hiding it and locking it up behind
patents!

Bracy

.

unread,
Jun 20, 2001, 7:15:27 PM6/20/01
to

Obviously youve never actually read the GPL, or if you have, you didnt
understand a damn word.


-----.

--
"George Dubya Bush---the best presidency money can buy"

---obviously some Godless commie heathen faggot bastard

Erik Funkenbusch

unread,
Jun 20, 2001, 7:12:50 PM6/20/01
to
"." <yt...@mutilation.net> wrote in message
news:9graqf$qh7$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...

> Erik Funkenbusch <er...@visi.com> wrote:
> > "Mart van de Wege" <mvd...@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
> > news:20010620.225952...@wanadoo.nl...
> >> In article <9gqo4...@drn.newsguy.com>, "petilon"
> >> <petilonS...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Microsoft starts a massive FUD campaign against Linux:
> >> >
> >> > http://www.microsoft.com/business/downloads/licensing/gpl_faq.doc
> >> >
> >> Start it? There is nothing new there, it's all been rehashed over and
over
> >> again before. Some of the arguments are so laughably inconsistent, that
> >> *anyone* (yes even a PHB) can see them for what they are: mud slinging.
> >> M$ FUD's the GPL. Film at 11.
>
> > Which specific arguments from the faq do you see as laughable? If you
don't
> > think all of the things mentioned in the FAQ are serious concerns, you
> > obviously have no concept of legal liability.
>
> Obviously youve never actually read the GPL, or if you have, you didnt
> understand a damn word.

As I suspected, you won't actually mention a specific argument, since doing
so would blow the whole hand waving argument about vague "laughably
inconsistent" arguments.

Come on, just name one. Just one.

Terry Porter

unread,
Jun 20, 2001, 7:50:08 PM6/20/01
to
I find emotive terms like "infected" as used in this document offensive.

Perhaps I should begin describing the Windows as "the Windoze disease" ?

--
Kind Regards from Terry
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
Free Micro burner: http://jsno.downunder.net.au/terry/
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **

Terry Porter

unread,
Jun 20, 2001, 7:54:00 PM6/20/01
to
And if you cant see the difference between a quick buck, gained at the
expense of others, and a 'free' resource then you need to stay in the Windows
newsgroups.

Robert Morelli

unread,
Jun 20, 2001, 8:27:17 PM6/20/01
to
In article <9gqo4...@drn.newsguy.com>, "petilon"
<petilonS...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:


> http://www.microsoft.com/business/downloads/licensing/gpl_faq.doc

Why would you post a link to a proprietary MS format in a
Linux newsgroup?

Richard Thrippleton

unread,
Jun 20, 2001, 10:17:41 PM6/20/01
to
In article <9gqo4...@drn.newsguy.com>, petilon wrote:
>Microsoft starts a massive FUD campaign against Linux:
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/business/downloads/licensing/gpl_faq.doc
>
Doesn't look like FUD to me. Looks like arbitrary binary gibberish
to me that doesn't conform to any known public standard.

Richard

Matthew Gardiner

unread,
Jun 20, 2001, 9:51:38 PM6/20/01
to
petilon wrote:

> Microsoft starts a massive FUD campaign against Linux:
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/business/downloads/licensing/gpl_faq.doc
>
>

Just informed the New Zealand Commerce Commission today. Watch this
space to see if anything grows from here.

Matthew Gardiner

Matthew Gardiner

unread,
Jun 20, 2001, 10:16:53 PM6/20/01
to

>>Start it? There is nothing new there, it's all been rehashed over and over
>>again before. Some of the arguments are so laughably inconsistent, that
>>*anyone* (yes even a PHB) can see them for what they are: mud slinging.
>>M$ FUD's the GPL. Film at 11.
>>
>
> Which specific arguments from the faq do you see as laughable? If you don't
> think all of the things mentioned in the FAQ are serious concerns, you
> obviously have no concept of legal liability.


22. Does your use of GPL code present any issues re shareholder value
and exposure to suit?

In the context of initial public offerings, at least some businesses
based upon GPL software have concluded that such software introduces
risks that should be disclosed as part of the offering. These risks
include: the companies "inability" to offer warranties and indemnities
because the code is developed by independent parties over whom the
offering business has no control or supervision; the uncertain future of
the code base (will further development occur and, if so, in what
direction); the availability of the same code from other sources for
free; and concerns about negative reactions from the open source
community. (These issues are discussed in the "10Ks" of several of the
publicly traded companies that distribute GPL programs). If you are
beginning to use GPL code, you should ask whether this presents similar
risks to your business.

--

Ok, lets look at the above drivil:

1. "These risks include: the companies "inability" to offer warranties
and indemnities because the code is developed by independent parties
over whom the offering business has no control or supervision"

First of all, when has Microsoft ever, with in the 20 years of its
existance ever offered warranties on their products? it has never
offered it. Look in their license, and it the disclaimer in Windows
2000, all it says, is in a nutshell, that as long as it keeps working
for 90 days to Microsoft's Specs, and when there are problems, Microsoft
will "will make commercially reasonable efforts to solve any problem
issues". In a nut shell, you're a small customer who's having problems,
don't expect to be helped. If the software works to "Microsoft Specs"
for 90 days, then according to Microsoft, thats all the warrenty you get.

Second, the comment regarding "because the code is developed by
independent parties over whom the offering business has no control or
supervision", as I last recalled, Linux is managed by several key
developers, Linus Tovalds, Cox, and commercially funded developers. GPL
is a community guided development process, not a "lets be a dictator"
development process. Also, the way Microsoft has interpreted it, is that
people simply add code to the main code base without verification, which
is also a load of rubbish. Before you code is addded, it is reviewed
for any untoward code, and if it passes, then it is added. Same with
many other key development's such as Ximian GNOME, KDE and xfree86.

Thirdly, businesses can maintain their own code base. They don't
necessarily have to adopt all patches. For example, if Redhat had its
on distro version of Bind, because they didn't agree with new additions,
and decided to keep to previous code, and simply, perfect and tune it.
In a nutshell, they DO have control over it. The only condition is that
they publish the changes.

Matthew Gardiner

Charlie Ebert

unread,
Jun 20, 2001, 11:11:21 PM6/20/01
to
In article <3B315915...@ihug.co.nz>, Matthew Gardiner wrote:
>
>>>Start it? There is nothing new there, it's all been rehashed over and over
>>>again before. Some of the arguments are so laughably inconsistent, that
>>>*anyone* (yes even a PHB) can see them for what they are: mud slinging.
>>>M$ FUD's the GPL. Film at 11.
>>>
>>
>> Which specific arguments from the faq do you see as laughable? If you don't
>> think all of the things mentioned in the FAQ are serious concerns, you
>> obviously have no concept of legal liability.
>
>
>22. Does your use of GPL code present any issues re shareholder value
>and exposure to suit?
>
>In the context of initial public offerings, at least some businesses
>based upon GPL software have concluded that such software introduces
>risks that should be disclosed as part of the offering. These risks
>include: the companies "inability" to offer warranties and indemnities
>because the code is developed by independent parties over whom the
>offering business has no control or supervision; the uncertain future of
>the code base (will further development occur and, if so, in what
>direction); the availability of the same code from other sources for
>free; and concerns about negative reactions from the open source
>community. (These issues are discussed in the "10Ks" of several of the
>publicly traded companies that distribute GPL programs). If you are
>beginning to use GPL code, you should ask whether this presents similar
>risks to your business.
>

The inability to offer a warranties and exclusion from liability
is not a RISK.

Further, MS's copyrighted code has such a well crafted license
that they are no liability at all for the use of their product.

This is not a good reason to knock the GPL.

>--
>
>Ok, lets look at the above drivil:
>
>1. "These risks include: the companies "inability" to offer warranties
>and indemnities because the code is developed by independent parties
>over whom the offering business has no control or supervision"
>
>First of all, when has Microsoft ever, with in the 20 years of its
>existance ever offered warranties on their products? it has never
>offered it. Look in their license, and it the disclaimer in Windows
>2000, all it says, is in a nutshell, that as long as it keeps working
>for 90 days to Microsoft's Specs, and when there are problems, Microsoft
>will "will make commercially reasonable efforts to solve any problem
>issues". In a nut shell, you're a small customer who's having problems,
>don't expect to be helped. If the software works to "Microsoft Specs"
>for 90 days, then according to Microsoft, thats all the warrenty you get.
>

Actually that's a refund limited warranty.


>Second, the comment regarding "because the code is developed by
>independent parties over whom the offering business has no control or
>supervision", as I last recalled, Linux is managed by several key
>developers, Linus Tovalds, Cox, and commercially funded developers. GPL
>is a community guided development process, not a "lets be a dictator"
>development process. Also, the way Microsoft has interpreted it, is that
>people simply add code to the main code base without verification, which
>is also a load of rubbish. Before you code is addded, it is reviewed
>for any untoward code, and if it passes, then it is added. Same with
>many other key development's such as Ximian GNOME, KDE and xfree86.
>

Let's not ba a dictator to a lesser extent.

Essentially I feel comfortable with the leadership of the Kernel
and Debian and I do not with the leadership at Microsoft.

Linux development is more for the passion where MS development
is purely for the marketing weenies.

>Thirdly, businesses can maintain their own code base. They don't
>necessarily have to adopt all patches. For example, if Redhat had its
>on distro version of Bind, because they didn't agree with new additions,
>and decided to keep to previous code, and simply, perfect and tune it.
>In a nutshell, they DO have control over it. The only condition is that
>they publish the changes.
>
>Matthew Gardiner
>

This is true also but it should be noted that some rules still
apply.

For instance, if I wanted a fix in Emacs for my particular problem
it really would be easier to have Richards team do it for me.

Patching and repatching every version which comes out is impracticle
and some times they won't accept the patch.

So a general conformity still exists within GPL structures only
to be broken by pure WILL!


--
Charlie
-------

Charlie Ebert

unread,
Jun 20, 2001, 11:12:56 PM6/20/01
to
In article <slrn9j2nrs....@anthrax.jasons.org>,
A transfinite number of monkeys wrote:
>On Wed, 20 Jun 2001 18:12:50 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <er...@visi.com> wrote:
>: As I suspected, you won't actually mention a specific argument, since doing

>: so would blow the whole hand waving argument about vague "laughably
>: inconsistent" arguments.
>:
>: Come on, just name one. Just one.
>
>Ok, I'll name one. M$ point number 4 - with regards to your rights when
>using GPL'd software. Micro$oft points out that the GPL affords you no
>rights as an end user, and only applies to copying and distributing the
>program. That is, it's suggesting that by using GPL'd software, rather
>than closed-source, you're giving up your rights, presumably the "right"
>to hold the author of a piece of software accountable when something
>breaks. In the US, this implies filing a lawsuit. Ever read the M$FT
>EULA? When Windows falls over, you certainly can't sue them...
>
>--
>Jason Costomiris <>< | Technologist, geek, human.
>jcostom {at} jasons {dot} org | http://www.jasons.org/
> Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
> My account, My opinions.

And equally said of the GPL as the software is without warranty.

And it surprises me to this day how many people still drag this
out of the closet after having been established industry fact
for well over 25 years.

--
Charlie
-------

Robert Morelli

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 1:33:09 AM6/21/01
to
In article <oH7Y6.19230$Dd5.3...@ruti.visi.com>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<er...@visi.com> wrote:


> "petilon" <petilonS...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:9gqo4...@drn.newsguy.com...
>> Microsoft starts a massive FUD campaign against Linux:
>>
>> http://www.microsoft.com/business/downloads/licensing/gpl_faq.doc
> Hmm.. I don't see a lot of FUD there. In fact, it's quite reasonable

Hmm.

Fear, yes.
Uncertainty, yup.
Doubt, check.

Doesn't that spell FUD?

> and asks some very reasonable and important questions. There are a few
> items which seem to be FUDish, but the vast majority seems quite

Well, alright, maybe just a little FUD.

> reasonable and even mentions various benefits of the GPL. And above

Didn't you go to Sunday school? Don't you know the devil mixes lies
with the truth?

> all, they tell you to seek the advice of your own laywers.

Sure, that's pretty responsible advice. By the same token, I suggest

1. Since end users are also subject to the GPL, before booting that PC
again, all Linux users must hire teams of lawyers to help them sort out
the legal ramifications of the hundreds of GPL'd apps on a typical
linux system.

2. Before turning on the shower each morning, all homeowners consult
with a professional plumber.

3. All readers of books, newspapers, and magazines, and watchers
of television programs, consult with their political advisors to sort
out the complex issues presented in those media.

4. Before choosing what flavor of ice cream to buy, consult with a
professional philosopher to clarify the meaning of happiness and the
purpose of life.

Erik Funkenbusch

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 1:35:56 AM6/21/01
to
"Terry Porter" <tjpo...@gronk.porter.net> wrote in message
news:slrn9j42lp....@gronk.porter.net...

> On Wed, 20 Jun 2001 15:43:33 -0500,
> Erik Funkenbusch <er...@visi.com> wrote:
> > "Mart van de Wege" <mvd...@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
> > news:20010620.225952...@wanadoo.nl...
> >> In article <9gqo4...@drn.newsguy.com>, "petilon"
> >> <petilonS...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Microsoft starts a massive FUD campaign against Linux:
> >> >
> >> > http://www.microsoft.com/business/downloads/licensing/gpl_faq.doc
> >> >
> >> Start it? There is nothing new there, it's all been rehashed over and
over
> >> again before. Some of the arguments are so laughably inconsistent, that
> >> *anyone* (yes even a PHB) can see them for what they are: mud slinging.
> >> M$ FUD's the GPL. Film at 11.
> >
> > Which specific arguments from the faq do you see as laughable? If you
don't
> > think all of the things mentioned in the FAQ are serious concerns, you
> > obviously have no concept of legal liability.
> >
> And if you cant see the difference between a quick buck, gained at the
> expense of others, and a 'free' resource then you need to stay in the
Windows
> newsgroups.

Once again, no reference to a specific point.


Erik Funkenbusch

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 1:42:01 AM6/21/01
to
"Matthew Gardiner" <kiwi...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:3B315915...@ihug.co.nz...

>
> >>Start it? There is nothing new there, it's all been rehashed over and
over
> >>again before. Some of the arguments are so laughably inconsistent, that
> >>*anyone* (yes even a PHB) can see them for what they are: mud slinging.
> >>M$ FUD's the GPL. Film at 11.
> >>
> >
> > Which specific arguments from the faq do you see as laughable? If you
don't
> > think all of the things mentioned in the FAQ are serious concerns, you
> > obviously have no concept of legal liability.
>
>
> 22. Does your use of GPL code present any issues re shareholder value
> and exposure to suit?

So, apparently, you don't disagree with the first 21 points.

> In the context of initial public offerings, at least some businesses
> based upon GPL software have concluded that such software introduces
> risks that should be disclosed as part of the offering. These risks
> include: the companies "inability" to offer warranties and indemnities
> because the code is developed by independent parties over whom the
> offering business has no control or supervision; the uncertain future of
> the code base (will further development occur and, if so, in what
> direction); the availability of the same code from other sources for
> free; and concerns about negative reactions from the open source
> community. (These issues are discussed in the "10Ks" of several of the
> publicly traded companies that distribute GPL programs). If you are
> beginning to use GPL code, you should ask whether this presents similar
> risks to your business.
>
> --
>
> Ok, lets look at the above drivil:
>
> 1. "These risks include: the companies "inability" to offer warranties
> and indemnities because the code is developed by independent parties
> over whom the offering business has no control or supervision"
>
> First of all, when has Microsoft ever, with in the 20 years of its
> existance ever offered warranties on their products? it has never
> offered it.

Actually, MS does offer certain warranties, for instance, they warantee the
product against copyright infringement. Of course this is required by law,
but I doubt you'll find any free software developer offering to back up
their code in case it violates law.

> Look in their license, and it the disclaimer in Windows
> 2000, all it says, is in a nutshell, that as long as it keeps working
> for 90 days to Microsoft's Specs, and when there are problems, Microsoft
> will "will make commercially reasonable efforts to solve any problem
> issues". In a nut shell, you're a small customer who's having problems,
> don't expect to be helped. If the software works to "Microsoft Specs"
> for 90 days, then according to Microsoft, thats all the warrenty you get.

MS, being a commercial entity is required by law to have certain liability.
This cannot be removed. Red Hat and the like also have such liabilities,
but does Debian? or any other group that simply releases it's code free?

> Second, the comment regarding "because the code is developed by
> independent parties over whom the offering business has no control or
> supervision", as I last recalled, Linux is managed by several key
> developers, Linus Tovalds, Cox, and commercially funded developers. GPL
> is a community guided development process, not a "lets be a dictator"
> development process. Also, the way Microsoft has interpreted it, is that
> people simply add code to the main code base without verification, which
> is also a load of rubbish. Before you code is addded, it is reviewed
> for any untoward code, and if it passes, then it is added. Same with
> many other key development's such as Ximian GNOME, KDE and xfree86.

That depends. If its kernel code, yeah. If it's billybobswm, probably not.

Most Linux vendors do not crawl through every line of code of every program
they ship.

> Thirdly, businesses can maintain their own code base. They don't
> necessarily have to adopt all patches. For example, if Redhat had its
> on distro version of Bind, because they didn't agree with new additions,
> and decided to keep to previous code, and simply, perfect and tune it.
> In a nutshell, they DO have control over it. The only condition is that
> they publish the changes.

What about the first 21 points?


Erik Funkenbusch

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 1:43:19 AM6/21/01
to
"A transfinite number of monkeys" <jco...@jasons.org> wrote in message
news:slrn9j2nrs....@anthrax.jasons.org...
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2001 18:12:50 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <er...@visi.com>
wrote:
> : As I suspected, you won't actually mention a specific argument, since

doing
> : so would blow the whole hand waving argument about vague "laughably
> : inconsistent" arguments.
> :
> : Come on, just name one. Just one.
>
> Ok, I'll name one. M$ point number 4 - with regards to your rights when
> using GPL'd software. Micro$oft points out that the GPL affords you no
> rights as an end user, and only applies to copying and distributing the
> program. That is, it's suggesting that by using GPL'd software, rather
> than closed-source, you're giving up your rights, presumably the "right"
> to hold the author of a piece of software accountable when something
> breaks. In the US, this implies filing a lawsuit. Ever read the M$FT
> EULA? When Windows falls over, you certainly can't sue them...

Why do you assume that the EULA is legally binding?

ja

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 3:02:44 AM6/21/01
to
>
> So, apparently, you don't disagree with the first 21 points.
>
It seems rather strange but i can't download them.

>
> Actually, MS does offer certain warranties, for instance, they warantee
the
> product against copyright infringement. Of course this is required by
law,
> but I doubt you'll find any free software developer offering to back up
> their code in case it violates law.
>

This warrantee is not any warranty, it's commercial bubbling. It's like
saying my potatos wont do you any harm, when you'll eat them.
Rather obvious? Open Source developer don't have to advertise
their products with as many verbs as possible (ie "2000 reasons
to get office 2000"). And it's not any warranty of properly working
programs.

> MS, being a commercial entity is required by law to have certain
liability.
> This cannot be removed. Red Hat and the like also have such liabilities,
> but does Debian? or any other group that simply releases it's code free?
>

What certain liability? Could you speak more tightly? Only thing you can
do is to send them what you bought. You can't get them to court because
you've lost data, time and money. Debian give's you same right, but you dont
have to pay for it (not speaking for ability to improve programs or repair
them).

>
> That depends. If its kernel code, yeah. If it's billybobswm, probably
not.
>
> Most Linux vendors do not crawl through every line of code of every
program
> they ship.

Tell me, which windows developers do audit their code? Tell me about
any OS developers which do the same. But open source gives you the
ability to make audit of anything you want to use. With MS products you
have to relay on their word, and they can tell you anything they want
because you can't check them.

>
> What about the first 21 points?

Maybe when i'll get them...

JA

GreyCloud

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 3:12:56 AM6/21/01
to

Because it is in their legalese section of software? The end user
agreement?
I think it would make it legally binding. Why not? Every other
software vendor has some kind of end user agreements or disclaimers.

--
V

Tim Smith

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 3:17:50 AM6/21/01
to
On Wed, 20 Jun 2001 15:06:35 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <er...@visi.com> wrote:
>Hmm.. I don't see a lot of FUD there. In fact, it's quite reasonable and
>asks some very reasonable and important questions.
>
>There are a few items which seem to be FUDish, but the vast majority seems
>quite reasonable and even mentions various benefits of the GPL. And above
>all, they tell you to seek the advice of your own laywers.

Yeah, most of it was questions you should ask before using anyone else's
code, including Microsoft's. The main place they went off the FUD deep
end was where they were talking about the risks of GPL if you just write
apps for Linux. The section on embedded systems was pretty FUDly, too,
since the way most people do GPL embedded systems seems to be they get
Linux running on it (and release their drivers under GPL), and then do
their stuff as applications.

--Tim Smith

ja

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 5:11:40 AM6/21/01
to
I got it.
They "don't oppose" same way as they "don't use FreeBSD"

1. No business shoul accept any license wihout lawyers reading it. It's also
and mainly the case of closed source, because open source does not get
your rights to modify and use the code away.

2. I don't know how to comment it. It's coming straghtly from point 1. And
it's
bubbling about same thing in other way.

3. What about intellectual property rights of original vendors of GPL'ed
code?
If you are basing your code on some code, it's not only yours. You use
other's
intellectual effort. Seems very resonable and fair? Are you expecting
someone
will give you something for free without getting anything in exchange in
case
when you'll make money on it? You can do that with your friends, but not
with
companies. Furthermore GPL does not stop you from earning money on GPLed
programs.

4. I don't really get that point? Can you explain me what are they talking
about?
First they tell that using software don' impose anything. Then they bubble
something about using gpl'ed code again? GPL is GPL no matter what
"generation" and by who modified.

5. Bold section has nothing to do with the explanation. Explanation goes
again
to lawyers. And for bold i say YES. And there are such applications, i'll
let myself
to not name them (Just go to your favourite software company and ask for
linux
version)

As i'm reading further and further i begin to came to conclusion why there
are no
comments to first points each by each: they all touch the same problem -
understanding the GPL. And I don't know what is the purpose of mixing
problems
applying to sofware developers and sofware users.

6. Yes, it may be difficult task. But let's be honest: you know how
platform, and
other software independent your program is.

7. The question is formed in rather annoying way (should i say "fucking MS
monopoly"?) Answer is simple: why RedHat, and other became so succesfull?
Because they don't earn money? Do they have deficit? Why MS want's to block
other way of making money? Is their way only acceptable way? Same problem
is with middleman's, and bankers. It's analogous problem - here you don't
have
to produce anything to earn money. If your sofware is GPLed you earn money
on different things - like good support, and configuring it for individual
customers.
Not for selling product which has bugs, and getting money again for fixing
this
bugs. GPLs way is more fair for customers.

8. If you are not able to write similiar code as you've used, than it's fair
to say that
your program will not work at all, or it will lack some possibilities. If
you can write
such code - put some work in it, and don't become GPLed.
And, by the way not numbers but quality is important. But it sounds good
when you
will say "My program has more then 5 000 000 lines".

9. You always have possibility to switch to GPL for free, you always have to
pay
for code you get from commercial third-parties. What is better - your
choose.
Difference is as straight as it can be - you can get GPLed code, get through
it,
and then decide. On the other hand you have to pay for code that does'nt for
sure
suit your needs, or is rather poorly written.

10. And again. This is noticed in every agreement, not only licenses. And is
obvoius.
It comes from law - if you cant do things if ANY you dont satisfy all of
agreements.
You can't drive the car if you dont have driving license even if you bought
that car.

I don't know if i can get through this. It's to hard. Why MS treats us as
stupids? Is it
another Windows help? Maybe they will publish some paper we can really make
us of?. Not other "creator of dealing with problems" which mostly states "go
to MS
support, eventually ask administrator".

11. This point still concerns about other third-party property right's.

12. And what about any other "sues"?

13. What is that? A threat? Does it mean you can't be accused if you are
using closed
source and someone suspects you of stealing their code?

14. And what about commercial companies selling crypto applications, made in
US for
example? Such a big company should ask her lawyers to interpret that.

15. And again there is a big difference in using GPL software, and
developing sofware
based on GPL code.

16. If they do not fulfil GPL statement, call your lawyer, as their are
breaking agreement.
On the other hand, what can you do if you suspect backdoor in closed source
program,
you've bought? And if you will buy code from a third-party software, what
guarantiees you
get that this is all of the code, or is it optimized code without bugs?

17. What this point is about?

18. Again, ask you lawyers to interpret? Is it related to every agreement or
maybe i'm
missing something?

19. As MS stated earlier in their document: go ask your lawyers.

20. Don't you check if someone has right to sell you something? If you wont
you may
end up with money spent on hoover dam bought from unknown person. I always
thought that this is normal way of working for a company.

21 It doesn't state in GPL that it ends after some period. It lasts as long
as you use
GPLed code. You must consider using such code as invetition, althought you
don't
pay any money for it. If you don't consider this in long timeline, you may
only complain
to yourself.

22. You don't have to use code you don't trust. What a programmer are you if
you
include some code without checking it?. GPL gives you opportunity to check
it.
With closed source libraries (or other compilled code) you don't have it at
all.

23. And who decides whenever you want to buy commercial code?

24. As always when market changes.

I don't like pseudo objectivism of this document. And i don't like when
others treat
me as fool.
And that was my comment's on this so called faq.
By the way: english is not my native so please excuse any mistakes.

JA


Ayende Rahien

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 7:56:02 AM6/21/01
to

"Robert Morelli" <mor...@math.utah.edu> wrote in message
news:20010620.233309...@localhost.localdomain...


> Fear, yes.
> Uncertainty, yup.
> Doubt, check.
>
> Doesn't that spell FUD?

Depend.
Female - not there
Urinary - not there
Device - not there.

:-)


Bracy

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 7:41:05 AM6/21/01
to
In article <u2gY6.3$RP4...@ruti.visi.com>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<er...@visi.com> wrote:

> Once again, no reference to a specific point.

Well aren't YOU the pot calling the kettle black. You're the ONLY
participant in this thread who HASN'T provided any references to back
up his arguments.

Bracy

Erik Funkenbusch

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 12:11:12 PM6/21/01
to
"GreyCloud" <whol...@tscnet.com> wrote in message
news:3556F0C3276F617D.C83C572E...@lp.airnews.net...

Which, to my knowledge, has never been tested in court. Just because they
disclaim all responsibility doesn't mean it is true. A license agreement
cannot rewrite law.

Erik Funkenbusch

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 12:13:50 PM6/21/01
to
"Bracy" <br...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:20010621.064157...@localhost.localdomain...

Huh? Someone says there are things in the document which are "laughably
inconsistent" and I simply ask "which things?". What sort of "references"
am I supposed to give to that question?

Mart van de Wege

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 3:12:10 PM6/21/01
to
In article <rqaY6.19249$Dd5.3...@ruti.visi.com>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<er...@visi.com> wrote:

Well Erik,

That is below your usual level. For one, you are responding to the wrong
person, and for two 'as I suspected'? I generally back up my arguments,
you should know that.
I'll give you one, though I won't quote literally, it is easy to find.
First they hype up the fact that you can be forced to give up your IP
under the GPL if you're not careful, suggesting that there is some force
to the GPL. Then, somewhere near the end they blithely suggest that your
competitors might disregard this license that you should be so afraid of.
Now either the GPL is strong enough that it can be enforced on your
competitors as well, or the GPL is laughably weak and can be disregarded
at will, in which case: just *why* did M$ spend this long document on
instilling FUD?
That's my final take on it. I've seen 2 more *glaring* inconsistancies,
but I'm not wasting my time on them anymore, and neither am I going to
waste it on conversing with you until you show a little more of your
usual politeness. End of thread, as far as I am concerned.

Erik Funkenbusch

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 3:11:48 PM6/21/01
to
"Mart van de Wege" <mvd...@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
news:20010621.211210....@wanadoo.nl...

I wasn't responding to the wrong person. You responded to my comments about
providing an instance, therefore I expected a response to my message, which
you refused to do.

> I'll give you one, though I won't quote literally, it is easy to find.
> First they hype up the fact that you can be forced to give up your IP
> under the GPL if you're not careful, suggesting that there is some force
> to the GPL. Then, somewhere near the end they blithely suggest that your
> competitors might disregard this license that you should be so afraid of.
> Now either the GPL is strong enough that it can be enforced on your
> competitors as well, or the GPL is laughably weak and can be disregarded
> at will, in which case: just *why* did M$ spend this long document on
> instilling FUD?

I think the point is that if YOU follow the rules, there is no guarantee
that your comptitors will. That's not a contradiction. The 'force' you
mention is the law, not someone coming to your company with uzi's. If you
follow the GPL and respect its rules, you are forced to publish your code.
Your competitor, who doesn't follow the GPL and doesn't respect its rules
doesn't.


Erik Funkenbusch

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 3:16:25 PM6/21/01
to
"Erik Funkenbusch" <er...@visi.com> wrote in message
news:f1sY6.125$RP4....@ruti.visi.com...

Ergh.. now i'm responding to the wrong person ;) yttrx responded to my
comments, and I responded to him. Which is why I basically said "the
argument" instead of "your argument". While I did say "you" i was in fact
referring to anyone that commented on my question.


Mart van de Wege

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 3:41:13 PM6/21/01
to
In article <f1sY6.125$RP4....@ruti.visi.com>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<er...@visi.com> wrote:

>
> I wasn't responding to the wrong person. You responded to my comments
> about providing an instance, therefore I expected a response to my
> message, which you refused to do.

Check the threading.

Tim Smith

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 7:18:17 PM6/21/01
to
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001 11:11:12 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <er...@visi.com> wrote:
>> Because it is in their legalese section of software? The end user
>> agreement? I think it would make it legally binding. Why not?
>> Every other software vendor has some kind of end user agreements or
>> disclaimers.
>
>Which, to my knowledge, has never been tested in court. Just because
>they disclaim all responsibility doesn't mean it is true. A license
>agreement cannot rewrite law.

ProCD vs. some-guy-whose-name-starts-with-z is the major test of
shrinkwrap licenses in court. The license won.

--Tim Smith

Erik Funkenbusch

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 7:26:37 PM6/21/01
to
"Tim Smith" <t...@halcyon.com> wrote in message
news:slrn9j505...@king.halcyon.com...

That's a shrinkwrap license in general, I'm talking about MS's specific
provisions.

GreyCloud

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 9:03:15 PM6/21/01
to

True, but even DEC has pretty much written their disclaimers of the use
of their software. Even the U.S. goverment agrees to this. If there is
a screw up the burden is placed on the programmer or more likely the
project manager,... not DEC or any other vendor.
--
V

GreyCloud

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 9:03:52 PM6/21/01
to

Aren't those shrink wrap licenses also??

--
V

GreyCloud

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 9:05:26 PM6/21/01
to

Um... the GPL doesn't really say you have to 'publish' your code... only
if someone requests that said code. But I suppose it's close and the
same.

--
V

Colin Day

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 5:38:35 PM6/21/01
to
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:


> > >
> > > Why do you assume that the EULA is legally binding?
> >
> > Because it is in their legalese section of software? The end user
> > agreement?
> > I think it would make it legally binding. Why not? Every other
> > software vendor has some kind of end user agreements or disclaimers.
>
> Which, to my knowledge, has never been tested in court. Just because they
> disclaim all responsibility doesn't mean it is true. A license agreement
> cannot rewrite law.

How would you know that the corresponding part of the GPL is legally
binding? What would distinguish the two in terms of absence of warranty?

Colin Day

Colin Day

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 5:41:30 PM6/21/01
to
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:


> > First they hype up the fact that you can be forced to give up your IP
> > under the GPL if you're not careful, suggesting that there is some force
> > to the GPL. Then, somewhere near the end they blithely suggest that your
> > competitors might disregard this license that you should be so afraid of.
> > Now either the GPL is strong enough that it can be enforced on your
> > competitors as well, or the GPL is laughably weak and can be disregarded
> > at will, in which case: just *why* did M$ spend this long document on
> > instilling FUD?
>
> I think the point is that if YOU follow the rules, there is no guarantee
> that your comptitors will. That's not a contradiction. The 'force' you
> mention is the law, not someone coming to your company with uzi's. If you
> follow the GPL and respect its rules, you are forced to publish your code.
> Your competitor, who doesn't follow the GPL and doesn't respect its rules
> doesn't.


And how is this different from other software licenses? Also, if the
competitor can get away with violating the GPL, then why can't you?

Colin Day

Paul Richards

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 11:48:24 PM6/21/01
to
In article <20010620.164558...@austin.rr.com>, "Bracy"
<br...@austin.rr.com> wrote:

> In article <oH7Y6.19230$Dd5.3...@ruti.visi.com>, ?Erik Funkenbusch?
> <er...@visi.com> wrote:
>> Hmm.. I don?t see a lot of FUD there. In fact, it?s quite reasonable


>> and asks some very reasonable and important questions. There are a few
>> items which seem to be FUDish, but the vast majority seems quite
>> reasonable and even mentions various benefits of the GPL. And above
>> all, they tell you to seek the advice of your own laywers.
>

> ROFL!!! Ohhhh, that clinches it: You *MUST* be a Microsoft employee.
> Normally, people aren't so dishonest unless they have something to gain.
>
>
> First off, let's get one thing straight: Microsoft is not, nor has ever
> been, in the business of "selling" software. They *rent* it. "Buying"
> and "selling" necessitates a "transfer of ownership" but when one "buys"
> a Microsoft product, no such transfer of ownership takes place --
> ownership remains with Microsoft. All the customer receives for his or
> her money is a "license"to install and use the product on a single
> computer.
>
> It would be analagous to having to buy a "license" every time I let
> someone drive my car, or sleep in my guest room. Luckily, such is not
> the case. If I buy a house, I *own* the house. I can make improvements
> to the house: I can replace the carpet, paint the walls, replace the
> water heater or the A/C unit. I can build an extra room onto the house,
> or a garage. I can landscape the yard, plant flowers and bushes, and
> even add a pool. These are the benefits of ownership. *Renting* a
> house would not grant me these privileges, I would need permission from
> the owner, and even THEN the improvements would belong to the owner.
>
> (1) "The GPL was developed specifically to discourage the development
> of
> commercial software and eliminate the creation of any long-term economic
> value in intellectual property that emerges from a community
> development process. "
>
> This is pure bunk. The GPL doesn't discourage the development of
> "commercial software," it discourages the development of
> CLOSED-SOURCE, PROPRIETARY software. There's a big difference. Red
> Hat, SuSE, Mandrake, Conectiva, Caldera, etc. are all "Commercial"
> Linux distrubutions. The GPL does not discourage a company from selling
> its software and making a profit. Instead, it ENCOURAGES the TRUE SALE
> of software (i.e. a TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP). It simply discourages the
> RENTAL of software.

_Most_ shrinked wrapped commercial software is proprietary and closed
source. I don't think the GPL itself is bad, but the creators are attempting to
use it to ultimately eliminate this type of software. This may not be imbedded
into the GPL itself but its on the gnu site:
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-history.html

"How far can free software go? There are no limits, except when laws
such as the patent system prohibit free software entirely. The
ultimate goal is to provide free software to do all of the jobs
computer users want to do--and thus make proprietary software
obsolete."

The GPL is perfect for some projects - and not so perfect for many others.
Evan if companies like Apple or Adobe could release their software
under the GPL eventually they would see their profits crash to the floor.
I won't mind seeing Microsoft lose its borg like influence but
there have been many closed source companies that have innovated
and and were able continue innovating because of the sales coming in.

For the most part, the FSF & GNU's plans will never succeed -
at least not by using the GPL. Instead it will just provide more
competition (and more choices) that is so badly needed right now.
Their philosophy will scare some people aware though, and Microsoft is
attempting to take advantage of this.

Paul

Jim Richardson

unread,
Jun 22, 2001, 12:13:46 AM6/22/01
to
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001 00:42:01 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <er...@visi.com> wrote:
>
> Actually, MS does offer certain warranties, for instance, they warantee the
> product against copyright infringement. Of course this is required by law,
> but I doubt you'll find any free software developer offering to back up
> their code in case it violates law.


Just curious, how did this play out in the Stac trial?


--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.

Erik Funkenbusch

unread,
Jun 22, 2001, 1:10:33 AM6/22/01
to
"Jim Richardson" <war...@eskimo.com> wrote in message
news:slrn9j5gv8....@troll.myth...

> On Thu, 21 Jun 2001 00:42:01 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <er...@visi.com>
wrote:
> >
> > Actually, MS does offer certain warranties, for instance, they warantee
the
> > product against copyright infringement. Of course this is required by
law,
> > but I doubt you'll find any free software developer offering to back up
> > their code in case it violates law.
>
> Just curious, how did this play out in the Stac trial?

The Stac trial wasn't about copyright infringement.


Jim Richardson

unread,
Jun 22, 2001, 2:58:59 AM6/22/01
to

So what do you call it when M$ incorporates someone elses code without
their permission. Sells it as part of Dos 6.2, and loses the following
lawsuit?

Ayende Rahien

unread,
Jun 22, 2001, 4:45:48 AM6/22/01
to

"GreyCloud" <whol...@tscnet.com> wrote in message
news:05A49F16F4F9F635.2B386C0E...@lp.airnews.net...

A contract can be invalid, based on its content.
You can't sign away things (copyright in France, IIRC. freedom in US).

GreyCloud

unread,
Jun 22, 2001, 4:02:54 AM6/22/01
to

Well, now I'm curious. What was it about?
Don't get me wrong... I really am curious.
I once did use Stac software and found it very slow.

--
V

Ayende Rahien

unread,
Jun 22, 2001, 5:21:28 AM6/22/01
to

"GreyCloud" <whol...@tscnet.com> wrote in message
news:CA0C094A3831ECD5.0E821EC0...@lp.airnews.net...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:


> > The Stac trial wasn't about copyright infringement.
>
> Well, now I'm curious. What was it about?
> Don't get me wrong... I really am curious.

Patent infrigement.
Stac has a patent on a compression algoritm that MS used on Dos 6.22
IIRC, MS purchased this algoritm from some other company.


Mart van de Wege

unread,
Jun 22, 2001, 4:47:46 AM6/22/01
to
In article <hovY6.161$RP4....@ruti.visi.com>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<er...@visi.com> wrote:

AFAIK,

Th US judicial system operates under the principle of 'stare decisis' as
most other systems do. That means that any judge *should* take similar
cases as a guideline when judging a case before him.

Rob S. Wolfram

unread,
Jun 22, 2001, 6:26:22 AM6/22/01
to

The legality of the EULA (a.k.a. shrinkwrap license) most certainly has.
E.g. ProCD v. Zeidenberg (http://www.law.emory.edu/7circuit/june96/96-1139.html)
but you are right that a license agreement cannot rewrite the law. OTOH,
the US Congress can and they did. See http://www.4cite.org/ for what
that means.

I sincerely hope that the lawmakers in the Netherlands will not be as
short-sighted ... :-`)

Cheers,
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <qwe...@hamal.xs4all.nl> OpenPGP key 0xD61A655D
Sex is hereditary. If your parents never had it, chances are that
you won't either.

Terry Porter

unread,
Jun 22, 2001, 6:54:46 AM6/22/01
to
The next version of DOS then had no compression facility, but the following
one had "Doublespace" iirc.

Microsoft stole the Stac algorithm, after 'evaluating' Stac and the
refusing to license it.

--
Kind Regards from Terry
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
Free Micro burner: http://jsno.downunder.net.au/terry/
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **

Matthew Gardiner

unread,
Jun 22, 2001, 8:34:04 AM6/22/01
to
> _Most_ shrinked wrapped commercial software is proprietary and closed
> source. I don't think the GPL itself is bad, but the creators are attempting to
> use it to ultimately eliminate this type of software. This may not be imbedded
> into the GPL itself but its on the gnu site:
> http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-history.html
>
> "How far can free software go? There are no limits, except when laws
> such as the patent system prohibit free software entirely. The
> ultimate goal is to provide free software to do all of the jobs
> computer users want to do--and thus make proprietary software
> obsolete."
>
> The GPL is perfect for some projects - and not so perfect for many others.
> Evan if companies like Apple or Adobe could release their software
> under the GPL eventually they would see their profits crash to the floor.
> I won't mind seeing Microsoft lose its borg like influence but
> there have been many closed source companies that have innovated
> and and were able continue innovating because of the sales coming in.
>
> For the most part, the FSF & GNU's plans will never succeed -
> at least not by using the GPL. Instead it will just provide more
> competition (and more choices) that is so badly needed right now.
> Their philosophy will scare some people aware though, and Microsoft is
> attempting to take advantage of this.
>
> Paul
>

One could say that the GNU mantra as explained above is only the
rantings from a group of people in the very small minority, considering
that most opensource companies, developers and users understand that
proprietry and opensource can live harmoniously side by side.

What I see as an advantage with GNU is this, say I design a new OS, and
to get people to use it, I need applications, and since the source is
available for these applications I can then port them. Just consider
this, say Linux was opensource and all the software was proprietry, how
many companies such as Adobe or Macromedia would port their software to
Linux, sweet bugger all. What GPL has allowed is people to produce
applications not tied to any one particular platform. For example,
nothing today is stopping Adobe or Macromedia from porting their
applications over, yet, it is not done. Also, you hear IBM, a supposed
"supporter" of Linux, yet, their subsidary, Lotus, is not porting Smart
Suite or Lotus Notes Client to Linux. First there needs to be a move,
its all very well IBM ranting on about Linux, however unless they really
do something, then, Linux will remain static. As they say, IBM can talk
the talk, but can they walk the walk?

Matthew Gardiner

Matthew Gardiner

unread,
Jun 22, 2001, 8:36:24 AM6/22/01
to
GreyCloud wrote:

Mind you, how many people have had problems with DEC VAX big irons? from
all the raves I hear, it sounded almost like a perfect computer.

Matthew Gardiner

Matthew Gardiner

unread,
Jun 22, 2001, 8:40:36 AM6/22/01
to

http://www.consumer.org.nz/problem/leg-consumeract.html

New Zealands Consumer Guarantees Act. From what I have read, Microsoft
have broken several rules. Regarding the disclaimer, how many
non-technical people people read their license, let alone, question
whether the disclaimer is legally binding?

Matthew Gardiner

Matthew Gardiner

unread,
Jun 22, 2001, 8:43:06 AM6/22/01
to
>>>I'll give you one, though I won't quote literally, it is easy to find.
>>>First they hype up the fact that you can be forced to give up your IP
>>>under the GPL if you're not careful, suggesting that there is some force
>>>to the GPL. Then, somewhere near the end they blithely suggest that your
>>>competitors might disregard this license that you should be so afraid of.
>>>Now either the GPL is strong enough that it can be enforced on your
>>>competitors as well, or the GPL is laughably weak and can be disregarded
>>>at will, in which case: just *why* did M$ spend this long document on
>>>instilling FUD?
>>>
>>I think the point is that if YOU follow the rules, there is no guarantee
>>that your comptitors will. That's not a contradiction. The 'force' you
>>mention is the law, not someone coming to your company with uzi's. If you
>>follow the GPL and respect its rules, you are forced to publish your code.
>>Your competitor, who doesn't follow the GPL and doesn't respect its rules
>>doesn't.
>>
>
> Um... the GPL doesn't really say you have to 'publish' your code... only
> if someone requests that said code. But I suppose it's close and the
> same.
>


So, if I understand you correctly, as long as you let them get the
source code, everything is sweet as. For example, you could say that
they can only get the source code on cd, is that in violation of the
GPL? also, once they have the source code, can you stop them from
distributing the source code themselves?

Matthew Gardiner

Rick

unread,
Jun 22, 2001, 8:48:24 AM6/22/01
to


Hahahhahahahahah... ahahahahahaha...
You're a funny guy.

Rick

unread,
Jun 22, 2001, 8:53:09 AM6/22/01
to
Terry Porter wrote:
>
> On Fri, 22 Jun 2001 11:21:28 +0200, Ayende Rahien <do...@spam.me> wrote:
> >
> > "GreyCloud" <whol...@tscnet.com> wrote in message
> > news:CA0C094A3831ECD5.0E821EC0...@lp.airnews.net...
> >> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> >
> >> > The Stac trial wasn't about copyright infringement.
> >>
> >> Well, now I'm curious. What was it about?
> >> Don't get me wrong... I really am curious.
> >
> > Patent infrigement.
> > Stac has a patent on a compression algoritm that MS used on Dos 6.22
> > IIRC, MS purchased this algoritm from some other company.
> >
> >
> The next version of DOS then had no compression facility, but the following
> one had "Doublespace" iirc.
>
> Microsoft stole the Stac algorithm, after 'evaluating' Stac and the
> refusing to license it.
>
> --

Apparently, Stac did the refusing to license. The same old story - m$
wants to license for peanuts, or even nothing, the licensing company
refuses, m$ "innovates" the company's intellectual property.

Terry Porter

unread,
Jun 22, 2001, 9:45:37 AM6/22/01
to

I stand corrected :)

Burkhard Wölfel

unread,
Jun 22, 2001, 11:28:58 AM6/22/01
to

Many points stated in the M$ EULA are not valid to german customers.

--
---------------------------------------------
Burkhard Wölfel
v e r s u c h s a n s t a l t (at) g m x . de
pubkey for this adress @ pgp.net
---------------------------------------------

Ayende Rahien

unread,
Jun 22, 2001, 1:38:18 PM6/22/01
to

"Matthew Gardiner" <kiwi...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:3B333D5A...@ihug.co.nz...


> So, if I understand you correctly, as long as you let them get the
> source code, everything is sweet as. For example, you could say that
> they can only get the source code on cd, is that in violation of the
> GPL?

Actually, yes.
If you allow them to d/l the binary, but only allow them to get code on CD,
(or vise versa) you are on violation of the GPL.

> also, once they have the source code, can you stop them from
> distributing the source code themselves?

No.

Ayende Rahien

unread,
Jun 22, 2001, 1:37:00 PM6/22/01
to

"Rick" <nom...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:3B333E98...@nomail.com...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:


> > A contract can be invalid, based on its content.
> > You can't sign away things (copyright in France, IIRC. freedom in US).

The above should read *some* things(rights).

>
> Hahahhahahahahah... ahahahahahaha...
> You're a funny guy.

Thanks.


Ayende Rahien

unread,
Jun 22, 2001, 1:51:38 PM6/22/01
to

"Burkhard Wölfel" <burkhard...@mail.uni-oldenburg.de> wrote in message
news:3B33643A...@mail.uni-oldenburg.de...


> Many points stated in the M$ EULA are not valid to german customers.

I wonder if this point is valid (pharaprasing):
"If anything in this contract is dimmed illegal according to your laws, only
this thing is omitted, all the rest still stands" ?


Rick

unread,
Jun 22, 2001, 2:27:50 PM6/22/01
to
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "Rick" <nom...@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:3B333E98...@nomail.com...
> > Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> > > A contract can be invalid, based on its content.
> > > You can't sign away things (copyright in France, IIRC. freedom in US).
>
> The above should read *some* things(rights).
>

Take some law and history courses.

> >
> > Hahahhahahahahah... ahahahahahaha...
> > You're a funny guy.
>
> Thanks.

It's not a compliment.

Ayende Rahien

unread,
Jun 22, 2001, 4:36:25 PM6/22/01
to

"Rick" <nom...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:3B338E26...@nomail.com...

> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > "Rick" <nom...@nomail.com> wrote in message
> > news:3B333E98...@nomail.com...
> > > Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > > > A contract can be invalid, based on its content.
> > > > You can't sign away things (copyright in France, IIRC. freedom in
US).
> >
> > The above should read *some* things(rights).
> >
>
> Take some law and history courses.

Can you sign away your freedom on the US? I serisously doubt that such a
contract would've any legal value.

Erik Funkenbusch

unread,
Jun 22, 2001, 7:13:14 PM6/22/01
to
"Jim Richardson" <war...@eskimo.com> wrote in message
news:slrn9j5ql4....@troll.myth...

> On Fri, 22 Jun 2001 00:10:33 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <er...@visi.com>
wrote:
> > "Jim Richardson" <war...@eskimo.com> wrote in message
> > news:slrn9j5gv8....@troll.myth...
> >> On Thu, 21 Jun 2001 00:42:01 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <er...@visi.com>
> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Actually, MS does offer certain warranties, for instance, they
warantee
> > the
> >> > product against copyright infringement. Of course this is required
by
> > law,
> >> > but I doubt you'll find any free software developer offering to back
up
> >> > their code in case it violates law.
> >>
> >> Just curious, how did this play out in the Stac trial?
> >
> > The Stac trial wasn't about copyright infringement.
>
> So what do you call it when M$ incorporates someone elses code without
> their permission. Sells it as part of Dos 6.2, and loses the following
> lawsuit?

That wasn't what MS did. MS violated Stac's patent, not violated their
copyright.

Stac actually violated MS's copyright by reverse engineering the DOS
interface, which MS won in a countersuit. Stac won the patent infringement,
which was not about incorporating stac's code.


Erik Funkenbusch

unread,
Jun 22, 2001, 7:13:38 PM6/22/01
to
"GreyCloud" <whol...@tscnet.com> wrote in message
news:CA0C094A3831ECD5.0E821EC0...@lp.airnews.net...

As i've said several times, it was a patent infringement case.

Erik Funkenbusch

unread,
Jun 22, 2001, 7:15:52 PM6/22/01
to
"Ayende Rahien" <do...@spam.me> wrote in message
news:9h07ng$cig$3...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk...

In certain circumstances. For instance, you can committ yourself to
psychiatric care and they can legally hold you till they deem you "better".

GreyCloud

unread,
Jun 22, 2001, 7:43:08 PM6/22/01
to

Correct. I've never had any problems with using DEC products. DECs'
disclaimer is about what all software companines do today... we call it
CYA licenses. (Cover Your Ass) If the Gov. were to write software that
controlled a weapon, DEC won't vouch for the safety of their products
for such a use.

--
V

Rick

unread,
Jun 22, 2001, 10:15:28 PM6/22/01
to

They reversed enginneered to see where m$ was loading the compression
routine. They were not loading it at publicly disclosed addresses.m$
denied having non-publihed hooks. Stac had no choice. BTW, the award to
m$ was MUCH smaller (1/10) the award to Stac.

Erik Funkenbusch

unread,
Jun 22, 2001, 11:07:26 PM6/22/01
to
"Rick" <nom...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:3B33FBC0...@nomail.com...

Which still has nothing to do with what was claimed. MS didn't violate
Stac's copyright.

Mark

unread,
Jun 23, 2001, 5:26:09 AM6/23/01
to
In article <cezY6.217$s25....@typhoon.mw.mediaone.net>, Paul Richards wrote:
>In article <20010620.164558...@austin.rr.com>, "Bracy"
><br...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <oH7Y6.19230$Dd5.3...@ruti.visi.com>, ?Erik Funkenbusch?
>> <er...@visi.com> wrote:
>>> Hmm.. I don?t see a lot of FUD there. In fact, it?s quite reasonable
>>> and asks some very reasonable and important questions. There are a few
>>> items which seem to be FUDish, but the vast majority seems quite
>>> reasonable and even mentions various benefits of the GPL. And above
>>> all, they tell you to seek the advice of your own laywers.
>>
>> ROFL!!! Ohhhh, that clinches it: You *MUST* be a Microsoft employee.
>> Normally, people aren't so dishonest unless they have something to gain.
>>
>>
>> First off, let's get one thing straight: Microsoft is not, nor has ever
>> been, in the business of "selling" software. They *rent* it. "Buying"
>> and "selling" necessitates a "transfer of ownership" but when one "buys"
>> a Microsoft product, no such transfer of ownership takes place --
>> ownership remains with Microsoft. All the customer receives for his or
>> her money is a "license"to install and use the product on a single
>> computer.
>>
>> It would be analagous to having to buy a "license" every time I let
>> someone drive my car, or sleep in my guest room. Luckily, such is not
>> the case. If I buy a house, I *own* the house. I can make improvements
>> to the house: I can replace the carpet, paint the walls, replace the
>> water heater or the A/C unit. I can build an extra room onto the house,
>> or a garage. I can landscape the yard, plant flowers and bushes, and
>> even add a pool. These are the benefits of ownership. *Renting* a
>> house would not grant me these privileges, I would need permission from
>> the owner, and even THEN the improvements would belong to the owner.
>>
>> (1) "The GPL was developed specifically to discourage the development
>> of
>> commercial software and eliminate the creation of any long-term economic
>> value in intellectual property that emerges from a community
>> development process. "
>>
>> This is pure bunk. The GPL doesn't discourage the development of
>> "commercial software," it discourages the development of
>> CLOSED-SOURCE, PROPRIETARY software. There's a big difference. Red
>> Hat, SuSE, Mandrake, Conectiva, Caldera, etc. are all "Commercial"
>> Linux distrubutions. The GPL does not discourage a company from selling
>> its software and making a profit. Instead, it ENCOURAGES the TRUE SALE
>> of software (i.e. a TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP). It simply discourages the
>> RENTAL of software.
>
>_Most_ shrinked wrapped commercial software is proprietary and closed
>source. I don't think the GPL itself is bad, but the creators are attempting to
>use it to ultimately eliminate this type of software. This may not be imbedded
>into the GPL itself but its on the gnu site:
>http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-history.html

I don't see that. They say that they don't use proprietary software themselves
and hope that others make the same decision but the specifically state that
they do not require it of anyone.


>
>"How far can free software go? There are no limits, except when laws
>such as the patent system prohibit free software entirely. The
>ultimate goal is to provide free software to do all of the jobs
>computer users want to do--and thus make proprietary software
>obsolete."

That would be the most desirable outcome, in my view.


>
>The GPL is perfect for some projects - and not so perfect for many others.
>Evan if companies like Apple or Adobe could release their software
>under the GPL eventually they would see their profits crash to the floor.

Why? Adobe already give away their viewers in binary form anyway.
Apple have contributed code to one of the BSDs, I think. Why would
the GPL be a problem?

>I won't mind seeing Microsoft lose its borg like influence but
>there have been many closed source companies that have innovated
>and and were able continue innovating because of the sales coming in.

Like who? Also, it doesn't mean that they wouldn't have done that if
their code had been GPLed.

>
>For the most part, the FSF & GNU's plans will never succeed -
>at least not by using the GPL.

Their plan is to provide free software, indeed a whole free operating
system (with all the associated bits and pieces), as it says on their
website. This they have achieved a huge measure of success in. This
project will never be finished, but that doesn't not mean that it has
not been successful - it has been massively successful and will continue
to be so.

>Instead it will just provide more
>competition (and more choices) that is so badly needed right now.
>Their philosophy will scare some people aware though, and Microsoft is
>attempting to take advantage of this.

I don't think the FSF's philosophy scares anyone very much. Clearly,
people have questions about it, and when answered responsibly, most
people can understand what it's about. Microsoft are attempting to
scare people away from it, by spreading fud (like in their so-called
FAQ, which is another appalling misnomer).

>
>Paul


--
Mark Kent

Mark

unread,
Jun 23, 2001, 5:33:38 AM6/23/01
to
In article <9h07ng$cig$3...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>"Rick" <nom...@nomail.com> wrote in message
>news:3B338E26...@nomail.com...
>> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>> >
>> > "Rick" <nom...@nomail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:3B333E98...@nomail.com...
>> > > Ayende Rahien wrote:
>> >
>> > > > A contract can be invalid, based on its content.
>> > > > You can't sign away things (copyright in France, IIRC. freedom in
>US).
>> >
>> > The above should read *some* things(rights).
>> >
>>
>> Take some law and history courses.
>
>Can you sign away your freedom on the US? I serisously doubt that such a
>contract would've any legal value.
>
>
>
There are several things which can make a contract non-binding in
the UK, usually things considered to be 'unreasonable'. It is likely
that Microsoft's EULA would not be binding in all aspects in the UK,
but just because one part is not binding does not necessarily mean
the whole contract becomes non-binding.

The only way you can sign away freedom in the UK is to the government
(and no, I don't think it's good).

--
Mark Kent

Mark

unread,
Jun 23, 2001, 5:29:41 AM6/23/01
to

The GNU people do not say what is written above. Go and visit their
website and you'll see.

>
>What I see as an advantage with GNU is this, say I design a new OS, and
>to get people to use it, I need applications, and since the source is
>available for these applications I can then port them. Just consider
>this, say Linux was opensource and all the software was proprietry, how
>many companies such as Adobe or Macromedia would port their software to
>Linux, sweet bugger all. What GPL has allowed is people to produce
>applications not tied to any one particular platform. For example,
>nothing today is stopping Adobe or Macromedia from porting their
>applications over, yet, it is not done. Also, you hear IBM, a supposed
>"supporter" of Linux, yet, their subsidary, Lotus, is not porting Smart
>Suite or Lotus Notes Client to Linux. First there needs to be a move,
>its all very well IBM ranting on about Linux, however unless they really
>do something, then, Linux will remain static. As they say, IBM can talk
>the talk, but can they walk the walk?


IBM have done a pretty huge amount already. Their Lotus division will
be a separate department to their unix division, probably governed by
different politics, business requirements etc.

If/when it looks like a good business decision to port Notes to Linux,
then they'll do it, but what makes a good business decision for an
OS does not necessarily make it so for an app.

Have you asked them directly, btw? Maybe they don't see much consumer
demand.

>
>Matthew Gardiner
>


--
Mark Kent

Mark

unread,
Jun 23, 2001, 5:30:45 AM6/23/01
to
In article <q9gY6.5$RP4....@ruti.visi.com>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>"A transfinite number of monkeys" <jco...@jasons.org> wrote in message
>news:slrn9j2nrs....@anthrax.jasons.org...
>> On Wed, 20 Jun 2001 18:12:50 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <er...@visi.com>
>wrote:

>> : As I suspected, you won't actually mention a specific argument, since
>doing
>> : so would blow the whole hand waving argument about vague "laughably
>> : inconsistent" arguments.
>> :
>> : Come on, just name one. Just one.
>>
>> Ok, I'll name one. M$ point number 4 - with regards to your rights when
>> using GPL'd software. Micro$oft points out that the GPL affords you no
>> rights as an end user, and only applies to copying and distributing the
>> program. That is, it's suggesting that by using GPL'd software, rather
>> than closed-source, you're giving up your rights, presumably the "right"
>> to hold the author of a piece of software accountable when something
>> breaks. In the US, this implies filing a lawsuit. Ever read the M$FT
>> EULA? When Windows falls over, you certainly can't sue them...
>
>Why do you assume that the EULA is legally binding?
>
>
>


That's interesting. Is it now Microsoft's position that the EULA is
not binding?

--
Mark Kent

Mark

unread,
Jun 23, 2001, 5:34:01 AM6/23/01
to

That works in the UK.


--
Mark Kent

Matthew Gardiner

unread,
Jun 23, 2001, 5:41:56 AM6/23/01
to
>>So, if I understand you correctly, as long as you let them get the
>>source code, everything is sweet as. For example, you could say that
>>they can only get the source code on cd, is that in violation of the
>>GPL?
>>
>
> Actually, yes.
> If you allow them to d/l the binary, but only allow them to get code on CD,
> (or vise versa) you are on violation of the GPL.
>

Where in the license does it say that you must allow the user to download the

source? All its says it to allow the person access to the source at no cost,

apart from the cost of transferring the source from you to them.


Matthew Gardiner

Mark

unread,
Jun 23, 2001, 6:02:47 AM6/23/01
to
In article <slrn9j2psf...@charlie.ebertlan>, Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
>This is true also but it should be noted that some rules still
>apply.
>
>For instance, if I wanted a fix in Emacs for my particular problem
>it really would be easier to have Richards team do it for me.

I think it would be easiest for you to make your change and send
it back to the team for inclusion in future releases. But if you
don't want to do that, you can keep your own personal patched
version and maintain it separately. This is the price of freedom,
you have choices.

>
>Patching and repatching every version which comes out is impracticle
>and some times they won't accept the patch.

You can patch as much as you like, it's up to you. If you mean
the development team are 'they', then you can just run your own
version - you have the freedom to do so.

GPL==Freedom.


--
Mark Kent

Mark

unread,
Jun 23, 2001, 5:51:08 AM6/23/01
to
In article <3B333D5A...@ihug.co.nz>, Matthew Gardiner wrote:
>>
>> Um... the GPL doesn't really say you have to 'publish' your code... only
>> if someone requests that said code. But I suppose it's close and the
>> same.
>>
>
>
>So, if I understand you correctly, as long as you let them get the
>source code, everything is sweet as. For example, you could say that
>they can only get the source code on cd, is that in violation of the
>GPL? also, once they have the source code, can you stop them from
>distributing the source code themselves?
>

You can't - that is one of the guaranteed freedoms which are accorded
to all users of GPLed code.

The Microsoft argument seems to swing from one side (you'll have to
make your source code available) to the other (maybe we'll ignore
the provisions anyway). I'd expect them to try the latter, but I
have the feeling that they might get caught. Whilst they have the
financial resources to beat off the FSF, I wonder whether they'd
survive the event? OTOH, microsoft's excellent marketing has achieved
stacks of things I would have thought could not be done.

--
Mark Kent

Mark

unread,
Jun 23, 2001, 5:57:14 AM6/23/01
to
In article <b8gY6.4$RP4...@ruti.visi.com>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>"Matthew Gardiner" <kiwi...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
>news:3B315915...@ihug.co.nz...
>>
>> >>Start it? There is nothing new there, it's all been rehashed over and
>over
>> >>again before. Some of the arguments are so laughably inconsistent, that
>> >>*anyone* (yes even a PHB) can see them for what they are: mud slinging.
>> >>M$ FUD's the GPL. Film at 11.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Which specific arguments from the faq do you see as laughable? If you
>don't
>> > think all of the things mentioned in the FAQ are serious concerns, you
>> > obviously have no concept of legal liability.
>>
>>
>> 22. Does your use of GPL code present any issues re shareholder value
>> and exposure to suit?
>
>So, apparently, you don't disagree with the first 21 points.

I don't see that said anywhere.

Mark

Mark

unread,
Jun 23, 2001, 6:04:34 AM6/23/01
to
In article <20010620.182716...@localhost.localdomain>,
Robert Morelli wrote:
>In article <9gqo4...@drn.newsguy.com>, "petilon"
><petilonS...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>> http://www.microsoft.com/business/downloads/licensing/gpl_faq.doc
>
>Why would you post a link to a proprietary MS format in a
>Linux newsgroup?

In a few years time, when Microsoft no longer hold a dominant part
of any market, they'll be looking to 'win back' business. You'll
know when *they* believe that time has come, because their marketing
documentation will be in non-proprietary formats.

--
Mark Kent

Ayende Rahien

unread,
Jun 23, 2001, 8:30:43 AM6/23/01
to

"Matthew Gardiner" <kiwi...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:3B34646...@ihug.co.nz...

Check the GPL-FAQ.
It says that you need to supply the source by the same means that you
provided the binary.


Mark

unread,
Jun 23, 2001, 8:52:18 AM6/23/01
to

MS violated a patented work, then? Violation - such an MS oriented word
these days.


--
Mark Kent

Mark

unread,
Jun 23, 2001, 12:45:33 PM6/23/01
to

I don't think it does... It certainly says that if you don't distribute
the source with the binary then you must be prepared to paper-mail it.

--
Mark Kent

Erik Funkenbusch

unread,
Jun 23, 2001, 1:37:30 PM6/23/01
to
"Mark" <ma...@otford.kent.btinternet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:2e32h9...@192.168.1.1...

Patent violations are easy to do. Most free software violates various
patents. It's just that most of the patent authors aren't aware of it or
don't care.

For instance, MS has hundreds of patents, but they only use them defensively
by preventing others from gaining patents on things they do. MS has never
sued anyone for patent infringement, ever.


John Meyer

unread,
Jun 23, 2001, 2:08:53 PM6/23/01
to
petilon wrote:

> Microsoft starts a massive FUD campaign against Linux:
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/business/downloads/licensing/gpl_faq.doc
>
>

Okay, take all of the questions and replace GPL and LGPL with EULA, then
answer those same questions.

Ayende Rahien

unread,
Jun 23, 2001, 3:10:08 PM6/23/01
to

Ayende Rahien

unread,
Jun 23, 2001, 3:25:27 PM6/23/01
to

"John Meyer" <d...@null.com> wrote in message
news:VW4Z6.349891$oc7.39...@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com...

Not a problem.
The answer to all of them is:
"Depend."

EULA is not like the GPL, a single license, it's a name for a spesific
*type* of license.


GreyCloud

unread,
Jun 23, 2001, 3:25:24 PM6/23/01
to

That's true as you can purchase just the simple binaries from the
LinuxMall.com.
I found NO source code on the CD.

--
V

Ayende Rahien

unread,
Jun 23, 2001, 4:31:47 PM6/23/01
to

"GreyCloud" <whol...@tscnet.com> wrote in message
news:F71B2C6EF0AA03FB.F10286EF...@lp.airnews.net...


> That's true as you can purchase just the simple binaries from the
> LinuxMall.com.
> I found NO source code on the CD.

Contact them, and ask them if they will sell/give the source as well.
If not, they are in violation of the GPL.


GreyCloud

unread,
Jun 23, 2001, 6:01:21 PM6/23/01
to

Oh, I agree with you there. It seems that the GPL is on the loose side
when things get sold such as CDs.

--
V

Jim Richardson

unread,
Jun 26, 2001, 1:44:31 AM6/26/01
to
On Sat, 23 Jun 2001 12:37:30 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <er...@visi.com> wrote:
> "Mark" <ma...@otford.kent.btinternet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:2e32h9...@192.168.1.1...
>>
>> MS violated a patented work, then? Violation - such an MS oriented word
>> these days.
>
> Patent violations are easy to do. Most free software violates various
> patents. It's just that most of the patent authors aren't aware of it or
> don't care.

"Most free software violates various patents"?

care to give a few examples?


>
> For instance, MS has hundreds of patents, but they only use them defensively
> by preventing others from gaining patents on things they do. MS has never
> sued anyone for patent infringement, ever.
>
>
>
>


--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.

Linux Man

unread,
Jun 26, 2001, 11:37:38 AM6/26/01
to
In article <oH7Y6.19230$Dd5.3...@ruti.visi.com>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<er...@visi.com> wrote:

> "petilon" <petilonS...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:9gqo4...@drn.newsguy.com...


>> Microsoft starts a massive FUD campaign against Linux:
>>
>> http://www.microsoft.com/business/downloads/licensing/gpl_faq.doc
>

> Hmm.. I don't see a lot of FUD there. In fact, it's quite reasonable


> and asks some very reasonable and important questions.
>

Reasonable? What about forgetting to mention the LGPL that allows library
code to be included? After all, the LGPL IS more open and less
restrictive than the MS library license and the GPL is more open and less
restrictive than the MS application license. MS claims that the GPL
prohibits the use of GPL'ed code in closed source apps while MS's
standard *application* license prohibits anyone but MS from useing the
application code anywhere, anyway.

Ahhh, but what about the libraries??? Erik whined. *SOME* MS libraries
have a *DIFFERENT* license that does allow inclution of code in the
developers application. Thus, claims Erik this makes the MS license
BETTER than the GPL. But that is hardely reasonable comparison. the
GPL has a *DIFFERENT* license (LGPL) that can, and *IS* used to allow
code to be included in a non-GPL'ed application. The LGPL Can be modified
and re-released under the LGPL license. MS libraries CAN NOT be modified
and re-released.

Since it seems that MS did not compare apples to a apples but apples (MS
application license) to Oranges (LGPL) I would say it is clear that the
FAQ is *very* poorly thought out (keeping with how MS apps are writen)
at best and pure FUD at worst.

Bob Hauck

unread,
Jun 26, 2001, 12:05:07 PM6/26/01
to
On Sat, 23 Jun 2001 12:37:30 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <er...@visi.com> wrote:

> Patent violations are easy to do. Most free software violates various
> patents. It's just that most of the patent authors aren't aware of it or
> don't care.

Isn't that an argument against software patents?

--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/

Erik Funkenbusch

unread,
Jun 26, 2001, 5:04:51 PM6/26/01
to
"Jim Richardson" <war...@eskimo.com> wrote in message
news:slrn9jg7pl....@troll.myth...

> On Sat, 23 Jun 2001 12:37:30 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <er...@visi.com>
wrote:
> > "Mark" <ma...@otford.kent.btinternet.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:2e32h9...@192.168.1.1...
> >>
> >> MS violated a patented work, then? Violation - such an MS oriented
word
> >> these days.
> >
> > Patent violations are easy to do. Most free software violates various
> > patents. It's just that most of the patent authors aren't aware of it
or
> > don't care.
>
> "Most free software violates various patents"?
>
> care to give a few examples?

Sure:
http://www.delphion.com/details?pn=US06121964__

Basically, this simply uses an invisible text field adjacent to an edit
field and uses the caption of the text field as a key into a database to
retrieve and store the value of the edit box. Very simple really, and
something that is easily recreateable without using someone elses source
code. No, I don't know of anyone using it, but it's the sort of thing
someone would come up with on their own and not realize that it violated a
patent.

And another:
http://www.delphion.com/details?pn=US05694561__

This one basically allows you to close or open multiple windows
simultaneously and save or restore their states. How many open source
projects violate this patent?

And how about this one:
http://www.delphion.com/details?&pn10=US05675769

fips seems to be in clear violation of this one.


Erik Funkenbusch

unread,
Jun 26, 2001, 5:11:02 PM6/26/01
to
"Linux Man" <cyb...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:20010626.083706.2056934886.3320@bigbear.a-templeton.net...

> In article <oH7Y6.19230$Dd5.3...@ruti.visi.com>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
> <er...@visi.com> wrote:
>
> > "petilon" <petilonS...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:9gqo4...@drn.newsguy.com...
> >> Microsoft starts a massive FUD campaign against Linux:
> >>
> >> http://www.microsoft.com/business/downloads/licensing/gpl_faq.doc
> >
> > Hmm.. I don't see a lot of FUD there. In fact, it's quite reasonable
> > and asks some very reasonable and important questions.
> >
>
> Reasonable? What about forgetting to mention the LGPL that allows library
> code to be included?

Huh? The faq is about the GPL, and *ONLY* the GPL, not the LGPL. Why
should they have included something that is outside of its boundaries? The
FAQ is about the consequences of including GPL code in your own code, not
about LGPL.

> After all, the LGPL IS more open and less
> restrictive than the MS library license and the GPL is more open and less
> restrictive than the MS application license. MS claims that the GPL
> prohibits the use of GPL'ed code in closed source apps while MS's
> standard *application* license prohibits anyone but MS from useing the
> application code anywhere, anyway.

But you aren't tempted to use that code because you don't have access to it.
MS isn't saying the GPL is bad. They're saying "Be very aware of the
ramifications of using GPL code in your own code". It may seem like a
no-brainer to you, because you understand (or think you do) those
ramifications, but the average person who doesn't bother to fully read the
GPL doesn't (which is the vast majority of people).

> Ahhh, but what about the libraries??? Erik whined. *SOME* MS libraries
> have a *DIFFERENT* license that does allow inclution of code in the
> developers application. Thus, claims Erik this makes the MS license
> BETTER than the GPL. But that is hardely reasonable comparison. the
> GPL has a *DIFFERENT* license (LGPL) that can, and *IS* used to allow
> code to be included in a non-GPL'ed application. The LGPL Can be modified
> and re-released under the LGPL license. MS libraries CAN NOT be modified
> and re-released.

I said no such thing. I made no qualitative declarations about MS
licenenses over GPL. I simply said it's not true that MS doesn't allow you
to use ANY of their code. Stop taking things to extremes and manipulating
what people say.

> Since it seems that MS did not compare apples to a apples but apples (MS
> application license) to Oranges (LGPL) I would say it is clear that the
> FAQ is *very* poorly thought out (keeping with how MS apps are writen)
> at best and pure FUD at worst.

The license is for source code that you include in your application, not
just link to.


Erik Funkenbusch

unread,
Jun 26, 2001, 5:12:15 PM6/26/01
to
"Bob Hauck" <b...@invalid.dom> wrote in message
news:slrn9jhcl...@lab.codem.com...

> On Sat, 23 Jun 2001 12:37:30 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <er...@visi.com>
wrote:
>
> > Patent violations are easy to do. Most free software violates various
> > patents. It's just that most of the patent authors aren't aware of it
or
> > don't care.
>
> Isn't that an argument against software patents?

Indeed. I don't believe in software patents either. My point is that
claming that MS "stole code" and then using a patent lawsuit as proof is
stupid.


Jim Richardson

unread,
Jun 27, 2001, 12:32:45 AM6/27/01
to

wow! 3 examples, since you said most, I'll give you the benefit of the
doubt and say enough examples to cover half of the OSS out there will
suffice. So what's next?

GreyCloud

unread,
Jun 27, 2001, 12:46:42 AM6/27/01
to

I looked at the site and it shows fips there, but under none.
As a quick look, no , I don't think fips is in violation of any patents.
Otherwise, I think that PowerQuest would have sued a long time ago.

--
V

GreyCloud

unread,
Jun 27, 2001, 12:51:14 AM6/27/01
to

On this one, another quick look-see, I think that Sun had this under
OpenLook long before 1994. I think that CDE has a similar state
preservation for whatever windows you had open and restored these from a
previous logout and then a login. But I don't know of any o/s that runs
these by groups.

> And how about this one:
> http://www.delphion.com/details?&pn10=US05675769
>
> fips seems to be in clear violation of this one.

--
V

Erik Funkenbusch

unread,
Jun 27, 2001, 1:15:07 AM6/27/01
to
"Jim Richardson" <war...@eskimo.com> wrote in message
news:slrn9jinv4....@troll.myth...

Would it make you happier if I said Most free software "probably" violates
quite a few patents?


Erik Funkenbusch

unread,
Jun 27, 2001, 1:17:49 AM6/27/01
to
"GreyCloud" <whol...@tscnet.com> wrote in message
news:1CA23B19C6C10902.635FFC13...@lp.airnews.net...

Why? Lots of companies, such as Microsoft, use patents defensively rather
than offensively. They patent things to prevent others from patenting them
and then demanding royalties. MS has never sued anyone over patent
infringement to my knowledge, and they're a hell of a lot larger than PQ.
It costs a lot of money to sue, and what would be the benefit? they'd just
move development to Norway or somewhere that the trademark doesn't matter.

GreyCloud

unread,
Jun 27, 2001, 2:34:19 AM6/27/01
to

You can't run to another country to evade patent infringements.
The point I can make is one could do re-partioning in many different
ways so as not to infringe on a patent. fips still exists, so your
argument is moot.

--
V

It is loading more messages.
0 new messages