April 3rd, 2007
Debates over GPLv3, Novell and Microsoft
A post on OSNews regarding Novell’s official response to the recent draft of the GPLv3 led to a discussion on the merits (or lack thereof) of the Novell-Microsoft deal. Not surprisingly, most respondents have a negative view of the agreement.
Many seem to be of the opinion that a better approach would be for Microsoft to make a blanket patent moratorium that applies to all distributions of Linux. Representative of this opinion was a post by markjensen:
I suppose one has to weigh the danger to the “Linux community” of fragmentation by supporting the Novell-Microsoft deal. After all, that deal provides legal protection from Microsoft on code from Novell only. Yet, identical code from Red Hat, Ubuntu, or even source code tarballs would not be protected, and subject to the whims of Microsoft and their legal team.
Is there greater benefit in making a cohesive Linux community, rather than one that has to check the download IP address of where you got your code to see if you are protected from Microsoft or not?
I’m not opposed to a non-aggression pact between Microsoft and the Linux community, but I do believe it should be apply to all, not just to one company.
Granted, a blanket moratorium that lays down patent weaponry all around WOULD be better…but how? The Linux community doesn’t owns a bunch of patents that might be used against Microsoft. Rather, companies that distribute Linux own them.
How, then, to effect a trade wherein Microsoft agrees not to sue users of Linux in return for a reciprocal agreement from patent-owning companies that might own IP relevent to Microsoft software?
Remember, Microsoft is a company just got hit by a $1.5 billion judgement over IP relating to MP3 that they thought they had already licensed. What the open source community is asking is that Microsoft completely lay down its patent defensive capacity while companies that distribute Linux maintain their ability to sue Microsoft with impunity. That is, quite frankly, nuts, and I seriously doubt Stallman thinks Microsoft would ever go for that.
The FSF and its allies STILL have not proposed a solution to the problem of software patents, opting instead to create licensing pitfalls that ensure that the risk is impossible to remove. Perhaps the goal is to maintain tension as a means to overthrow the software patent regime, but that’s like arguing that a factory should continue pumping noxious chemicals into the atmosphere in hopes that it creates such an environmental catastrophe that the EPA is forced to act.
The GPLv3 will try to block patent trading deals between companies that would limit the agreement’s scope to GPL products shipped by the parties in involved in the agreement. If such agreements are not a valid way to mitigate patent risk, what is? Clearly, one side laying down their arms unilaterally is a non-starter.
If the Free Software Foundation were serious about doing something about the patent problem, they would help create a global patent cross-licensing pool that would allow Microsoft to offer a truly all-encompassing agreement that mitigates risk all around.
John Carroll has delivered his opinion on ZDNet since the last millennium. Since May 2008, he is no longer a Microsoft employee. He is currently working at a unified messaging-related startup. See his full profile and disclosure of his industry affiliations.
Subscribe to A Developer's View via Email alerts or RSS.
| 04/03/07
