Actually, many would argue that lawsuits are a last resort for the FSF because they really don’t want to test the GPL in court. Also, they like to shake down ‘violators’ for cash to fund the FSF (ie their settlement with Cisco re: GPL code in Linksys routers).

Additionally, it could easily be said that MS also has “always tried to resolve issues of non-compliance…by negoitating, explaining and assisting FIRST.” They have never sued anyone over a patent as far as I know.

Well, judging by Microsoft’s past actions (review the case of a little company called AddStor for example) I would be very surprised if MS was unaware that, when they went in to discuss patents with Dell, that Dell understood that they were talking to the owner of the monopoly PC OS. Of course, as that monopoly diminishes, it seems likely that MS’s bargaining position will weaken. So let’s see what deals they will be able to get in three years or so…

Even if I ignore the fact that MS is banned from using that kind of leverage against OEMs based on its CD with the government, how does your little theory explain the actions of Samsung and Xerox? I’ll help you. It doesn’t!

Why don’t you just give up the ghost and say what you really mean: “They are sofware patents. I don’t like software patents, especially any software patents MS has. ipso facto – they simply can’t be valid. And anyone that conceeds otherwise is a coward or a lair.”

Actually, many would argue that lawsuits are a last resort for the FSF because they really don’t want to test the GPL in court. Also, they like to shake down ‘violators’ for cash to fund the FSF (ie their settlement with Cisco re: GPL code in Linksys routers).

Additionally, it could easily be said that MS also has “always tried to resolve issues of non-compliance…by negoitating, explaining and assisting FIRST.” They have never sued anyone over a patent as far as I know.

Well, judging by Microsoft’s past actions (review the case of a little company called AddStor for example) I would be very surprised if MS was unaware that, when they went in to discuss patents with Dell, that Dell understood that they were talking to the owner of the monopoly PC OS. Of course, as that monopoly diminishes, it seems likely that MS’s bargaining position will weaken. So let’s see what deals they will be able to get in three years or so…

Even if I ignore the fact that MS is banned from using that kind of leverage against OEMs based on its CD with the government, how does your little theory explain the actions of Samsung and Xerox? I’ll help you. It doesn’t!

Why don’t you just give up the ghost and say what you really mean: “They are sofware patents. I don’t like software patents, especially any software patents MS has. ipso facto – they simply can’t be valid. And anyone that conceeds otherwise is a coward or a lair.”

And lucky for you, Richard, or you’d be a major patent violator.

BTW, I had predicted amore than a year and a half ago that MS’s strategy vs FOSS would be to attempt to seize the high ground, in terms of a moral position and they would largely leave the actual lawsuits to others, via proxy.

MS has beat the drum that their software provides better capabilities for the handicapped, and that their software is greener, and that FOSS is some kind of high tech sharecropping. None of those angles has stuck though, and MS touting the advantages to the handicapped has just lead to FOSS projects that address this shortcoming.

If MS willfily violates the terms of the GPL, the FSF has every right, even I would say, a responsibility to sue them. However, for the FSF a suit is a matter of last resort–they have always tried to resolve issues of non-compliance with the GPL by negoitating, explaining and assisting FIRST.

Now contrast this with SCO’s actions. Even after discovery is complete, they still have not identified with specificity the code in Linux (R) which infringes SCO rights!

The SCO saga should be a learning experience for those who would oppose FSF, but it seems no one has learnt anything, from statements by Balmer et al…

Microsoft presents its patents and the technologies it believes infringe on those patents, the other company’s lawyers review that information and make a decision based on a legal/technical analysis of the situation – not some bullying/hardball tactics by MS.

Well, judging by Microsoft’s past actions (review the case of a little company called AddStor for example) I would be very surprised if MS was unaware that, when they went in to discuss patents with Dell, that Dell understood that they were talking to the owner of the monopoly PC OS. Of course, as that monopoly diminishes, it seems likely that MS’s bargaining position will weaken. So let’s see what deals they will be able to get in three years or so…

Second, I think your premise of “how MS will fight these” is off the mark. If you’ve been reading Eben’s comments about the GPLv3 and the supposed trap they’ve created for MS as a distributor of GPLv3 code in Linux, well… it’s unlikely that MS will be the one suing to test the GPLv3. It will be the FSF.

Also, you seem to misunderstand how patent discussions happen between major companies. With companies like Dell, Xerox, and Samsung, it’s a lot more civil than you might think. Microsoft presents its patents and the technologies it believes infringe on those patents, the other company’s lawyers review that information and make a decision based on a legal/technical analysis of the situation – not some bullying/hardball tactics by MS. These companies have serious lawyer and the money & patent portfolios necessary to fight MS if they thought the claims were bogus.

Second, I think your premise of “how MS will fight these” is off the mark. If you’ve been reading Eben’s comments about the GPLv3 and the supposed trap they’ve created for MS as a distributor of GPLv3 code in Linux, well… it’s unlikely that MS will be the one suing to test the GPLv3. It will be the FSF.

Also, you seem to misunderstand how patent discussions happen between major companies. With companies like Dell, Xerox, and Samsung, it’s a lot more civil than you might think. Microsoft presents its patents and the technologies it believes infringe on those patents, the other company’s lawyers review that information and make a decision based on a legal/technical analysis of the situation – not some bullying/hardball tactics by MS. These companies have serious lawyer and the money & patent portfolios necessary to fight MS if they thought the claims were bogus.

Thanks especially for the correct use of the word hacker, which had started to slip into a different meaning through it’s misuse in popular media.

Relevant here is Eric Raymond’s point in the Cathedral and the Bazaar that those who function in a Culture dominated by abundance, as opposed to a culture of scarcity, function in different ways. Eric cited an anthropologist who made this observation, and drew parallels with its operation in the software industry.

My take on the wrangling on the wording of the GPL is this, though:

the amount of money at stake, and the degree to which M$ and some others see the GPL as hurting their business model, means that the rewording of the GPL in 3.0 is just Round 1. Round 2 will be the legal challenges, and it will be interesting to see how MS will fight these–will it continue fighting via proxy–as in the SCO case–or will it actually get involved?

My thinking is that M$ is already out there threatening lawsuits. Why else would Dell decide to pay M$ for each Linux license?

Social norms clearly play an important role in the Free Software community, but not sure that they trump the legal structures embodied in the licensing. It really depends on the circumstances.

For those companies that are working with both OSS and proprietary software, they and their investors need legal certainty…not just the will of the Free Software community.

Google, however, is in a bit of a pickle with the Free Software community because they rely so heavily on them. They have bought themselves a lot of good will over the past few years, which is probably why the FSF didn’t include a mandatory Affero provision in the final GPLv3.

If they don’t find a way to stem this growing tide of distrust, from Stallman, Moglen, et al… they could find themselves in the shoes of Tivo. And Tivo, is arguably a better Free Software communtiy citizen than Google. Tivo actually gives the vast majority of their code back to the community and allow them to modify at will! Their only sin is that they don’t let you put the modified code back on the box and avoid paying the Tivo service fee. It would bankrupt them given that they sell you that box for less than it costs to make…

Anyhow, I also find it very interesting that the
FSF decided to launch the GPLv3 today of all days.

Social norms clearly play an important role in the Free Software community, but not sure that they trump the legal structures embodied in the licensing. It really depends on the circumstances.

For those companies that are working with both OSS and proprietary software, they and their investors need legal certainty…not just the will of the Free Software community.

Google, however, is in a bit of a pickle with the Free Software community because they rely so heavily on them. They have bought themselves a lot of good will over the past few years, which is probably why the FSF didn’t include a mandatory Affero provision in the final GPLv3.

If they don’t find a way to stem this growing tide of distrust, from Stallman, Moglen, et al… they could find themselves in the shoes of Tivo. And Tivo, is arguably a better Free Software communtiy citizen than Google. Tivo actually gives the vast majority of their code back to the community and allow them to modify at will! Their only sin is that they don’t let you put the modified code back on the box and avoid paying the Tivo service fee. It would bankrupt them given that they sell you that box for less than it costs to make…

Anyhow, I also find it very interesting that the FSF decided to launch the GPLv3 today of all days.