2006/11/9, Chris Gregan <cgregan@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:cgregan@xxxxxxxxxxx>>:
> I was under the impression that Novell had to be protected from
> litigation itself, for the GPL to be violated? If Microsoft agrees not
> to sue Suse users/developers/community members, how does that violate
> the GPL? If I sign an agreement not to sue members of schoolforge, even
> though I have no means to do so, that violates the GPL? I guess I am
> seriously confused about what the GPL is supposed to protect us from. It
> is being assumed that if you are not a Novell customer, you are now in a
> position of restriction, but nothing has changed. We are all in the same
> position we were all in before last week. The only difference is that
> Microsoft has committed not to sue project developers and users of
> components found in Suse Linux. Since they had no means to do so in the
> first place I'm not sure how this violates GPL since there is not
> restriction imposed. You are still free to download, use, and share all
> the distros you want without any added restriction whatsoever.
>
Section 7 is pretty straight forward to understand.
> >>> Then, read Section 7 of the GPL that you think Novell feels bound
by and
> >>> would never violate:
> >>> If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent
> >>> infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues),
> >>> conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
> >>> otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they
do not
> >>> excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot
distribute
> >>> so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this
License and
> >>> any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not
> >>> distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license
would not
> >>> permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who
> >>> receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only
way you
> >>> could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain
entirely from
> >>> distribution of the Program.
Specifically
"For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free
redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly
or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it
and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the
Program ."
Its clear that MS license doesn't permit royalty-free redistribution
(protection valid only for Novell customers). So if you get a copy of a
program from SUSE which MS claims to be infringing their patents and if
you give that copy to me I'm not protected from MS patent threats.
GPL clearly states either you give protection to all users (not just to
your customers) who recieves copies or does not offer protection at all.
Hope this clarifies the issue.
Regards
Praveen
--
"Value your freedom, or you will lose it, teaches history.
`Don't bother us with politics', respond those who don't want to learn."
-- Richard Stallman
Me scribbles at http://www.pravi.co.nr