OPEN SOURCE BLOGROLL

Open Source Weblog

The legal ramifications of Microsoft's GPLv3 position
July 09, 2007

The FSF says Microsoft is bound by the GPLv3. Microsoft says it isn't. Is there any way this can avoid a big legal battle? I don't see how - it's just a matter of who makes the first move in my opinion.

As Bob Sutor wrote: "Frankly, whatever they say, it might end up being up to the lawyers and other aspects of the legal system to decide what it all means."

So what are the clues that this will end in court?

"While there have been some claims that Microsoft’s distribution of certificates for Novell support services, under our interoperability collaboration with Novell, constitutes acceptance of the GPLv3 license, we do not believe that such claims have a valid legal basis under contract, intellectual property, or any other law."

Is a pretty big one, from Microsoft's statement. As is:

"Furthermore, Microsoft does not grant any implied or express patent rights under or as a result of GPLv3, and GPLv3 licensors have no authority to represent or bind Microsoft in any way."

I previously noted that Microsoft was attempting to portray itself as the victim. Talk of being misrepresented and bound fits the picture.