You can't downgrade a license.

Post #285,159 by Andrew Grygus 5/22/07 3:26:29 PM Reply	You can't downgrade a license. If your product incorporates any code licensed under GPL v3 your product has to be licensed under v3. Once components of SUSE's Linux are under v3, and someone turns in a voucher, Microsoft automatically becomes a distributor of software under GPL v3. Of course it may not matter. Some are predicting Microsoft will soon be standing side by side with the FOSS community seeking to ban software patents. They're constantly in court fighting patent infringement suits and it's already cost them far more than they could realize in revenue from licensing their own patents. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #285,161 by Another Scott 5/22/07 3:39:36 PM Reply	But didn't MS become MS due to its lawyers? While it's true that software patents haven't been around very long, MS got to be where it is by using the legal system (e.g. getting around Apple's interface innovations and bringing out overlapping windows in Windows 2.x when the license from Apple (supposedly) restricted them to panes; the "look and feel" battles; MS's per-system contracts; etc.). It's hard to believe they'll give up any cudgel even if it does cost them more than they get in license fees. Plus, it's hard to believe that IBM will give up its software patents easily. IOW, unless Gates and Ballmer and the rest are removed from MS's leadership and board, it's hard to imagine MS embracing FOSS principles on software patents. IMHO, anyway. Cheers, Scott.
Post #285,192 by andread 5/22/07 9:26:06 PM Reply	Have I Got It Right? Same code but a different license that operates retroactively? Or will only new code get a new license? A Play I Some Music w/ Papa Andy Saturday 8 PM - 11 PM ET All Night Rewind 11 PM - 5 PM Reggae, African and Caribbean Music [link\|http://westcottradio.org\|Tune In]
Post #285,195 by Andrew Grygus 5/22/07 9:45:00 PM Reply	A copy of old code in your posession . . . . . continues with the license it states. New copies may have a different license if the copyright holder so decides, and certainly updated or revised copies can. A large amount of code is licensed "GPL v2.x or later". Even someone other than the copyright holder can comply with the original license by redistributing under GPL v3. Microsoft's problem is not about licenses being retroactive. Novell could protect Microsoft by freezing all code in their distribution right where it is now, but they won't, that would be suicide. Development continues so new and updated modules coming in may be licensed under GPL v3 and would be incorporated. SUSE Linux would now have v3 code in it. Someone cashes in a Microsoft coupon and of course he gets the latest version which has v3 licensed code in it. Microsoft is now a distributor of code under v3. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #285,251 by andread 5/23/07 12:24:57 PM Reply	Thanks Play I Some Music w/ Papa Andy Saturday 8 PM - 11 PM ET All Night Rewind 11 PM - 5 PM Reggae, African and Caribbean Music [link\|http://westcottradio.org\|Tune In]
Post #285,216 by pwhysall 5/23/07 2:32:32 AM Reply	Eh? As written, what you've said is that all of SuSE Linux has to be under GPL v3, because some bits of it are. This is clearly not the case, because at the very least, X11, Perl and Apache will be in there, all under their own licences. Or did you mean the kernel? Peter [link\|http://www.no2id.net/\|Don't Let The Terrorists Win] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Home] Use P2P for legitimate purposes! [link\|http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?pwhysall\|A better terminal emulator] [image\|http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/pwhysall/Misc/saveus.png\|0\|Darwinia\|\|]
Post #285,217 by Andrew Grygus 5/23/07 3:11:40 AM Reply	Double Eh? Ummm . . . I have a hard time reading it that way. Paragraph #1 doesn't refer to Linux or any other SUSE product at all, just incorporating code into a product, any product. Elsewhere it says "some components" of the SUSE distribution are v3. Doesn't mean the kernel or whetever - a "distribution" includes all kinds of stuff (hell, Debian is up to 21 CDs now). Redistribute that and you're distributing v3 code. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #285,220 by pwhysall 5/23/07 5:24:34 AM Reply	Re: Double Eh? Here's the bit I'm querying: "If your product incorporates any code licensed under GPL v3 your product has to be licensed under [GPL] v3" Now, if your product is "SuSE Linux 10.0" or whatever, that statement is clearly not true, as the product in question is comprised of a number of components which have various licences, including GPL v2, GPL v3, X11, Artistic, MPL, SPL, Apache and BSD licences - and probably more. Just because GNU textutils or whatever has been relicenced under GPL v3 has no bearing whatsoever on the licencing of, say, X11. Peter [link\|http://www.no2id.net/\|Don't Let The Terrorists Win] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Home] Use P2P for legitimate purposes! [link\|http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?pwhysall\|A better terminal emulator] [image\|http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/pwhysall/Misc/saveus.png\|0\|Darwinia\|\|]

Welcome to IWETHEY!