Wow apparently *I* am not the only one that reads things. http://linux.slashdo...=09/03/05/1624221 (1:03PM ET three minutes after I posted initially)


Section 7 of the GPL.

Jeremy Allison nails the EXACT way Microsoft is forcing companies to do the "either or" thing... in response to (of all people) a Glyn Moody blog post:

http://opendotdotdot...38361048998797508

Very interesting that these "cross license" patent deal essentially force companies to either Use WinCE or continue to use/distribute Linux while violating section 7 of the GPLv2, once the deal is made under NDA.

Amazingly, we need to back Tom Tom on this lawsuit period.

I've chatted directly with Greg Kroah-Hartman about the differences between TomTom's implementation of the FAT/VFAT/MSDOS Partition code and the vanilla Kernel.org kernel... he and quite a few others are saying it is identical, no changes effectively (except to work in the newer kernel infrastructures) since it entered the mainline kernel in 1.3.26 or some where close that, in 1996. Microsoft comments only that they are going after TomTom's implementation of the code... ahhh yeah right.

Lachess and Estoppel may apply but are going to be very hard to prove faced with the amount of money Microsoft can put towards this.

Its interesting to finally get a viewpoint that makes sense as to how Microsoft is announcing things publicly and being brazenly open about befriending Open Source... while yet doing the NDA deal and forcing companies to Violate the GPLv2 section 7


Here is section 7 of the GPL v2.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  7. 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.

If any portion of this section is held invalid or unenforceable under
any particular circumstance, the balance of the section is intended to
apply and the section as a whole is intended to apply in other
circumstances.

It is not the purpose of this section to induce you to infringe any
patents or other property right claims or to contest validity of any
such claims; this section has the sole purpose of protecting the
integrity of the free software distribution system, which is
implemented by public license practices. Many people have made
generous contributions to the wide range of software distributed
through that system in reliance on consistent application of that
system; it is up to the author/donor to decide if he or she is willing
to distribute software through any other system and a licensee cannot
impose that choice.

This section is intended to make thoroughly clear what is believed to
be a consequence of the rest of this License.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------



I'd have to say, its what Microsoft hoped wouldn't happen. There have been various announcements from various Asian companies that produce Embedded Linux Devices about "vague patent licensing deal" of course no details allowed so they can continue to distribute the devices and "nobody" knows they are violating except the company itself and Microsoft. Tricky and devious. Nothing we can't expect from Microsoft.