The incompatibility problem - General Public License; New Release

The General Public License version 3 (GPLv3), released by the Free Software Foundation on June 29, 2007, is the latest version of the most widely used "open source" license. It is based on the open source movement which is predicated on the "free" sharing of source code. Prominent free software programs licensed under the General Public License include the Linux kernel and the GNU Compiler Collection (GCC).

While the GPLv3 (like General Public License version 2 (GPLv2)) is a license which requires a person who conveys a covered work (either the original program subject to GPLv3 or a work based on the program) to also convey the machine-readable corresponding source code under GPLv3, the GPLv3 differs from the GPLv2 in a number of ways. The GPLv3 includes an express rather than an implied patent license in connection with the open source code being licensed. Additionally, the GPLv3 includes amendments designed to counter certain practices. The first practice is "tivoization", designing a product so that it fails if the user makes any changes to the open source code included in it. Section 11 of the GPLv3 is intended to counter the practice of using "discriminatory patent licenses". A patent license is "discriminatory" if it prohibits the exercise of, or is conditioned upon the non-exercise of, one or more of the rights granted under GPLv3.

It should also be noted that since the GPLv2 contains a clause which requires programs which incorporate code licensed under the GPLv2 to be licensed under the GPLv2, and the GPLv3 does the same, the licenses are incompatible. It is not possible to combine code licensed under the GPLv2 with code licensed under the GPLv3 within a single program.

Patent Infringement Claims Suggest Microsoft Heading for Open Source Litigation

With Microsoft claiming that Linux and other open source software violates 235 of its patents, at the same time the company is cross-licensing patents it says Linux has violated, analyst Rob Enderle sees the Redmond software giant positioning itself for litigation. The big question, says Enderle in his blog on the IT Business Edge Web site, is who will be the initial target of any legal action by Microsoft.

"My take is Microsoft will put litigation off as long as it can," Enderle says, "but is on a path where I don't think it can avoid litigation forever if it wants to actually protect its patents."

Listing the likely first targets for such litigation, Enderle includes IBM as the largest un-licensed supplier of Linux, the Linux Foundation as a proxy for Linux itself, and Red Hat as the most powerful Linux distribution brand. However, Enderle thinks IBM has too much legal firepower and cross-licensing ammo to provide the overwhelming victory Microsoft would seek in its first legal assault on open source. On the other hand, the relatively meager resources the Linux Foundation is likely to bring to court would leave Microsoft looking like a bully and provide a rallying point for its foes. That leaves Red Hat with a bull's-eye on its back, being neither a legal pushover nor an opponent with resources nearly equal to those of Microsoft.

Enderle's full analysis of Microsoft's recent actions, as well as his advice to Linux-using enterprises who want to avoid getting caught in the crossfire, can be found at his blog:

http://www.itbusinessedge.com/blogs/rob/

Linus Torvalds On Microsoft"s Patent Infringement Allegations: "They Are Bluffing!"

“Linux kernel violates 42 of our patents and we'll eventually sue!” threatened Microsoft on Monday. Unfortunately for the Redmond company, not everyone shivered with fear. Linus Torvalds, lead developer of the Linux kernel, gave Microsoft an answer and it was definitely not the thing the software giant wished to hear.

According to Torvalds' mail to InformationWeek, Microsoft is unlikely to hold too many winning card, because:

"Basic operating system theory was pretty much done by the end of the 1960s. IBM probably owned thousands of really 'fundamental' patents. The fundamental stuff was done about half a century ago and has long, long since lost any patent protection."

Furthermore, Torvalds doubts that Microsoft is really certain of a victory in court. Instead, he believes that the Redmond company is just bluffing in hope that it would reach quick financial settlements with other parties rather than going to court:

"They'd have to name the patents then, and they're probably happier with the FUD [fear, uncertainty, doubt] than with any lawsuit. [...]So the whole, 'We have a list and we're not telling you,' itself should tell you something. Don't you think that if Microsoft actually had some really foolproof patent, they'd just tell us and go, 'nyaah, nyaah, nyaah!'"

Last but not least, Torvalds wonders if Microsoft isn't the one violating more patents and hints that a thorough review of the source code for Windows might reveal that the software giant is the one that has to pay up to other patent holders.