Re: CSRG archives

[Hyman Rosen]

On 3/23/2010 5:37 PM, RJack wrote:
> RMS's GNUtian acolytes may believe this tripe about patents
> but that doesn't make it true in the world of real people.

Microsoft believed it well enough:
<http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/misc/07-05statement.mspx>
    Microsoft is not a party to the GPLv3 license and none of
    its actions are to be misinterpreted as accepting status
    as a contracting party of GPLv3 or assuming any legal
    obligations under such license.

    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. In fact,
    we do not believe that Microsoft needs a license under GPL
    to carry out any aspect of its collaboration with Novell,
    including its distribution of support certificates, even if
    Novell chooses to distribute GPLv3 code in the future.
    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.

    At this point in time, in order to avoid any doubt or legal
    debate on this issue, Microsoft has decided that the Novell
    support certificates that we distribute to customers will not
    entitle the recipient to receive from Novell, or any other
    party, any subscription for support and updates relating to
    any code licensed under GPLv3. We will closely study the
    situation and decide whether to expand the scope of the
    certificates in the future.