Novell violates GPL Xbody: news.east.Ngroups.NET comp.os.linux.misc 113768

Yes, one can argue that it prevents the pbutting on, the free copying and distribution of the program. "If you buy from us, you will not be sued, but if you pbutt it on, the person who gets it can be sued" is a restriction on the ability to redistribute it. It states that patent restrictions prevent (if the person wants to obey the patent law) the redistribution of the code.

The question is whether the present deal will lead to actions which restrict the future distribution. The deal itself is a deal between Novell and Microsoft. It has no bearing in and of itself on anyone else. The question is whether the actions it requires-incites are a violation of the GPL. A deal between you and your friend has nothing to do with me, even that that deal says that you are to distribute GPL code with an addition that says I may not redistribute it. As such that deal is a private affair. The question is whether that deal then causes you to actually distribute the material to me in violation of the GPL.

Of course not. They have done nothing yet.

Microsoft claims it does. Novel seems to be agreeing to include software which they know is covered by Microsoft patents, and thus knowing that if the user redistributes the software, that user will be in violation of the software patent. That is restriction of the redistribution of the software. Now Microsoft and NOvell may be wrong in their contention that this software is covered by the MS patent, but their distribution of that software believing it to be covered by someone else's patent which restricts the recipient from redistribution IS a violationof the GPL.

IF Microsoft states that it could sue the recipient, and Novell distributes it in that knowledge, and that Microsoft may sue the recipient if they redistribute, then that is a restriction on the rights of the recipient to redistribute and violates the GPL. IF Novell, knowing of Microsoft's belief promises to protect each and every user, whether purchased through Novell or not, then it is not a restriction. Novell has two choices. If it believes that Microsoft's claims, they have a duty either to remove that patented code, or to ensure all recipients whether they obtained it directly or indirectly that they are protected from MS suits. It is Novell that distributed it under the GPL and it is thus Novell who are responsible for ensuring that the software actually can be distributed under the GPL. This is especially true since NOvell charges for the distribution of the software, as they allowed to do under the GPL.