🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <20011103181710.3e34b11d.Stefaan.Eeckels@ecc.lu>,
Stefaan A Eeckels  <Stefaan.Eeckels@ecc.lu> wrote:
>On Sat, 03 Nov 2001 23:20:12 +1300 "Adam Warner"
><usenet@consulting.net.nz> wrote:
>
>> Some more antitrust news from Salon.com:
>
>> 
>>    III-I(5) says that [developers and hardware manufacturers] "may be
>>    required to grant to Microsoft on reasonable and nondiscriminatory
>>    terms a license to any intellectual property rights it may have
>>    relating to the exercise of their options or alternatives provided by
>>    this Final Judgment; the scope of such license shall be no broader than
>>    is necessary to insure that Microsoft can provide such options or
>>    alternatives." Microsoft will use this to argue that code under the GNU
>>    General Public License (GPL) [which protects such software as GNU and
>>    Linux] must be licensed to it on non-GPL terms, so they can use the
>>    code in their own programs without having to GPL their programs.
>> 
>> ***** I missed this second point [III-I(5)] Please read it and understand
>> the implications. *****
>
>How can a judgememt against Microsoft, and a subsequent settlement
>between the US government and Microsoft impose obligations on 
>Microsoft's competitors? 

What I think it means is that Microsoft would only be required to follow
this provision of the settlement when licensing to a competitor who
licenses their IP back to Microsoft in a similar way.  Since the GPL is not
compatible with that licensing, that becomes a loophole that Microsoft can
use to avoid having to license their IP to GPLed software developers.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@genuity.net
Genuity, Woburn, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.