I think this says it all:

http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20070517

The FOSS community has the backing of other giants, like IBM, Sun, Google and others. I really don't think Microsoft has any chance of winning this kind of law suit, and they know it.

Statements from a krakatoan Javan are required, meThinks.

AI Deep ReSearch Acquisition by Microsoft , .....or of Microsoft , should ITs own IT fail to catch the Wave. The WwwAI of Change.....Relentless and Astute.

What it DOES say is that they believe in licencing rather than sueing. In real terms that measn they will come after you and demand payment for a licence to use the allegegedly infringing code - and leave you between a rock and a hard place. Unless you are someone the size of IBM, you won't have the resources to fight the case and will be faced with paying the licencing fees without the benefit of having a court assess whether those fees are either legitimate (is there an infringment) or reasonable in value.

Once a few small-fry have signed up, that will give MS some 'case lore' to go after less-small fry and claim that they have widespread support from industry !

Be afraid, be very afraid !

Right now, Microsoft could continue to distribute under the terms of the V2 GPL. New code would most likely be released under GPL v3, so this would not be tenable in the long run, but it does mean that there will not be any 'automatic' violation on Microsofts behalf. Unless Novell has included GPL v3 code of course...

This all depends on how much of the code MS distributes is actually relicensed exclusively under GPL v3, and no longer under GPL2. Otherwise MS can carry on with GPL2 distribution, and nothing changes,

It seems clear to me that GPL3 is going to wind up looking more like an EULA written by Microsoft than it will GPL2. It isn't bad enough that we have to worry about fending off government from turning into a Nanny State but now we are going to have Nanny Licences too. They could rename it NPL which has the advantage of a highly suitable pronunciation.

"Do this, don't do that, can't you read the sign?"

"Right now, Microsoft could continue to distribute under the terms of the V2 GPL..."

"This all depends on how much of the code MS distributes is actually relicensed exclusively under GPL v3, and no longer under GPL2. Otherwise MS can carry on with GPL2 distribution, and nothing changes"

Not true. The originator of the work can mandate that the work be distributed under any later version of the GPL. It explicitly says this in the GPL. Further more even if it didn't, contrary to popular belief, releasing code under GPL does not surrender copyright, hence the originator is free to withdraw everybody's (including microsofts) right to distribute under GPL2 then re-release the code under GPL 3.

See linux logitech driver fiasco for proof of ability to withdraw GPL license.

Eben Moglen is saying that the SUSE vouchers Microsoft is distributing have no expiration date.

When GPLv3 comes out and someone redeems a voucher. MS becomes a linux distributor and the picture will be different. Probably the best place to read legal details on that is www.groklaw.net

I love the way this is going... can't wait for the next episode.

The GPL V2 on already released code absolutely CANNOT be revoked.

Where people/organisations have lost their right to distribute under the GPL, it has been because they breached it's terms, thus invoking the clause that strips them of all rights granted under the license. It absolutely cannot be done on the author's whim.

The wording in GPL V2 regarding later versions is "or any later version" not "the most recent version". Ie, you can choose to stick with GPL V2 if you want. Of course, if all the developer begin releasing newer versions under GPL V3, you will be forced to fork or stagnate.