«
»

Microsoft Evangelist: GPL strips consumer of all their rights


Microsoft “Architect Evangelist” Josh Holmes:

[Microsoft signing the Joomla Contributor Agreement is] a clear demonstration of how far Microsoft has come in it’s commitment to OSS projects. Now, I’ve got my own issues with the GPL as I think that it strips the consumer of all of their rights but that’s for a different discussion.

I would love to hear exactly how the GPL strips the consumer of “all their rights”. Even entertaining the BSD vs. GPL sort of arguments, I’ve never heard such hyperbole.

I suppose the GPL might not be as consumer freedom-granting as the typical Microsoft EULA, but…

,

This entry was posted on April 29, 2010, 7:57 pm and is filed under Microsoft. You can follow any responses to this entry through RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

  1. #1 by Roy Bixler on April 29, 2010 - 10:07 pm

    Ha, ha … I like that last line, Jason. The typical Microsoft EULA doesn’t even grant the user freedom number 0, the right to use the software for any purpose, let alone the other freedoms which the GPL gives. Microsoft’s typical angle is that users simply don’t care about the source code because they don’t have the ability or desire to change the software they run. In that use case, the GPL is exactly neutral whereas the typical Microsoft EULA is, er, shall we say, less than neutral. Unless there is something that I’ve missed, I think we can write off the Holmes blog post as good old fashioned FUD.

  2. #2 by saulgoode on April 30, 2010 - 5:36 am

    The author of that weblog amended his statement in a subsequent comment with:

    Should have been clearer – Consumer of the code. In other words, the business or individual who leverages the code.

    Of course, even this is entirely wrong. The GPL does not take away from such a “consumer of the code” any rights to copying and distributing because the “consumer” doesn’t have those rights to begin with. Copyright law is what “strips” those rights away from the consumer — the GPL serves to grant them back (as long as the terms and conditions of the license are met).

    • #3 by Roy Bixler on April 30, 2010 - 7:01 am

      That’s a fairly unusual and confusing definition of “consumer”, because it misleads one into believing that he claims the GPL somehow conflicts with consumer protection laws. He is really complaining that the GPL does not grant the ability of code users to take away freedoms from further would-be code users. Quelle surprise …

    • #4 by Jason on April 30, 2010 - 8:19 am

      Saul,

      Well put!

      I fully expect[1] a brillant and logical detailed clarification from Mr. Holmes coming shortly forthwith.

      [1] By “fully expect” I mean “would be shocked down to my very toenails”

  3. #5 by SubSonica on April 30, 2010 - 4:46 pm

    I think the true sentence is the reverse:

    “GPL: Microsoft evangelists strips consumers of all their rights.”

Comments are closed.