On 22/02/2008, Craig Box <craig@dubculture.co.nz> wrote:

> > "Microsoft will covenant not to sue open source
> > developers for development and non-commercial distribution of
> > implementations of these Open Protocols."
>
> Once again, Microsoft do their very best to undermine the GPL by
> discriminating between 'commercial' and 'non-commercial' distribution.

If you ascribe value to software patents, then it seems fair to say
"If you are going to use this commercially, you can license our
patents under RAND terms: a free card is given to non-commercial use."

I've jusr re-read GPL2 and associated FAQ '.. if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies ..'

I guess the "WHO PAYS?" question is, does the author have to pay, or
does the distributor? If I write some software (OK, lets be more
realistic here. If Perry writes some software) using these specs,
release it non-commercially, and Red Hat/Canonical/whoever want to
include it in their commercially supported distribution, do they each
have to pay the license? Does that grant the right for continued use
down the line?

By my understanding Redhat would be the only one paying. The author didn't charge Redhat for it, so they're exempt. If whitebox linux take that code and further distribute it 'non-commercially', they don't have to pay either. That's how it ought to work. IANAL.

I'm not sure where canonical would stand; Are they distributing ubuntu 'commercially' if they give it away for free and hope to profit on commercial support later?

Redhat needing to pay doesn't appear to be a GPL problem either; in the same way that having to pay tax on their annual revenue isn't a GPL issue. if Redhat want to be exempt from paying Microsoft for a patent license, all they need to do is stop charging for their distribution.