Microsoft cannot declare itself exempt from the requirements of GPLv3

An August 28, 2007 FSF Press release provides a response to Microsoft's claims that they are somehow exempt from the requirements of GPLv3.

Funny how it seems to always be those companies that lobby for "stronger" copyright, patent, and license agreement protection in the law and courts that are quick to claim that they should be exempt from these same obligations.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Always the same misconception

I agree...

Sometimes I wonder if the "intellectual property" terminology has confused people in the proprietary software business. The equation of some disparate exclusive rights with "property" seems to have lead many to conclude that these rights are distinguish by fee structures. It's as if they think some sort of fee must be charged in order to distinguish their control of these structures.

On the other hand, it's rare to find someone who thinks that they have to charge rent for their building in order to assert their ownership over the building. Maybe these companies think that if you don't charge for software, you're susceptible to squatters? Do the proprietary companies see free software companies and developers as squatters?