news.yahoo.com— The Free Software Foundation is reviewing Novell Inc.'s right to sell new versions of Linux operating system software after the open-source community criticized Novell for teaming up with Microsoft Corp.
Feb 3, 2007View in Crawl 4
And how does the above paragraph apply to the Novell issue? It just claims that you must distribute your code that is based on someone's else GPL code even if that would violate a patent. That's of course the spirit of the GPL license, that you MUST distribute the GPL code, under the GPL license.But it doesn't say that you can't use patented code so long as it is not based on GPL code (like you can include your own programs in your Linux distribution, regardless of patents, as long as you don't modify the kernel). GPL 3 is more restrictive about patents, GPL 2 is pretty permissive.
I love OpenSuse 10.2. It is a really great distro (SLED also). Better interoperability with MS and AD means that my company will be more likely to try it as a desktop OS. Our CFO likes saving money. If we end up reducing our MS license count over time, we save money and the CFO will be all over that. So I don't see the agreement as "evil" (even though Ballmer said some things that are perceived as evil). I see it as a great opportunity to increase desktop Linux usage in the enterprise.
I dunno about all that. Increased Linux desktop usage because of Microsoft FUD about patents? That's what it will seem to come down to. When Walmart started using SUSE, from the statements by Walmart's spokesperson, they adopted /because/ of concerns about IP, ie Microsoft FUD. In the long run, this is not a good thing for Linux desktops in enterprise. Enterprise should check with Microsoft before using Linux about of concerns about IP? Very bas indeed.
Thanks for clearing that up. So Novell might not be able to sell Linux under GPL 3, which doesn't matter because Linus already said that Linux will remain under GPL 2. RMS himself said the deal doesn't violate GPL 2.
radu79Feb 4, 2007
And how does the above paragraph apply to the Novell issue? It just claims that you must distribute your code that is based on someone's else GPL code even if that would violate a patent. That's of course the spirit of the GPL license, that you MUST distribute the GPL code, under the GPL license.But it doesn't say that you can't use patented code so long as it is not based on GPL code (like you can include your own programs in your Linux distribution, regardless of patents, as long as you don't modify the kernel). GPL 3 is more restrictive about patents, GPL 2 is pretty permissive.
drewskyjonesFeb 4, 2007
I love OpenSuse 10.2. It is a really great distro (SLED also). Better interoperability with MS and AD means that my company will be more likely to try it as a desktop OS. Our CFO likes saving money. If we end up reducing our MS license count over time, we save money and the CFO will be all over that. So I don't see the agreement as "evil" (even though Ballmer said some things that are perceived as evil). I see it as a great opportunity to increase desktop Linux usage in the enterprise.
sanguinemoonFeb 4, 2007
I dunno about all that. Increased Linux desktop usage because of Microsoft FUD about patents? That's what it will seem to come down to. When Walmart started using SUSE, from the statements by Walmart's spokesperson, they adopted /because/ of concerns about IP, ie Microsoft FUD. In the long run, this is not a good thing for Linux desktops in enterprise. Enterprise should check with Microsoft before using Linux about of concerns about IP? Very bas indeed.
sanguinemoonFeb 4, 2007
Thanks for clearing that up. So Novell might not be able to sell Linux under GPL 3, which doesn't matter because Linus already said that Linux will remain under GPL 2. RMS himself said the deal doesn't violate GPL 2.
ngsayjoeFeb 7, 2007
Does the FSF own Linux now?