Mailinglist Archive: opensuse (4498 mails)
| < Previous | Next > |
Re: [opensuse] So Long openSuSe
- From: Andreas Jaeger <aj@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2006 00:17:34 +0100
- Message-id: <ho8xiqby41.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Kevin Donnelly <kevin@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> That is interesting. It would be a good idea for Novell to put out some
> additional explanatory material in the next few days, addressing the various
> excitable comments that have been made in discussions on this.
I expect something like this to happen soon.
> In particular, is Novell suggesting that there is some truth to the suggestion
> that parts of Linux infringe patents, or is it simply accepting that
> Microsoft has rights over its own stuff (eg codecs)? Most comments on the
> net tend to assume the former, but I would have thought the latter is equally
> plausible.
Not at all. We're of the opinion that there are no patent
infringements right now in Linux and the deal does not imply that we
think so. There 're just a lot of customers that want to be on the
safe side and we help to protect them *if* such a case applies.
> The only fly I still see in the ointment is the phrase "individual,
> non-commercial developers". For example, does this mean that a group of
> non-commercial developers, or a single developer who decides to sell a
> service based on the app he's developed, are not covered?
>
> And as Marcel Hilzinger said:
> "Why are there 2 different points in the patent question? Will there be a
> difference between OpenSUSE and Suse Linux Enterprise? What about
> contributors to OpenSUSE.org whose code is _not_ included in the SUSE Linux
> Enterprise platform? Are they covered by the second statement?"
I hope this gets answerd on our coperate side, I'll forward this,
Andreas
--
Andreas Jaeger, aj@xxxxxxx, http://www.suse.de/~aj/
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126
> That is interesting. It would be a good idea for Novell to put out some
> additional explanatory material in the next few days, addressing the various
> excitable comments that have been made in discussions on this.
I expect something like this to happen soon.
> In particular, is Novell suggesting that there is some truth to the suggestion
> that parts of Linux infringe patents, or is it simply accepting that
> Microsoft has rights over its own stuff (eg codecs)? Most comments on the
> net tend to assume the former, but I would have thought the latter is equally
> plausible.
Not at all. We're of the opinion that there are no patent
infringements right now in Linux and the deal does not imply that we
think so. There 're just a lot of customers that want to be on the
safe side and we help to protect them *if* such a case applies.
> The only fly I still see in the ointment is the phrase "individual,
> non-commercial developers". For example, does this mean that a group of
> non-commercial developers, or a single developer who decides to sell a
> service based on the app he's developed, are not covered?
>
> And as Marcel Hilzinger said:
> "Why are there 2 different points in the patent question? Will there be a
> difference between OpenSUSE and Suse Linux Enterprise? What about
> contributors to OpenSUSE.org whose code is _not_ included in the SUSE Linux
> Enterprise platform? Are they covered by the second statement?"
I hope this gets answerd on our coperate side, I'll forward this,
Andreas
--
Andreas Jaeger, aj@xxxxxxx, http://www.suse.de/~aj/
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126
| < Previous | Next > |