On 2006-12-05 23:36, Kai Ponte wrote:
Not to beat a dying horse, but this was too intersting to pass up and not to pass on to you fine folks.
http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2006/Dec-04.html and http://dev-loki.blogspot.com/2006/12/groklaw-fud-machine.html
Slashdot has an article linking to a groklaw piece on why they thing the MS/Novell deal is very very bad.
Interesting you should cite these two.. Pascal Bleser (aka guru aka loki) has suggested that Groklaw has now matched slashdot's level -- the gutter :-) I'll kill two birds with one stone. I have no intention of running out to find citations for everything; IIRC, it's all published somewhere on The Register http://www.theregister.co.uk/. Janne Karhunen wrote:
It's just that Novell has not realized this yet and is giving MS precisely what it wants. Let me quote PJ:
1. to try to prove that the GPL is not legally binding and so can be violated in order to make some money, honey.
I thought all previous musings from Groklaw were that the GPL *is* legally binding, and that Novell is intentionally violating it. Nice try, then, to change horses and try to assert the opposite.
2. Another goal was to cast a legal cloud over Linux, so in the enterprise, PHBs would be afraid to employ it for fear of legal consequences of possibly violating SCO's "IP".
SCO has been hit a mortal blow: Virtually their entire case has been thrown out by the presiding judge, and they have yet to demonstrate a single line of code that supports their claims. Anyone believing that the community of end users is oblivious to these developments is on drugs so cheap that I don't even want any.
3. And also there was the apparent goal of forcing Linux to cost something
There is a recent decision by a US federal court (SCOTUS itself??) that there is no legal obligation to charge anything for one's work. This was in response to a claim that a selling cost of zero hindered free trade by attempting to create a monopoly. In short, the court found that US anti-trust legislation does not require one to sell one's product, so the GPL is quite safe on these grounds.
Point is really valid. Deal does lot more harm to the community than it does help. Which point is valid? The only valid point I see in all of this is that Groklaw cannot make up its mind about who is doing what, or why.
-- The best way to accelerate a computer running Windows is at 9.81 m/s² -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org