Mailinglist Archive: opensuse (4446 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [opensuse] More fallout on the Novell <> MS Deal on /. and Groklaw
  • From: Darryl Gregorash <raven@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 21:27:38 -0600
  • Message-id: <45778A2A.5070503@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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.
>
> http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/06/0134211
>
> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20061203015212989
>
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@xxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@xxxxxxxxxxxx

< Previous Next >
Follow Ups
References