On 2006-11-03 15:20, M Harris wrote:
On Friday 03 November 2006 03:22, Darryl Gregorash wrote:
Well, if you believe any of this, particularly the crap about "use MS-licenced or approved Linux, all else is illegal", then perhaps *you* will be interested in the farmland east of Sydney (Australia).
Darryl, you are gravely deceived....
The article hits at the very heart and soul of this issue. Novell is selling out... and everyone better watch out. Its time for a fork and run folks...
Gimme a break, dude. From that web-dropping Fred posted: "When we say "commercial", it's interesting to note that there are really few non-commercial users: people who only use their computer for a hobby. Buying something on a web site, for example, is a commercial use. Most individuals use their computers in some aspect of making their livelyhood." Buying something in a store is not a commercial purpose, neither is buying something online a commercial purpose -- unless, of course, you happen to *be* a company or business making a purchase. "Use in commerce" does not equal "commercial use." Even if you are self-employed, potentially a grey area, there is a very easy test: is the purchase for your own use, or is it for the purpose of earning income? But we don't even need to go into all this, until and unless there is some reason to do so.
Actually, its time to make sure that Ubuntu has a cool graphical installer very soon...
No, you cannot do that, because unless you do absolutely *no* online banking, make absolutely *no* online purchases, do *not* use electronic billing for your utilities and internet provider, you are probably a "commercial user" of the software -- we know that, because the web-dropping tells us so. Thus, if you switch to Ubuntu, Uncle Mickey will sue you for some or another patent or licence infringement. This assumes that Microsoft actually has any rights to assert. What rights could they possibly have? Novell (or SCO, if you happen to believe them) owns the Unix patents, not Microsoft, so Microsoft has no rights to assert here -- only Novell (or SCO, if you happen to believe them). However, for as long and as hard as SCO has been claiming otherwise, not a single byte of Unix code has ever been demonstrated in the Linux kernel, and Novell can hardly come in now, having claimed the contrary for so long, by trying to assert any patent claims against the Linux kernel. I won't even comment on the drivel that suggests Novell *can* dump patented code into the kernel, then assert patent rights over the kernel, in any distribution, all in violation of the GPL. What Novell would acquire by doing so is their own kernel, unique to Novell's brands of Linux, most of which would be in violation of Torvalds's copyright. Anything Novell ever contributed to the kernel would be removed, quickly and quietly, and Novell would suddenly find itself in the midst of a rather nasty copyright fight with Torvalds (and I think Linus would be bankrolled by IBM and others, if that ever happened). Next comes this: "Even if everyone were to be protected regarding software that Novell distributes, there's the tremendous collection of Free Software that they don't distribute. A logical next move for Microsoft could be to crack down on "unlicensed Linux", and "unlicensed Free Software", now that it can tell the courts that there is a Microsoft-licensed path." which translates into "if you use any OSS which Novell does not distribute, you are in violation of your Microsoft licence." What Microsoft licence? Even if such a licence does exist, how does the Debian or Ubuntu user automatically fall under it? For that matter, how do *I* fall under any Microsoft licence, if I purchase directly from Novell, or from a Novell-authorized distributor (even Microsoft), or if I download the ISO? Just because Microsoft might sell me a copy of openSuSE in a box, does not create any licence between me and Microsoft. I am not buying any Microsoft product, it is a Novell product. Microsoft is merely a distributor or dealer in the transaction. They have no rights to assert, just as the bookstore has no rights to assert if you buy a book from them, and then infringe the author's copyright. But that is not what the web-dropping is saying: What the web-dropping is actually saying is that, if I buy a Tom Clancy spy novel from the bookstore, then the bookstore can sue me for not having bought a John le Carré novel instead -- failure to purchase the latter being a violation of their rights. So, please enlighten me in case I have made any error here: suppose that Novell, under immense pressure from Microsoft, removes OO.o from openSuSE, with KOffice becoming their only office suite (*), but suppose that I, not liking KOffice at all, download and install OO.o anyway -- just what Microsoft licence have I violated here? Just what Microsoft licence have *you*, the brand-new Ubuntu user, violated by choosing to use OO.o on *your* system? (*) Actually, it would probably be a very expensive, proprietary, MSWord for Linux, but this is only fiction anyway, so I can use KOffice in my example :-P