On Sunday 17 December 2006 17:46 Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 17:32:46 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>> Payback time for Novell
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>| However, Novell had to cause significant harm to the GPL in order to
>>| be paid. And that is what Microsoft was after.
>>|
>>| Microsoft wants to invalidate the GPL by making further contributions
>>| via the GPL distasteful for developers.
>> `----
>>
>> http://www.lamlaw.com/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=135
>
> I find it quite ironic that the supposed "rock solid" GPL could be so
> easily "harmed" simply by Microsoft saying "We grant patent rights to
> Novell".
>
> No other license in the world could be so easily "harmed".
So what are you saying Erik....
- that the GPL is/was harmed?
- that Microsoft's intention (in entering the Novell deal) was to harm it?
- that they succeeded?
|
|
