Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> Moglen: Microsoft-Novell raises GPL questions
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | "If you make an agreement which requires you to pay a royalty to anybody
> | for the right to distribute GPL software, you may not distribute it
> | under the GPL," Moglen told CNET News.com Thursday. Section 7 of the
> | GPL "requires that you have, and pass along to everybody, the right
> | to distribute software freely and without additional permission."
> |
> | "I and my firm don't take comfort from statement from Microsoft that
> | they won't sue programmers as long as they don't get paid," Moglen
> | said. "We represent developers of free and open-source software. If
> | Microsoft or anyone else attempts to sue our clients for doing what
> | they do to create software, because they're being paid for it, then
> | the people doing that will be sorry. We protect our clients."
> `----
>
> http://news.com.com/2061-10795_3-6132156.html?part=rss&tag=6132156&subj=news
You really think that Novell's lawyers were completely unaware of
"Section 7" when they penned this agreement? Come back to reality,
please.
Besides, OSDL had numerous reps at the Novell/MS press event, all
nodding in approval. Is OSDL corrupt too, now? IBM, the great Linux
supporter, was also "rah rah" regarding the press event.
I get the above info from none other than Perens himself, who despite
his disapproval of the deal, admitted as much:
http://technocrat.net/d/2006/11/2/9962
"They [IBM] were all rah-rah at the press conference, along with HP,
Intel, SAS, and OSDL."
I wish I owned some NOVL about now. And dump RHAT as fast as you can.
|
|
