Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> Novell To Press On With Microsoft Alliance, With Or Without Microsoft
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
>| In an e-mail Monday, Novell's spokesman said the company would fill the gap
>| by distributing portions of its SUSE Linux enterprise suite that fall under
>| the GPLv3 licence directly to customers who purchased certificates that would
>| have entitled them to receive the software from Microsoft.
> `----
>
> http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=201000521&cid=RSSfeed_IWK_News
Now it starts. Microsoft have tried very hard indeed to stop GPLv3,
and received considerable support for their actions from many people in
the free software world, even some of our regulars here.
>
> No confrontation expected between Microsoft and FSF
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
>| Anyone waiting for Microsoft vs FSF or FSF vs Microsoft will be extremely
>| likely to be disappointed. Besides broad campaigning against software patent,
>| FSF offensive has mostly opted to educate, rather than legal recourse. Right
>| now, FSF is just going to say that GPL3 settle this matter once and for all.
>| I cannot see FSF recklessly and purposefully infringe on Microsoft's patent
>| to provoke Microsoft in order to test this theory. As for Microsoft, it will
>| stick by its gun that it is not a party to GPL3 and have no obligation under
>| GPLv3. It is not in its interest to have this theory tested either.
>|
>| If I were to place a bet, I say Microsoft vs FSF is more likely than FSF vs
>| Microsoft. Even more likely is GPLv3 is tested by Microsoft vs ?someone
>| else?. I believe the fuse for such a lawsuit is already lit. Only problem is
>| we do not know when the bomb will explode.
> `----
>
> http://ctrambler.wordpress.com/2007/07/09/no-confrontation-expected-between-microsoft-and-fsf/
Software patents *do not* apply outside the US, Canada, Mexico and
Australia. You cannot infringe on them, because they are not
legitimate, and rightly so.
>
> Linus on "Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3"
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
>| I don't think it's hypocritical to prefer the GPLv3. That's a fine choice,
>| it's just not *mine*.
>|
>| What I called hypocritical was to do so in the name of "freedom", while
>| you're at the same time trying to argue that I don't have the "freedom" to
>| make my own choice.
>|
>| See? THAT is hypocritical.
> `----
>
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=118236278730043&w=4
No, it's not hypocritical at all. This is precisely the same argument
used by Microsoft and their paid shills and trolls here in preferring
the BSD licence over the GPL. They like the BSD because they can make
use of all the hard work of the BSD programmers without having to give
anything back. Essentially the same argument is in use with respect to
GPLv2 versus GPLv3; the intent of GPLv3 is to make it ever more
difficult for organisations or individuals to selfishly profit from the
work of many others, unselfish profit being fine, of course.
It's amazing how many people have lined up with the arguments used by
our windows trolls for so many years.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |
|
|
