On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 21:17:04 +0000, 7 wrote:
> Kier wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 20:46:03 +0000, 7 wrote:
>>
>>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>>
>>>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>>>> ____/ spinner on Wednesday 09 January 2008 16:28 : \____
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 15:04:27 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ____/ Bob Tennent on Wednesday 09 January 2008 13:17 : \____
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 13:06:57 GMT, 7 wrote:
>>>>>>>> > Just a thought.
>>>>>>>> > There ought to be a generic name for encumbered Linuxes like
>>>>>>>> > Novel's linux, linspire, turbolinux, xandross and anyone else
>>>>>>>> > thinking of doing what those guys have done by selling out to
>>>>>>>> > patent troll inclined companies.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is a brilliant idea. It would make a consistent terminology.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> > What about
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > Cucumber Linux
>>>>>>>> > Cucumbered Linux (just two letters changed from encumbered
>>>>>>>> > Linux) Cucumbered Linux :-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How about Tainted Linux?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Shouldn't that be, "Tainted GNU/Linux"? :)
>>>>>
>>>>> I thought that before posting. Since they hardly care about the GPL
>>>>> (they violate it by spirit), why GNU? Why even Linux? One company just
>>>>> called it Lindows.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I tried this before, but people take offence in that. When words like
>>>>>>> 'infected' or 'tainted' are used, I've faced comparisons to Nazi
>>>>>>> propaganda from a pro-Novell zealot (others attacked him for
>>>>>>> suggesting this).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If it pisses 'em off that much then it's perfect!
>>>>>
>>>>> If I say 'tainted', Novell employees call me a zealot.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tainted is good. Let the Novell zealots scream, we can ignore them.
>>>
>>> Ambush Linux
>>> Ambushed Linux
>>>
>>> Troll Linux (too close to trolltech me thinks)
>>>
>>> Closed Linux
>>> Sourceless Linux
>>
>> Are you claiming you can't get the source for SUSE?
>
> For everything that is distributed pre-encumbered.
If it's not under the GPL, it has no obligation to provide source. Don't
you believe in following software licences?
--
Kier
|
|
