____/ Peter Köhlmann on Wednesday 23 January 2008 12:30 : \____
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>> ____/ Peter Köhlmann on Wednesday 23 January 2008 11:41 : \____
>>
>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>
>>>> ____/ Peter Köhlmann on Wednesday 23 January 2008 09:38 : \____
>>>>
>>>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> ____/ Peter Köhlmann on Wednesday 23 January 2008 08:57 : \____
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ____/ jim on Wednesday 23 January 2008 04:29 : \____
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> < snip >
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Is OPENSuse (possibly poisoned) under the same Microsoft licensing
>>>>>>>>> agreement that Microsoft reached with Novell concerning SUSE?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is a more accurate assessment of this in Groklaw (search for
>>>>>>>> "pledge to opensuse developers"), but the impression that I get is
>>>>>>>> that Microsoft puts of them sheep in the same pen. OpenSUSE is
>>>>>>>> merely helping Novell build SLES and SLED, which are just Microsoft
>>>>>>>> cash cows.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Roy, they are *not* MS cash cows.
>>>>>>> Novell has a net profit from that agreement with MS
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You might disagree with their stance, but fact is that companies
>>>>>>> thinking of using linux tend to think rather different about that
>>>>>>> matter. They prefer dealing with Novell precisely because they
>>>>>>> interoperate with MS
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Okay, I won't argue with you on this subject, but I *do* hope that you
>>>>>> are
>>>>>> aware of the fact that for each sale of SLED and SLES Microsoft
>>>>>> *does* get paid. The deal with Novell made it explicit that the
>>>>>> payment is for software patents, which are illegal in Germany.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, when will you start to be correct about that Novell/MS deal?
>>>>>
>>>>> Because that dribble above certainly is *not*
>>>>
>>>> Well, then I'm glad I raised it because it is true. Which part of it do
>>>> you believe to be incorrect?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Which part do you believe to be correct? So far the only factual
>>> statement was that "software patents are illegal in Germany"
>>>
>>> The rest is bullshit
>>
>> Novell and Microsoft has agreed that Microsoft will pay Novell $300+
>> million for 'protection'. In return, based on the volume of Novell sales,
>> Microsoft will receive 'protection' money from Novell. Read the 2007
>> report of Novell. You will see it pretty clearly. Also see the quotes
>> here:
>>
>> More on the OSP
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | Microsoft’s recent history on patents (particularly since the Novell
>> | deal in November 06) has a particularly public persona:
>> |
>> | Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith and licensing chief Horacio
>> | Gutierrez sat down with Fortune recently to map out their strategy for
>> | getting FOSS users to pay royalties. - Fortune
>> |
>> | “Novell pays us some money for the right to tell customers that anybody
>> | who uses SuSE Linux is appropriately covered,” Ballmer said...
>> `----
>>
>> http://brendanscott.wordpress.com/2008/01/18/more-on-the-osp/
>>
>> More quotes there. It's not a secret, it's a reality. Ignoring it won't
>> make it magically go away.
>>
>
> So when Ballmer utters his shite about Novell, it gets somewhat magically
> true. Otherwise it is, and stays, just bullshit and FUD
>
> Nice
*This* we agree on Peter. It's bullshit and FUD. But even people outside
Microsoft seem to suggest it's true. That includes Jeremy Allison.
--
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | Linux + tax = Mac OS = (Windows - functionality)
http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
16:20:01 up 5 days, 2:00, 3 users, load average: 0.44, 0.97, 1.43
http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project
|
|
