Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> Comparing Red Hat's patent settlement with the Microsoft-Novell
> agreement
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
>> Novell did precisely not sign a patent agreement with Microsoft
>> debunking any claims or myths related to FOSS infringing Microsoft's
>> 'intellectual property'. It implicitly did just the contrary: Microsoft
>> and Novell were teaming up to 'protect' Novell customers against
>> patent claims made by'¦ Microsoft. The agreement was only covering
>> Novell customers (not even OpenSuse users) and was at the same time
>> contradicting the GPL (v2). Red Hat's settlement does not seem to
>> conflict with any version of the GPL as it places no burden or extra
>> deeds on users and developers of GPLv3 software (More on that later).
>> There was no prior art, no litigation, and perhaps as important as the
>> rest, the Novell-Microsoft agreement involved money. Lots of it . On
>> the other hand, Red Hat received to my knowledge no payment for the
>> settlement and as a future outcome, no strong incentive to do business
>> with the plaintiffs and have its existing customers sign some dubious
>> 'software patent insurance'.
> `----
>
> http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/2008/06/17/comparing-red-hats-patent-settlement-with-the-microsoft-novell-agreement/#comment-886
Looks like another case of a Linux win and troll loss. As a result, I
anticipate Hadron and his bedfellow Moshe coming along any minute,
spouting their stupid stuff. It only adds fodder for kill filtering.
--
HPT
|
|
