Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 2nd Nov 2006 22:05 UTC, submitted by anonymous
Permalink for comment 178312
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/25/13 0:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 23:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Howard Fosdick on 05/24/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 14:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-04-21
Wouldn't GPL take care of the patent stuff?
I mean, if they cover SuSe, doesn't the GPL make sure it covers all components covered even if they are used in another distro?
No, and yes. It is illegal under the GPL to indemnify one party against patents without indemnifying all parties who use the same GPL code. So it sounds like another SCO case. But you're forgetting that in that case, the "good guys" also had the better lawyers and the bigger pockets. Who do you think is going to have the better lawyers and the bigger pockets in Microsoft vs. Anybody?
Free the GPL Three NOW!