Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 4th Nov 2006 21:56 UTC
Permalink for comment 179036
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 05/23/13 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
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-10-22
"Second, Microsoft will not assert its patents against individual noncommercial open source developers."
Define "noncommercial open source developers". Not a single RedHat employee is "noncommercial open source developer". Any enterprise that will try to make a living from OS is doomed by this wording, except from Novell.
Not to mention that this deal clearly breaks OS community in half; it is OK to work for Novell, but not OK to work for anyone else. Oh, yes, it is OK to work as a hobbyist. Just can't make a living out of it. I really don't know how they mean to enforce that. Is Linus commercial or noncommercial OS developer? Alan Cox? Guys from IBM? Terrasoft? Mandriva? Guys from Oracle?
This deal sucks, there's not a single good point in it, no matter how hard you try. What the hell do you think MS gave money for?
The worst part of a deal is that somehow Linux actually sneeked in it. FAQ clearly says Mono, OpenOffice, OpenXML, .Net and such. It doesn't mention Linux per se. However, the deal sucked up Linux plus all of the open source. Is Classpath part of this deal? Harmony? Apache? SugarCRM? Azerus? KDE? Who the hell gave Novell authority to include such broad wording in this deal and explanations of it?