Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 3rd Feb 2007 16:43 UTC, submitted by mwtomlinson
Permalink for comment 208782
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 05/22/13 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
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-11-13
Hopefully (for Novel's sake) they wrote up the licensing agreements with MS in a way that only covers the current code base, or has an opt out option should this whole deal go through, by opt out I mean an exit plan cause the deal will mean nothing for novel should the GPL 3.0 put them in violation of the license due to this deal.
I'm not sure that what Novel did was wrong and I can't say that I'm against the FSF's moves in regards to Novel's actions. There is a bigger freedom at stake should patent deals be 'legal' under the GPL of the future, and that freedom may well be most of OSS as a whole if the FSF fails to address this now.
I can see both sides of it, Novel made a deal that gave benefit to their business model (I can't slight a company for that) and the FSF is reviewing how the GPL license is written due to the fear that these deals may well undermine the GPL down the road (can't say I'm against that either).
Edited 2007-02-03 18:35