Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 3rd Apr 2007 17:13 UTC, submitted by davidiwharper
Novell and Ximian "The Free Software Foundation has published a third draft of the GPL3 license. The FSF had indicated leading up to this draft that it would be addressing some concerns it had with the Novell-Microsoft agreements in the draft. Here's Novell's position on the new draft."
Permalink for comment 227069
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: My comment for Novell
by binarycrusader on Tue 3rd Apr 2007 21:02 UTC in reply to "RE: My comment for Novell"
binarycrusader
Member since:
2005-07-06

1) Red Hat stood by their products and guaranteed IP indemnification without making deals with IP holders. Why couldn't Novell have done the same?


Why would any sane company indemnify their customers when they know that the product they ship (Linux) has a possibility of infringing on an extremely rich company's patents? Given the size of Microsoft's patent portfolio, I have no doubt that some part of the Linux kernel *does* infringe on Microsoft's patents. As screwed up and as silly as some of the patents that companies are granted, it should be no wonder. Now whether or not those patents it infringes on are *valid* or would stand up to a validation test is another story....

2) If Novell is interested in protecting its customers, why are they only protecting them from Microsoft? Surely there are other patent holders that might make infringement claims.

Maybe because they are the biggest threat?

According to Miguel, Novell believes that their Linux products do not infringe any patents, but it cannot convince its prospective customers of this, and it won't guarantee it.

I've never seen that said. I have seen those claims about Mono, but even then they are quick to say that there are certain parts that could be patented.

I'd like to see the source of this.

Reply Parent Score: 4