Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 8th Jun 2007 15:01 UTC, submitted by AdministratorX
Permalink for comment 246349
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:
2006-09-08
The GPL makes it "supposed" protection. Especially in the case of MS's deals, because they hardly cover anything! Read "Excluded Products" like office applications, servers, business applications, financial applications, client-servers, WINE, samba, etc in their SEC filing.
http://www.secinfo.com/dsvrp.uc2x.6.htm#1stPage
That's why Novell and Xandros and (we don't know yet) probably LGe offer protection to their Linux customers, to get around section 7 of the GPL.
I believe they all indemnify each other's companies and cross-license, but they can't do that with Linux products because of the GPL, so they offer "supposed" protection to customers.
Edited 2007-06-08 18:41