Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 13th Mar 2009 08:28 UTC
GNU, GPL, Open Source The whole FAT licensing saga between Microsoft and TomTom just got a whole lot more complicated. Microsoft sued TomTom because the satnav maker had not licensed FAT from Microsoft, even though several others have. This left TomTom in a difficult position: not license it, and face legal penalties - license it, and violate the GPL. The second part, however, is up for debate now: the terms under which Microsoft licenses FAT may not violate the GPL at all. Near-instant update: On Slashdot, Bruce Perens and Jeremy Allison have explained that the FAT terms are still a GPL violation. Allison accidentally emailed the journalist who wrote this story with the wrong information.
Permalink for comment 353088
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Why Is This News?
by NathanHill on Fri 13th Mar 2009 17:05 UTC
Member since:

I'm not sure what is at issue here - who cares if licensing FAT violates the GPL?

Could someone point me to a link why this is being discussed on Slashdot and here?

Reply Score: 1