Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 8th Nov 2006 11:24 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 179951
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
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
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-06-19
Do you see a patent license anywhere? MS and Novell made sure to clarify this is a covenant not to sue and does not mention a patent license.
Microsoft does the FUD again with a similar SCO theme. Really, we have patents and IP and stuff that you are violating. All the while not revealing what IP/Patents they are talking about since this is simply a covenant.
They hold up Suse as "their" linux and says you are safe if you run this. So all the companies that want to use linux - guess what they choose?
Section 7 will be danced around because none of this is clearly defined as patent royalty payments of GPL software. It is about payment for hiring staff to work on the project, for "coupons", for money paid to agree to do this and so forth...
Skips around GPLv2 quite easily. I think v3 would be a bit harder to skip around but could probably be done also. But hopefully this highlights a need that we do need something a bit more defined to try and combat crap like this.