Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 11th Nov 2006 16:53 UTC, submitted by deanlinkous
GNU, GPL, Open Source "The Software Freedom Law Center's CTO Bradley Kuhn has issued a statement regarding the Novell-Microsoft agreements and how they will impact FOSS developers. They have analyzed in particular Microsoft's Patent Pledge for Non-Compensated Developers and see little value and in fact say it's worse than useless, because it creates an illusion of safety and because it limits severely what that developer is allowed to do with his work."
Thread beginning with comment 181366
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Novell/MSFT
by b3timmons on Sun 12th Nov 2006 00:52 UTC in reply to "RE: Novell/MSFT"
Member since:

"Almost all companies are "evil", just some are better at hiding it."

I cannot disagree with this, but do believe that a given evil can be more or less significant for the things I value, such as free software.

"Here is an excersize for you. Instead of debating against me with what would no doubt equate to "MS is evil, mkay?" why don't you summarize, as best you can, the conditions of the deal with MS.

Do you even understand what they are?"

The business and technical agreements could do quite a bit for the adoption of FOSS, but all of the heat seems to be focused on the patent one, i.e.,

With "certain exceptions", MSFT agrees to not assert its patents against Novell's end-user customers for using Novell products and services for which Novell is paid; and vice versa. Moreover, each have payment obligations to each other here.

Reading the SEC filing or whatever has not dissuaded me from considering this as an attempted end-run around the GPL. Indeed, by your suggestion to learn more about the deal I stumbled across some commentary by MSFT people associated with the deal such as Hilf. His evident pride at trying to circumventing the GPL evokes disgust in me. How does my expertise or ignorance of the overall deal pertain to this consideration? Am I wrong in assuming that you see the business and technical and agreements as compensating for the negativity surrounding the attempted circumvention?

If I am right, then your appeal is really to open source rather than to free software types. I have yet to see the FS case made for this deal, a case that I do not see Novell making. I would love to be wrong and dump money on NOVL.

Edited 2006-11-12 01:12

Reply Parent Score: 2