Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 22nd Nov 2006 13:23 UTC, submitted by anonymous
Just about everyone has expressed an opinion on the Novell/Microsoft patent agreement - except, that is, for the 800-pound gorilla of Linux: IBM. Today, Scott Handy, IBM's VP of Worldwide Linux and Open Source, decided that enough was enough and it was time to state IBM's position. In an interview with Linux-Watch.com, Handy opened by saying that, "IBM has long supported interoperability between Windows and Linux. As supporters of open source and open standards," he continued, "we applaud any effort to bridge this gap."
Thread beginning with comment 184455
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.
Member since:
2006-04-21
Yet we tear any one down who disagrees with our views. There is a divide between the community and this type of divide only makes CIO's and business owners regard us as bikering kids.
Contradiction. "We're supposed to allow different views. If we allow differing views, CIO's will look at us as a bunch of bickering kids."
As I said, contradiction.
Why cn't we respect Novell's business model if you disagree disagree respectfuilly and choose a vendor that fits your core beliefs but we don't have to tear someone down to build someone up. Some business owners myself included like the idea of Novell/MS agreements to enable us to push Linux into companies that otherwise will say no.
So? Why should we allow MS (or anyone) to co-opt Linux in clear violation of the licence agreements? There may be some for whom distributing Windows code uhder the GPL (and here I refer specifically to Windows code which MS wrote and placed under non-FOSS licenses, not workalikes like ReactOS) would be enough to get them to use Windows, but wouldn't Microsoft have a right to complain if their copyrighted code were copylefted?
Like it or not what works with MS is a lot of times the standard in SMB's and uneducated companies regard Linux as a hack or hacked together OS made of alternatives.
Ignorance of the law (relating to proper use of GPL software, or any other) is no defence.
This agreement will add some foundation to what we as a community has said about Linux for years. It is truly an business OS.
If MS want to make Linux "truly a business OS" (as if it weren't already) then they should contribute code and/or complete specs in compliance with the GPL. Instead what they are doing is either an attempt to make Linux proprietary, to "skirt round" Linux or its licence, or both.