OSNews > Thread > "RE[2]: uh" by deanlinkous

Stallman: Novel/MS Deal Does Not Violate GPLv2

Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 29th Nov 2006 22:50 UTC, submitted by anonymous

It got little notice at the time, but Richard Stallman, the leader of the FSF, said at the fifth international GPLv3 conference in Tokyo on Nov. 21 that the Novell/Microsoft patent agreement is not in violation of the GPL version 2. Stallman said, according to a transcript published by the FSF Europe, "What has happened is, Microsoft has not given Novell a patent license, and thus, section 7 of GPL version 2 does not come into play. Instead, Microsoft offered a patent license that is rather limited to Novell's customers alone."

5 97 Comment(s)

http://osne.ws/csz

Thread beginning with comment 187267
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.

RE[2]: uh

by deanlinkous on Sat 2nd Dec 2006 00:52 UTC in reply to "RE: uh"

Member since:
2006-06-19

OMG, you should give up because YOU are clueless.

GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 2, June 1991

That is the version of the GPL license itself. Notice the copyrights afterward and the FSF mailing address and so forth. Notice the copyright date. The day that the creator wrote the GPL not the program we are talking about.

Section 9 of the GPL License itself.
Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program
specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any
later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions
either of that version or of any later version published by the Free
Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of
this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software
Foundation.

Edited 2006-12-02 00:52

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 1

RE[3]: uh

by elsewhere on Sat 2nd Dec 2006 04:33 in reply to "RE[2]: uh"

Member since:
2005-07-13

I give up. At this point I suspect you'd argue with RMS himself if he tried to make it any clearer to you.

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 1

RE[4]: uh

by deanlinkous on Sat 2nd Dec 2006 17:25 in reply to "RE[3]: uh"

Member since:
2006-06-19

If he could not point out facts to support his argument then YES I certainly would. I used the link you supplied, I downloaded and extracted it and read the COPYING file and I see no mention about what license that the program known as "linux" is covered under.

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 1