Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 3rd Feb 2007 16:43 UTC, submitted by mwtomlinson
Thread beginning with comment 208812
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 05/25/13 0:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 23:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Howard Fosdick on 05/24/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 14:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-13
Also, if having only two vendors to choose from is fun, having only one should be even more fun! Remember, if your software is certified only on RHEL and Novell, you're not using anything else if you want support.
Until, that is, Microsoft decides to announce that as part of their existing agreement with Red Hat/JBoss, they're extending equal patent protection to RHEL customers. Red Hat will, of course, claim that the existing agreement in no way was intended to provide patent indemnity for GPL products, but that doesn't matter any more than it did when Novell made the same claims.
Then Microsoft can have more fun by claiming that their patent cross-licensing agreements with IBM will extend to patent protection for IBM's linux customers. IBM can claim that they don't support any such assertion, but as we've seen, that's irrelevant.
I'm really interested in seeing just how the FSF thinks they're going to pull off such a restrictive licensing clause and actually make it enforceable.