To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Again, the point of what I am saying is _YES_ there may be an exchange of IP, Software, assets, etc, but I believe they are incidental to what is really happening. What is happening is the old protection racket - my parents lived through it in the 40's and 50's with a small store. And yes, the protection is real. Microsoft will not come after LG, Novell, Xandros, etc - just like the "boys" would not come after my parents if they singed. What I feel is wrong is the whole threat itself. Microsoft is using trumped-up Patent threats in order to secure its territory. The goal is two have two classes of Linux vendors - those with "protection" and those without. This divides the Linux world. As for the threat being real, I do not know. For the purposes of what is happening, it doesn't matter. It is the "threat of a threat" that matters. It is a "protection" racket.
Were your parents paid money in exchange for something of value?
No, it's likely they have to hand over something of value for the promise not to be physically hurt and protected from other threats.
It's a poor analogy. Your parents faced threats of probably violence of livelyhood and they weren't paid anything. They also didn't likely didn't have any choice. If they didn't agree, they would face some serious consequences.
To compare these deals to that is just ridiculous and I can't believe you would do such a thing. The circumstances are quite different as well as the dynamics.
The GPL makes it "supposed" protection. Especially in the case of MS's deals, because they hardly cover anything! Read "Excluded Products" like office applications, servers, business applications, financial applications, client-servers, WINE, samba, etc in their SEC filing.
http://www.secinfo.com/dsvrp.uc2x.6.htm#1stPage
That's why Novell and Xandros and (we don't know yet) probably LGe offer protection to their Linux customers, to get around section 7 of the GPL.
I believe they all indemnify each other's companies and cross-license, but they can't do that with Linux products because of the GPL, so they offer "supposed" protection to customers.
Edited 2007-06-08 18:41





Member since:
2005-07-06
No, Microsoft is paying LG for access to their intellectual property. That's one of the terms of the agreement. And the "supposed" protection is not supposed. It's protection under law. They are not making LG pay them for this protection.