To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
There are a lot of people who do not fit into the category of "non-compensated developer, or anyone who contributes to the code used in OpenSuse". Most of the people in the world fit outside that description, actually.
If Microsft actually meant "we won't sue anyone as long as they don't sue us" ... then why didn't they just say "we won't sue anyone as long as they don't sue us" as Sun did?
Food for thought, surely?
If Microsoft had actually said "we won't sue anyone as long as they don't sue us", just as Sun did, what would be "in it" for Novell?
If there is actually something about this deal for Novell, some real benefit to be had, where Micrsoft has said "we won't sue you, or people who contribute to your projects" ... doesn't that strongly imply that Microsoft have effectively promised that they WILL sue other parties? If not so ... as I say ... what is in it for Novell?
I will start to worry when Microsoft start to try to charge people for running code that Microsoft didn't actually write ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_tax#Licensing_agreements
http://aroundcny.com/technofile/texts/bit052202.html
... oh wait.
Edited 2008-11-21 03:16 UTC
"I will start to worry when Microsoft start to try to charge people for running code that Microsoft didn't actually write ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_tax#Licensing_agreements
http://aroundcny.com/technofile/texts/bit052202.html
... oh wait."
I don't know what they wrote of anything. Thanks for the first link, very educational. As with every software/hardware company they buy other companies, and sell the product as their own. Is the way of the business world, and if I were to dig I can guarantee I would find Sun and IBM having done the same thing. I don't have the energy to do that currently
As for the second link, OEM licenses purchased with a computer system need to stay with the system. That does not mean however that is the OS that must be on them, and the license is paid for with the system, and has never had to be paid again. I really have no idea what that version 3.0 educational license had written in it, I do however know that is not the case any longer, and the license agreement no longer calls for that.
http://www.microsoft.com/education/terms.mspx
No, I am not defending Microsoft, Linux, *BSD, etc. I use them all, and they all have a place.
I guess my main point is that IBM, Sun, and even Microsoft, are heading to do everything with standards. Whether it came about due to legal issues or not, I don't care. I do just care that it is happening.
I do respect your thoughts on it all. Last reply in this thread though as I have taken it OT, so really should be modded down.





Member since:
2005-12-02
"In contrast, the Microsoft covenant not to sue is a covenant not to sue Novell or Novell's customers."
Well, there actually is much more to it than that if you read the documents. Microsft has also pledged in those documents not to sue anyone who is a non-compensated developer, or anyone who contributes to the code used in OpenSuse. I would think that pretty much says they can't sue anyone. Personally I believe there is no difference between the 2 covenants. Of course, I have been wrong and certainly will be wrong on things to come. Who knows..I will start to worry if Microsoft does something they have never done before, which is sue someone for any type of patent infringement. I would like to point out that I despise software patents, and if they must exist, they should be subject to the same rules as patents on a physical item. Meaning schematics/blueprints must be submitted, and that is what is patented, not the idea itself. In other words, they should not exist.
http://www.microsoft.com/interop/msnovellcollab/community.mspx
EDIT: Added the link to the document.
Edited 2008-11-21 02:44 UTC