Upgrading to Firefox 2.0?

[Mike Kallies]

On 11/6/06, Simon <simon80-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org> wrote:
> You must have missed a lot, cause the agreement was all about Linux,
> to my understanding.  And from last Friday, this completely confirms
> the "Novell sells out" hypothesis:
>
> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2050848,00.asp?kc=EWEWEMNL103006EP17A

You're right... nuclear war.

http://www.microsoft.com/interop/msnovellcollab/default.mspx

It's bizzare, Novell exclusively holds little to no Linux IP.  It's
like a loophole on the word "use" in the GPL.  MS is threatening to
sue Novell's customers, and in response, Novell compromised by
cross-licensing patents with MS?

The long term effect on this would be that nobody can "use" Linux
unless they pay a big distributor.

Even developers don't seem to be immune.  The developer clause only
seems to apply to the code which the developer contributes, and
corporate contributors (e.g. Redhat developers), aren't protected.

I was flipping through Groklaw, and there are comparisons made between
this and SCO.  I don't think the comparsions are reasonable, patents
have always been a concern for free software.  Patents have always
been a concern for commercial software.

What if patent holders started suing Microsoft's customers?  e.g
Redhat launches a personal lawsuit against Steve Ballmer's children.
I'm sure they use Windows.  I'm sure they've violated some of Redhat's
patents.

It *is* bizzare.  I *have* been sleeping on this.  Strange event.

-Mike
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists