amicus_curious wrote:
this article .. is rather 4th hand and not a very compelling analysis ..
Said he as he totally failed to address or refute anything in the article.
"Yes, other companies have signed FAT patent licenses, both in the
context of patent cross licensing agreements and other licensing
arrangements."
'Contrary to what Microsoft may state about this not being about Linux,
tying up companies that use Linux and open source in patent licensing
agreements cuts to the very core of one of the things that's kept Linux
and open-source alive: free distribution of the kernel and code'
'Samba maintainer Jeremy Allison pointed out in a recent blog posting by
writer Glyn Moody that companies who sign up to Microsoft's licensing
cannot continue to distribute their code under GPLv2'
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/03/06/microsoft_tomtom_patent_licensing/
--
so who are we goign to believe Jeremy Allison or a legalistic Usenet troll
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
