On Friday 31 August 2007 01:51, Rahulkrishna Gupta wrote: > > the digressed discusion was about licences and alleged fud > > But your abv sentence is definetly ot. > > Note that we still dont have any reply to our grouse about > > Novell's licence - Rahulkrishna Gupta has a novell.com email so i > > presume that he is a Novell employee. Searching google i find > > his posts from 2001 so i presume he is quite thoroughly aware of > > the poltics of freesoftware. So his statement about me spreadind > > fud is ????. It happens all the time all over the world, make a > > statement about Novell licence and someone will spring at you > > with inuendo. But never in all these months a simple statement of > > fact. These are the packages that are restricted and these are > > the packages that are libre. such a statement would make the > > Microvell deal a simple business decision not the subterfuge that > > it seems to us on the outside - designed to con the innocent and > > misappropriate from the commons. > > I am not here to make any political statements. All I asked in my > post was reasons for making statements like "avoid like plague", > reasons which were not mentioned. And hence it was akin to > spreading FUD.
You dont read the net i suppose?. Or Novell's licence? > > Here's the definition from wikipedia > > Fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) is a sales or marketing strategy > of disseminating negative (and vague) information on a competitor's > product. The term originated to describe disinformation tactics in > the computer hardware industry and has since been used more > broadly. FUD is a manifestation of the "appeal to fear." > > I believe you were doing just that in the absence of any concrete > reasons/facts to back your statement. That is what you were doing. The reasons and facts are easily available on the net. Unlike the details of Novells agreement with M$ > > Yes I work with Novell and I am not hiding it. But it was not in > good taste to look up my history or antecedents, things which had > nothing to do with my query. Mails to public mailing list archived on the web are public not private. dont sent mails to public mailing list and nobody from the public will read them. I have explained my reasoning in the mail. But i will spell it out in plain english just for you. You were implying that i was spreading fud. Which means that you are a new bie or lying. The details obtained from the net shows that you are not a newbie. > > Innuendo = disparaging remarks. I don't think I made any. All I > did was request you to provide the basis for your statements. When you say FUD it means dispensing vague and negative information also used more broadly to imply false and msleading info. You did make a disparaging remark. > > Regarding your statement of information not being made available, a > little effort on your part would have lead you to > http://www.novell.com/linux/microsoft/ > A lot of information on the agreement is available on this site. Ha Ha. Plenty of the friends of the friends pating each other on the cleverness. Some pages of Novell's stand on the deal and some pages of M$ stand contradicting Novell's stand. Pages with lines like "as well as a version of Linux that is covered with respect to Microsoft’s intellectual property rights." (this one from the faq) and "Our interest in signing this agreement was to secure interoperability and joint sales agreements, but Microsoft asked that we cooperate on patents as well, and so a patent cooperation agreement was included as a part of the deal. In this agreement, Novell and Microsoft each promise not to sue the other's customers for patent infringement." (this one from community_open_letter.html) Is that an agreement that Novell distros use M$ patents NOoo it's there just cause M$ asked to put it there u know. It doesnt mean a thing. Nothing about redistribution of NovellSuse distros or additions. Just to update you on one of the terms of the gpl. All gpl software can be redistributed and reused. Precisely what this deal tries to prevent. And before you accuse me pf picking parts that suit me, most dont care about what money they sponge off each other, all we want to know is what patents u are talking of. > If you are still not convinced, Ya iam convinced even more that what i said was correct. > please go ahead and form your > opinion. To use or not to use SUSE is your choice. But please > refrain from making the kind of statements you did without fact and > logic. Avoid Novellsuse like the plague because Novell does not clarify which parts of their distro uses M$ patents and hence cannot be redistributed. You stand to get contaminated unless you are capable of analysing the distro and the licence coverage of the relevant parts. And then too you would be at risk. > > I believe one of the objective of this list is to engage in > constructive discussions on Linux and Open Source. I am all for it. Which parts of a NovellSuse distro are redistributable and which are not? that is constructive discussion. > But if you want to get into a slanging match of us vs Novell, then > I am not interested and will desist from posting any further > comments on this topic. Good for you and the rest of us. Dont accuse me of FUD. Instead read up all the pages you pointed at on http://www.novell.com/linux/microsoft/ and tell us about the two things that are important which patents and what packages are not redistributable. -- Rgds JTD -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
