Hi all,
It has caught my attention the following subthread in latest groklaw article
("A Protective Order in Novell & a Tiny Delay in IBM"), from a post
titled "GPL 2 or 3 an interesting dilemma" on the OT thread.
http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=20060803232955625&title=GPL+2+or+3+an+interesting+dilemma&type=article&order=&hideanonymous=0&pid=468819#c468827
It seems to imply that Novell has violated the GPL big way with the boxed SuSE
10.1 distribution.
Quoting:
But there are bigger issues than which version of the GPL to use, such as what
to do about suppliers of boxed distros who don't even mention the source code
in their manual, far less where to get it, and don't supply it on the DVD.
Actually, they probably do supply sufficient kernel source to be able to
compile the interface to the Nvidia driver, but that is all, and yet they
appear to be taking the moral high ground by refusing to supply anything
directly that is not GPL compatible, while all the time they themselves are
in violation. I do of course mean Novell, whose actions I no longer trust,
and whose products I no longer use, especially as SuSE 10.1 was very badly
broken.
So, is Novell really violating the GPL with SuSE 10.1?
--
Don't see the world through a window, be open{source}minded, and be free :-)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
