Kevin Donnelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > That is interesting. It would be a good idea for Novell to put out some > additional explanatory material in the next few days, addressing the various > excitable comments that have been made in discussions on this.
I expect something like this to happen soon. > In particular, is Novell suggesting that there is some truth to the > suggestion > that parts of Linux infringe patents, or is it simply accepting that > Microsoft has rights over its own stuff (eg codecs)? Most comments on the > net tend to assume the former, but I would have thought the latter is equally > plausible. Not at all. We're of the opinion that there are no patent infringements right now in Linux and the deal does not imply that we think so. There 're just a lot of customers that want to be on the safe side and we help to protect them *if* such a case applies. > The only fly I still see in the ointment is the phrase "individual, > non-commercial developers". For example, does this mean that a group of > non-commercial developers, or a single developer who decides to sell a > service based on the app he's developed, are not covered? > > And as Marcel Hilzinger said: > "Why are there 2 different points in the patent question? Will there be a > difference between OpenSUSE and Suse Linux Enterprise? What about > contributors to OpenSUSE.org whose code is _not_ included in the SUSE Linux > Enterprise platform? Are they covered by the second statement?" I hope this gets answerd on our coperate side, I'll forward this, Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.suse.de/~aj/ SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126
pgpW9LXyph5sg.pgp
Description: PGP signature
