After Anders J. noted that RedHat offers a similar pledge to their customers,
Sunny [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] demands: [...] > > Yes, and there is the difference - RedHat does this by themselves - we > sell you software - we'll help you if there is a problem - plain and > fair. > > Novell - on the other hand - says: We sign an agreement with the > people who started this FUD, so they will not go after you. If they > [Novell] were so sure they do not have patent problems, why just not > promise the same as RH to their customers? And still besides this > question, actually what for Novell are paid for by MS??? What does MS > receive, except the weakening of the community. Divide and conqueror! This one sounds pretty simple to me, from a business perspective: a) any big company with deep pockets can bring suit, even knowing in advance that it's not winnable, and tie up the poor defendant for years - this hurts a target that has shallower pockets (and can't afford to have their limited resources diverted by such an attack) and it has a chilling effect on others who read about it b) MS is as big as they come and has deeper pockets than anybody, and they've demonstrated willingness to harrass people in the courts, directly or by proxy c) MS is one of, if not _the_ most likely to offer legal threat to others, just because of their size and the number and variety of interests they have in the software/ip world d) What RH did was phrased to cover almost anybody who might bring suit against their customers - even though MS might be the most likely merely because of size, power and ubiquity, the very offer by RH opens RH to potentially unlimited drains on their coffers from all directions (not just MS, though MS is the one that'll give most IT purchasers the shivers) - it's not the actuality (how many are actually suing right now?), it's the unknown potential that's nervous-making for investors and e) What Novell did accomplishes the same thing (reassures customers by setting aside some protection money), but ensures, by tying up the biggest bully on the block, that Novell's expense for the gesture is: a) known and predictable for the next several years b) deductible/write-off-able ( I made up that word, just now) So, as an investor or customer, which approach gives you better warm fuzzies? RedHat's or Novell's? I'd say that Novell's move makes their risk much lower and much less open-ended than RedHat's, and accomplishes at least as much. Given how much of the rest of the discussion seems to be free of actual facts, and partakes of the fuzzy (but not warm) nature of FUD, one wonders if the supposed OSS/GPL defenders who protest the loudest might not be on MS payroll. If not, they've missed an opportunity to get paid for a job well done. Kevin The information contained in this electronic mail transmission may be privileged and confidential, and therefore, protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to this message and deleting it from your computer without copying or disclosing it. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
