> From what I've read, this is not the case at all. My understanding is that what Novell is trying to do is make sure that ONLY the variety of Linux controlled by Novell can be used (paying!) where it really matters and makes a difference (public administrations, schools and businesses).
If that were the case it would be indeed a cause for concern, but that is just what the media are implying, not what Novell are saying. > If I'm wrong, that's good, but then can you please point me to > official declarations from Microsoft, Novell or their single > executives stating or admitting that any organizations or end user can professionally use or develop other "brands" of "Free as in Freedom" software without legal risks? See Q3, and 4 in the FAQ http://www.novell.com/linux/microsoft/faq_opensource.html Novell's position is that the software they are distributing does not infringe, and if it is found to they will remove the infringing part. Therefore any other distributor distributing the same software does not need protection. > That's difficult to believe *if* what Novell is doing strenghtens the concept that the community has no right or legal guarantees to develop or use, for any purpose, other Free Software. Again, please provide proofs that this is not the case, I'd really like (seriously) to be wrong on this. As above, Novell's stated position is that the community and other distributors are not at risk. Microsoft on the other hand (well Ballmer) has been implying that recently, but that is nothing todo with the MS-Novell deal, and directly contradicts Novell's statements. > This is correct, because forking is useless or undoable when the problem is software patents. See my other message in this thread. Exactly, if Novell don't have the right to ship something due to patent infringement then neither do other parties. _ Benjamin Weber -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
