Anders Johansson wrote: > On Sunday 19 November 2006 11:28, Mark Hounschell wrote: >> The _end_ would be sure and swift. There would be no trail. It would be >> dismissed as frivolous. > > The SCO trial is still running, and no one outside that company believes they > are right. Microsoft has people like Groklaw's PJ on their side in claiming > they have patented ideas in linux (see the claims of OSRM, which when they > started included Pamela Jones) >
Again I say that if MS were to sue _ME_ for using linux today the end would be sure and swift. I would not need money. > Justice may get there in the end, but anyone who thinks it's swift has not > been watching the news the past few decades > >> I said nothing about end users anyway. MS wouldn't >> dare sue me or you for using OS linux. > > I believe people said the same about the RIAA and end users downloading mp3s > I'm not up really knowledgeable on what happened there. Did any end home user actually get sued and have to pay restitution for downloading mp3s? >> Again though, Novell is a (the only) linux distributor now in bed with MS. > > There is no "bed" here. microsoft is turning on the spin machine. This needs > to be stopped asap. Novell does not accept the claim that the payments are > patent royalties. > I hope that is true. But... I personally don't believe it. >> You know all the diseases MS carries. What would happen if MS were able to >> coerce Novell into actually sneaking some of its IP into linux >> (glibc/kernel etc) only to be 'discovered' at some time convenient to MS? > > Silly. Given that Novell has bet the house on linux, what would the gain be? > This is still a billion dollar company, remember. Not something teetering on > the brink of bankrupcy. With 4000+ employees, you don't do suicide pacts like > that > I now even wonder if MS was somehow involved in the purchase of SuSE by Novell. The conspiracy thickens... > Besides, Novell doesn't maintain either the kernel or glibc. The kernel is > with the OSDL, and glibc is maintained by red hat. > No, but they contribute a lot to both. They are in the proper position. > > If microsoft has plans like that, it would be far simpler to put out some > "undercover" developers, submitting patches from home Thats probably true. Unless they wanted to insure it was done right?? And sometimes it's easier to buy company then it is to buy a person. Mark -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
