On 2006-12-05 23:36, Kai Ponte wrote: > Not to beat a dying horse, but this was too intersting to pass up and not to > pass on to you fine folks. > http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2006/Dec-04.html and http://dev-loki.blogspot.com/2006/12/groklaw-fud-machine.html
> Slashdot has an article linking to a groklaw piece on why they thing the > MS/Novell deal is very very bad. > > http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/06/0134211 > > http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20061203015212989 > Interesting you should cite these two.. Pascal Bleser (aka guru aka loki) has suggested that Groklaw has now matched slashdot's level -- the gutter :-) I'll kill two birds with one stone. I have no intention of running out to find citations for everything; IIRC, it's all published somewhere on The Register http://www.theregister.co.uk/. Janne Karhunen wrote: > > It's just that Novell has not realized this yet and is giving > MS precisely what it wants. Let me quote PJ: > > 1. to try to prove that the GPL is not legally binding and so > can be violated in order to make some money, honey. I thought all previous musings from Groklaw were that the GPL *is* legally binding, and that Novell is intentionally violating it. Nice try, then, to change horses and try to assert the opposite. > > 2. Another goal was to cast a legal cloud over Linux, so in the > enterprise, PHBs would be afraid to employ it for fear of > legal consequences of possibly violating SCO's "IP". SCO has been hit a mortal blow: Virtually their entire case has been thrown out by the presiding judge, and they have yet to demonstrate a single line of code that supports their claims. Anyone believing that the community of end users is oblivious to these developments is on drugs so cheap that I don't even want any. > > 3. And also there was the apparent goal of forcing Linux to cost > something > There is a recent decision by a US federal court (SCOTUS itself??) that there is no legal obligation to charge anything for one's work. This was in response to a claim that a selling cost of zero hindered free trade by attempting to create a monopoly. In short, the court found that US anti-trust legislation does not require one to sell one's product, so the GPL is quite safe on these grounds. > Point is really valid. Deal does lot more harm to the community > than it does help. Which point is valid? The only valid point I see in all of this is that Groklaw cannot make up its mind about who is doing what, or why. -- The best way to accelerate a computer running Windows is at 9.81 m/s² -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
