On 18 Jan, S.Toms wrote:
>
> "Fred A. Miller" wrote:
>>
>> http://www.zdnet.com/pcweek/stories/news/0,4153,380769,00.html
>> -
>
> That particular article brought many heated comments and replies on
> the kernel mailing list when it first hit in December. Mainly do to the
> portion that said the following:
>
> '"With a general public license, there are some
> exposures with liability and how open are the
> patents if you modify the code. The best way
> to solve this is by cleaning up the license.'
>
> Which makes you wonder what exactly about GNU bothers them that needs
> to be cleaned up?
You ever ventured deeply into the depths of IBM? IBM is indeed a
corporate monster with this division doing things that bother that. I
was a OS/2 user for about 9 years. IBM PSP, that venerable shop that
made OS/2 was vilified and denigrated by their own hardware shop. You
could not buy a brand of PC with OS/2 preloaded; yet, other divisions
would only support NT. The main thing is that you are not talking about
IBM in the generic sense here. You are talking about some division of
IBM which said this. There are probably other divisions which would
viciously deny this. And others that simply do not know anything about
it. Whenever IBM is mentioned in the press, the "certain sources law"
should apply. But instead the interviewee should have to state clearly
what division he or she works in.
IBM has always been terrible at marketing but they make truly great
operating systems.
--
Michael E. Perry
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------
-
To get out of this list, please send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
this text in its body: unsubscribe suse-linux-e
Check out the SuSE-FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/ and the
archiv at http://www.suse.com/Mailinglists/suse-linux-e/index.html
