OT: Novell Is Not SCO

[Craig White]

On Sun, 2006-11-12 at 12:09 -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Sunday 12 November 2006 11:43, Craig White wrote:
> >On Thu, 2006-11-09 at 12:13 -0700, Phil Meyer wrote:
> >> taharka wrote:
> >> > On Thu, 2006-11-09 at 09:10 -0700, Craig White wrote:
> >> >> for a completely different perspective...
> >> >
> >> > Yes, I've read that one. Also, plenty of different perspectives in
> >> > the comments section at that link. Not much activity though since
> >> > Nov 5th.
> >> >
> >> >> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20061102175508403
> >> >>
> >> >> Craig
> >> >
> >> > taharka
> >> >
> >> > Lexington, Kentucky U.S.A.
> >>
> >> Still fairly polarized, but still worth the read:
> >>
> >> http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/20061109a.html
> >>
> >> And PJ (groklaw) has a story about it today.
> >
> >----
> >and likewise, samba developers took a position today
> >
> >http://news.samba.org/announcements/team_to_novell/
> >
> >Craig
> 
> Knee-jerk reaction by me would have been to demand that samba and cifs be 
> removed from their distribution, but I see it didn't quite come to that, 
> so its just so much hot air.  Unfortunately...
----
they really can't do that. If it is demonstrated that this deal does
indeed violate GPL license and thus disqualifies Novell from legally
distributing GPL licensed software, it won't go unnoticed.

Interestingly enough, this event probably gives rise to the best
argument in favor of GPL v3 than all other events.

Craig