OT: Novell Is Not SCO

[Craig White]

On Sun, 2006-11-12 at 18:52 +0100, M. Fioretti wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 12, 2006 10:34:58 AM -0700, Craig White
> (craigwhite at azapple.com) wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> > 
> 
> Hmm... why, exactly? (I'm serious, I haven't had time to study GPL3 in
> detail yet)
----
see http://gplv3.fsf.org (one of the good things about GPL/FSF licensing
is readability, unlike the EULA from other well known companies) from
which I lift this quotation...

"The core legal mechanism of the GNU GPL is that of copyleft, which
requires modified versions of GPL'd software to be GPL'd themselves.
Copyleft is essential for preventing the enclosure of the free software
commons, today as it was in 1991. But today's environment is more
complex and diverse; thus, a fully effective copyleft calls for
additional legal measures. Devising these measures is complicated by
another aspect of our success: the worldwide adoption of free software
principles."

In reality, it is agreements like the one recently announced between
Novell & Microsoft, various black box products that chip away at the
edges of the GPL license.

But I am not truly capable of articulating the topic but this guy is...

http://www.redhat.com/magazine/020jun06/features/video_moglen/

Craig