OT: Novell Is Not SCO

[Arthur Pemberton]

On 11/13/06, Craig White <craigwhite at azapple.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-11-12 at 14:47 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
> > On Sun, 2006-11-12 at 14:35, Craig White wrote:
> > > ----
> > > I believe that the FSF / FSLC was more concerned with a potential
> > > violation of section 7 of the GPL (v2) but since they (Eben Moglen) have
> > > been invited to review the complete contractual agreement...
> > >
> > > http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2168151/novells-opens-microsoft
> > >
> > > we are certain to know what the official position of the FSF/FSLC is
> > > going to be.
> >
> > But my point is that _if_ the Novell agreement is necessary
> > for distribution, then GPL distribution is already illegal
> > for everybody, not just Novell.
> ----
> of course your point relies upon presumptive guilt...which as I
> understand it is part and parcel of a Catholic upbringing but clearly at
> odds with the expectations of open source software users.
>

Wow dude. I'm no Catholic...but how did we get to Religion?

> Red Hat assures us that this presumptive guilt is not our (open source
> software users) concern...
>
> http://www.redhat.com/promo/believe/
>
> So unless/until Microsoft or by proxy, Novell, wants to assert some
> claim, it is simply spreading FUD to suggest otherwise.
>
> Craig


-- 
Fedora Core 6 and proud