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. 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
