| |||||||||||||
Questions that need answeringQuestions that need answeringPosted Dec 6, 2006 23:52 UTC (Wed) by drag (subscriber, #31333)In reply to: Questions that need answering by NigelK Parent article: Of hypocrisy and the FSF (Libervis)
Eben Moglin and RMS both have stated that the Novell-Microsoft agreement is perfectly legal and is not a violation of the GPL license.
And Eben has looked closely at the details of the arrangement. I am willing to beleive them.
In other words Novell-Microsoft is NOT IN VIOLATION of the GPLv2 license.
There is nothing that FSF or GNU or anybody else can do about it, legal-wise. The goal is to close this paticular loophole with the GPLv3 license.
(Log in to post comments)
Questions that need answering Posted Dec 7, 2006 20:47 UTC (Thu) by Arker (guest, #14205) [Link] I don't believe either of them have said that, actually. Link?
Questions that need answering Posted Dec 8, 2006 0:08 UTC (Fri) by k8to (subscriber, #15413) [Link] You come off as pretty brusque. In general, on this site, I find that you can accept people at their word. It saves a lot of time and unpleasantness.
Here is the link.
|
|||||||||||||