On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 10:40:18 -0700, John Bailo, Texeme.Construct wrote:
> On Aug 11, 8:25 am, Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | If this is the end it seems to leave Novell in a curious position. |
>> In its deal with Microsoft, Novell appears to have granted Microsoft |
>> the power to claim that Microsoft holds the same kinds of rights to |
>> Linux that SCO claimed, and fourth quarter downloads indicate that |
>> many customers are taking those claims seriously. `----
>>
>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=902
>
> That, to put it mildly, is the most spin that any MS Lover could
> possibly put on the deal.
>
> First, it forgets the fact that IBM was a party to the litigation, and
> it has been cleared. Secondly, IBM have become much closer buddies
> now...much more so than Microsoft.
>
> Sun, was a licensee as well as Microsoft, and no one is talking about
> all those Solaris installations that run the Internet backbones that
> might come under Novell's domain.
>
> But here's the real possible downside to Microsoft.
>
> 1. The signed with SCO ... thus admitting they need a "Unix License" 2.
> That fee was set by SCO
> 3. The court ruling says that not only does Novell have all those
> rights, but it had the right to oversee or negate any "deal" made by SCO
>
> Therefore, Novell could now charge Microsoft billions and billions of
> dollars if it so chooses to stay in business.
>
> I think also that the BSD case will be overturned. To me, it never
> made sense. Clearly UNIX was a thing that could be owned, bought and
> sold, and there was no GPL back then.
>
> Novell, in fact, may own OSX (and Linux) as well.
Just how would Novell own Linux?
--
Rick
|
|
