Skip to comments.Novell is not SCO
Posted on 11/08/2006 2:55:36 PM PST by Halfmanhalfamazing
Now, let's look at Novell's history for a minute, shall we?
Didn't Novell smack SCO up side the head with its claim that SCO owes it the money the Unix company has been using for its never-ending lawsuits? Didn't Novell hit SCO where it lived with its claim that SCO never actually bought Unix's IP(intellectual property)? Wasn't Novell one of the companies that founded the OIN (Open Invention Network) with the goal of sharing Linux patents without charging for royalties?
The answers are yes, yes, and yes.
(Excerpt) Read more at linux-watch.com ...
Now it makes sense....
A number of things have been cleared up, that's for sure.
>>Now it makes sense....<<
Now what makes sense - the Novel bashing?
I suppose its understandable - older folks remember Novel's attempts to monopolize networking and everybody gets nervous when Microsoft comes into your established neighborhood.
MS doesn't want Redhat to take to much of the corporate server space and Novel as an older company with senior patents makes sense as a partner.
This is like the Yankees helping a minor league team in Boston compete with the Red Sox to keep the Sox off balance - its hard to blame the little guy when a powerful ally comes knocking.
I don't feel any need to bash Novel.
Novell needed money,...Microsoft has money....
Plus looks who owns the corporate Novell space Redhat and IBM - it takes big bucks to run with them
I have not seen any unusual novell bashing (usual = 'novell shoots itself in the foot'). But I have been rather busy this week.
PJ at Groklaw is acting like someone just shot her cat. However, I also noticed she is able to segment that issue and the SCO/Novell lawsuit issue quite well.
Give her a break, been a rough couple of months over there at Jokelaw. First Linus Torvalds shows up and gets into a shouting match over GPL3 that ends up with her threatening to ban him over vulgar language, and telling him her mom actually runs Windows. Then IBM goes and sues Amazon over generic patents, I bet she does feel used, and probably why she still won't talk about it. Then Novell goes out and partners with Microsoft, basically trumping the whole SCO lawsuit in the process. She doesn't have much left, with IBM, Novell, even Torvalds abandoning her, but it even gets worse since the GPL has been shown to be "evil" itself allowing that horrible megalomaniac capitalist Larry Ellison to rip free copies of poor Red Hat, like the Chinese were already doing. So please, lighten up on her, she has a lot to be upset about.
Actually, aside from the Novell/MS thing, she's been quite happy. SCO's house of cards is currently in the middle of falling down -- all documented and factually supported at Groklaw using original court documents.
SCO doesn't really matter anymore, except to IBM. Novell has now morphed into SCO and is now offering "the only legally clear version of linux, or at least the closest thing there is to such a thing." They'll sell a few, but since most linux users seem to be more interested in getting something for free, than it being legal, I doubt it'll ever actually pay off very much.
And Novell, and Autozone, and Red Hat, and anyone distributing Linux.
"the only legally clear version of linux, or at least the closest thing there is to such a thing."
Where does that quote come from? It makes no sense if you buy into any of the BS like you do. This deal would only clear Novell's Linux from any threats from Microsoft. It still leaves open any threat (however unlikely given what we've seen) from SCO.
Besides, we have IBM sitting in the wings with a billion+ dollar interest in Linux and the largest patent portfolio in the world. I'd hate (love?) to see what happens to a software company that threatens Linux, and therefore IBM's bottom line, with patents.
Communist clones like Ubuntu eat into IBM's bottom line already. The question is rather would a lawsuit against a single Linux vendor render all Linux vendors unable to distribute under the GPL. According to leftist freaks, probably yes, but in practical terms, very unlikely.
Communist? Oh yeah, I forgot, the creator of Ubuntu is Russian. OMG EVERYBODY'S A RUSSIAN HACKER, RUN!!!
And I still don't understand the problem you have with clones. But you don't, just in certain circumstances, because I'm sure you'll be running out to buy the OS X clone Vista ASAP. You never were logically consistent.
Microsoft made its beginning with a poor clone of CP/M. They made their next OS as an inferior clone of VMS, and their UI as an inferior clone of the Macintosh OS. Their next UI is a flat-out copy of OS X. Apple was a superior clone of what was at Xerox, and is now based on a clone of UNIX. You don't like clones, yet you like MS and Apple?
some Russian or Russian sympathizer like you guys that support communist clones like Ubuntu
I still don't know where you get his Ubuntu Russian/communist connection. The funder of Ubuntu went up in space as a tourist aboard a Russian rocket, that's it.
why don't you speak out against the communists in China who are legally renaming a copy of North Carolina's "Red Hat" to Beijing's "Red Flag"?
You make it sound like Red Hat wrote everything that the Chinese are copying. The only reason Red Hat exists is because they were able to copy somebody else's code (including foreign code) and slap a "Red Hat" label on it.
"I will never speak out against these giveaways"
Unless you want to violate the First Amendment rights of these programmers and violate their copyright, then it is illogical to speak out against them opening the source to their applications.
We know, you support free giveaways of US developed technology to foreign adversaries. There's nothing left to discuss.
And we know it's not so bad if we make a profit according to you.
There's nothing left to discuss.
Only your twisting of my stance on the issue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.