OT: Novell Is Not SCO

[Temlakos]

Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-11-12 at 11:34, Craig White wrote:
> 
>>>>----
>>>>and likewise, samba developers took a position today
>>>>
>>>>http://news.samba.org/announcements/team_to_novell/
>>>>
>>>>Craig
>>>
>>>Knee-jerk reaction by me would have been to demand that samba and cifs be 
>>>removed from their distribution, but I see it didn't quite come to that, 
>>>so its just so much hot air.  Unfortunately...
>>
>>----
>>they really can't do that. If it is demonstrated that this deal does
>>indeed violate GPL license and thus disqualifies Novell from legally
>>distributing GPL licensed software, it won't go unnoticed.
>>
>>Interestingly enough, this event probably gives rise to the best
>>argument in favor of GPL v3 than all other events.
> 
> 
> This isn't going to play out well.  There's almost certainly
> something in Microsoft's huge patent portfolio that is
> included in samba/cifs and required to make it work.  I
> don't see how samba developers could win a battle like
> that.  In fact I've expected exactly that scenario for
> years and don't see any possible mesh with the GPL unless
> an agreement like Novell's also permits free redistribution
> with the patent protection included for any subsequent
> recipients.
> 

Which, according to the FSLC, it does not.

This is classic bait-and-switch.

Temlakos