[K12OSN] needed: recommendations for Linux flavor with ongoing support

[Robert Arkiletian]

On 1/3/07, Les Mikesell <les at futuresource.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-01-03 at 14:06 -0500, "Terrell Prudé Jr." wrote:
>
> > >> Errr... GPL3 can only prevent distribution of GPL3 covered code,
> > >> not slow down anything else.  I'm not sure why anyone wants
> > >> that to happen.
> > >>
> > > Allison resigned because while the deal may not violate the letter of
> > > the law, it does violate the intent of it;
>
> I think the intent is that samba/Linux should not contain anything
> that anyone else could sue about anyway, so the agreement is
> irrelevant unless that point has already been violated...
>
> >  that's why Samba will move
> > > to GPL3 in the next release.
>
> Perhaps further restricting the samba code, but again it is
> irrelevant.  If it contains material patented by Microsoft
> it is already illegal to distribute.
>
> > And let's not forget GCC, glibc, bash, and all the other software on
> > which the FSF owns copyright.  The FSF has made it very clear that
> > virtually all of that software will be GPL3'd.  Oops, kinda hard to make
> > a functional distro w/o glibc...or grep...or awk...or sed...unless you
> > want to port FreeBSD's libc, etc.  Maybe that's what Novell will have to do.
> >
> > The SuSE distro does have an component of actual danger to it as well.
> > When that five-year "no suing" agreement ends, either Microsoft demands
> > greater extortion^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H fees, or Microsoft starts going
> > after SuSE customers.  Novell has a nice, handy-dandy list of all of its
> > customers, and due to the agreement with MS, it might be easier to
> > subpoena that list...if MS doesn't already have it.  No, I wouldn't risk
> > my business--or my district--by going with SuSE anymore.
>
> I'm not sure I'd want to bet a business on gcc not accidentally
> containing something covered by someone's patent either.

The point is, of all the distros out there only SuSE has implicitly
admitted that it is violating M$ IP by accepting a covenant for it's
customers that states M$ will not sue them for any IP violations.
Which by the way are not listed. It's very clever in that the
agreement does not list the infringing IP. In addition it deliberately
circumnavigates GPLv2. This is why many, including myself, feel that
it is violating the intent of the GPLv2. I am very disappointed in
SuSE for handing M$ the FUD they wanted. I can still hear Ballmer
"Only SuSE has patent peace!"

Samba does not violate any M$ IP. M$ wishes it did. We can thank the
brilliance of Andrew Tridgell for that. Mono is another matter. In
addition, Novell pays M$ royalty for each version of SuSE it sells. It
is sacrilege that M$ should get money from indirectly selling Linux.
Anyway, bottom line, I don't consider SuSE a true Linux distro
anymore. They sold out cause they needed the money. For M$ it's a
win-win situation. They get the FUD they wanted plus get the FLOSS
community to abandon one of the top 3 distros. And for anyone that
buys the BS that this deal was about creating better interoperability,
all I have to say is M$ has been hard at work doing it's best to
thwart Linux-Windows compatibility for a long time.  They hate Samba
and tried to obfuscate it out of existence. But Tridgell is not
someone easily obfuscated :)

>
> --
>   Les Mikesell
>    les at futuresource.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> K12OSN mailing list
> K12OSN at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/k12osn
> For more info see <http://www.k12os.org>
>


-- 
Robert Arkiletian
Eric Hamber Secondary, Vancouver, Canada
Fl_TeacherTool http://www3.telus.net/public/robark/Fl_TeacherTool/
C++ GUI tutorial http://www3.telus.net/public/robark/