|
It's not about how novell performed in the past. Nor the amount of contribution they have given to those FOSS Projects. Nor is it about Microsoft vs. Linux.
It's about "where they shall be taking those FOSS projects in this deal." (BTW, not everybody interprets the GPL the right way. It's better that Novell be reminded before facing problems).
So let's have a short quiz...
If a so-called GPL program is modified such that it becomes dependent on a proprietary code; is it still considered FREE Software?
If a so-called GPL program is modified such that it can accomodate proprietary formats that would require users to pay royalties; is it still considered FREE Software?
If a so-called GPL program is modified such that it can accomodate proprietary protocols that would require users to pay royalties; is it still considered FREE Software?
If a so-called Linux vendor modifies GPL program and not release improvements without royalties; can we still consider them advancing the cause of Free Software? Do they even have the right to keep that GPL'd code?
If a so-called Linux vendor monopolizes developers via patent infringement scare tactic; can we still consider them advancing the cause of Free Software? can we still consider them living the spirit of Free Software?
Past performance is not the measurement of how loyal one is to Free Software / GPL. The community is not too naive in fighting to ensure the protection of Freedom. Does Microsoft think that the community becomes cuddly with Novell and will not suspect them of betraying the ideals of Free Software?
All this "Novell will ensure that the agreement will not go against GPL are simply stories" not clearing up the issues. Novell and Microsoft should now publish as to how and what would constitute patent infringement by developers of other distros working on the same GPL code.
|
