Comments

• Yuhong Bao

  2007-10-25 23:55:04

  That, BTW, illustrate one of the dangers of boycotting Novell. If no one buys Novell software, Novell will be entirely dependent on Microsoft for it's money. So how about bribing Novell to get off the Microsoft-Novell agreement. That will solve the problem.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2007-10-26 01:05:39

  You're missing the bigger picture, which is Novell's role in changing the terms offered to Linux in the industry. If Novell's influence can be reduced, then this becomes less of an issue.

• Yuhong Bao

  2007-10-26 01:11:17

  But the problem is that if Novell is entirely dependent on MS, it will be hard for Novell to end the MS-Novell agreement.

• Yuhong Bao

  2007-10-26 01:14:59

  That is where the money given to Novell for bribing it can help to reduce it's dependency on MS, making it easier to end it. So bribing it both encourages Novell to end the MS-Novell agreement and makes sure Novell has the money to survive without it.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2007-10-26 03:09:23

  The Microsoft-Novell agreement will not be ended. Ron Hovsepian has made it clear on numerous occasions. Thus, the longer this relationship goes on, the deeper in the mud Linux will sink.

• Yuhong Bao

  2007-10-27 00:43:06

  At least end the patant licencing part of the Microsoft-Novell agreement or extend patant licensing to all Linux users, and the boycotts can stop.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2007-10-27 01:11:54

  That's just what we have argued from the very start.
  
  Since then, however, other issues have emerged. For instance, Novell's access to Microsoft source code and building of binary bridges (which needs licensing) is a discriminatory step. It helps Microsoft isolate 'taxed' Linux users from those that embrace open standards. There are various other issues, which were all covered before.

• Yuhong Bao

  2007-10-27 02:35:48

  As long as GPL code is not contamated with MS source code and binary bridges are licensed as it was non-free software instead of free software, that should not be an issue. I think the patent licencing part is still the major part, because that is the part that allows MS and Novell to make Linux non-free software.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2007-10-27 02:56:07

  As long as GPL code is not contamated with MS source code and binary bridges are licensed as it was non-free software instead of free software, that should not be an issue.

  
  
  But that's not the case. Red Hat, for example, will not receive the same 'bridges'. It is also related to the patent part, which turns from just FUD and unsubstantiated threats to actual code access and permission.

• Yuhong Bao

  2007-10-31 16:05:45

  But the binary bridges don't make Linux non-free the same way the patent part does, so there is no reason to boycott Novell just because of the binary bridges, plus that is a separate issue from the patent part.

• Yuhong Bao

  2007-10-31 21:20:12

  In other words, the MS code does not make the rest of Linux non-free, the discriminatory patent deals does.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2007-10-31 21:56:47

  But the binary bridges don’t make Linux non-free the same way the patent part does...

  
  
  They come as a pair. They are, in that sense, inseparable.