- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Letters posted here are associated with the following article:
The letters thread is now closed.
I thought not just the copyright ruling was interesting, but also that Novell gets 95% of the money SCO took in "licensing fees" - of which a huge chunk of that money comes from Microsoft.
If you recall, the main way SCO's been able to keep going was first an influx of cash from BayStar Capital ( http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1493736,00.asp ), which turns out to have been mostly supplied Paul Allen.
So, Novell gets a good chunk of cash from Microsoft by signing the "linux sharing license", but then "forgets" to put a date on the coupon that would possibly make anything MS puts out with Linux technology GPL 3.0 compliant, and now Novell gets another 95% of the money SCO got from "licensing" their products as well.
Too bad Novell isn't pushing their technology which was really good stuff (their NDS management tools are really good stuff), but it looks like they're getting more from Microsoft these days than anyone else.
I'm a big fan of Groklaw and was one of the editors at Sys-Con who quit in 2005 over the O'Gara v PJ mess (http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/articles/kircaali_interview). And while Groklaw is, as you say, indispensable, it can hardly be considered a neutral observer, given PJ's hardcore backing of Linux over SCO in these cases. Just an observation.
