Re: Nice comments on Suse and MS
- From: Chris Cox <ccox_nopenotthis@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 16:54:02 -0600
Bob Adams wrote:
In message <45632c8e$28$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Shmuel
(Seymour J.) Metz" <spamtrap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
Linus can use whatever license he chooses. Neither FSF nor Novell has
any say in the matter. However, if Linus switches to GPL3 or critical
pieces of SuSE switch to GPL3, then Novell will have to either switch to
GPL3 or fork the relevant code. Novell can only afford to do the latter if a
significant fraction of the open source community agrees with its
objections to GPL3.
We really need to fork this puppy, IMHO.
I keep seeing this word (phrase?) "fork" constantly lately. Can somebody
please tell me what it means in the OS context?
While many consider Linux to be Linux... SUSE engineers (mostly done
prior to the Novell acquisition) did some really interesting and different
things to the SUSE distribution. A lot was centered around YaST, but
there are some other things as well that are beneficial.
Fork simply means a derivative work based off of the original work.
This would not necessarily be a technology fork, just one to protect
the IP a bit better. I mean we can all house SUSE today, nobody
has the exact source for SLES 10 right now though (only Novell), but
we don't merely need it housed, but also made available in a manner
that is easily built from scratch. Then... if Novell doesn't turn
around (always a possibility), then something very SUSE-like can
still be used.
I don't know... maybe it would be better to push the ideas into
some existing distro. Not sure.
- Prev by Date: Re: Total cost of ownership
- Next by Date: Novell loses respect completely...
- Previous by thread: Re: Nice comments on Suse and MS
- Next by thread: Re: Nice comments on Suse and MS