Re:I don't get it (Score 1)

The covenant between Microsoft and Novell is irrelevant, and has no bearing in the discussion, angsts lies in understanding the license under which Linux is governed as an property. Basically it is community property, and belongs to the users as well as its distributors. It is essentially free from control by any individual entity or entities. It's legal standpoint; that if there is any intellectual property that exists in Linux, it belongs to everyone who has the ability to acquire it, and do as they please with it without hindering the ability of anyone else to do as they please also. Microsoft and Novell's forming an agreement violates the license linux as an OS/Kernel is distributed under any associated software packaged with it. No one legally has the right to form other licenses or agreements in the availability of the software in part or whole to anyone without then violating the license, if they do they lose all right to distribute it, and any contributions they have made to it's code base. Novell cannot legally do this as they accepted the license for Linux when they began developing for it, and purchased the 2nd largest Linux distributor, SuSE of Germany. Linux does not deny the right of the users (whether commercial or otherwise) to link proprietary software to it's GPL code base to function with certain hardware, software, etc. Yet if Steve Ballmer's general implication that Linux infringes on Microsoft's Intellectual Property in a society based on the rule of law Microsoft must show where the violation has occurred, not brand an accusation, and start claiming guilt for the potential plaintiff. http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/microsoft/archi ves/108806.asp