Comment Re:wrongo (Score 1) 349
This analysis is wrong. If Novell chooses to provide software and services beyond what is required by the voucher, Novell is free to do so. That choice is not in any way binding on Microsoft. This is no different than saying that a grocery store may choose to give me a free box of cereal in exchange for a 35 cent coupon. That store's choice does not in any way compel Kellogg's to give me more free Froot Loops.
And how many times has PJ hammered it into her readers that contract law does not allow a 3rd party to commit someone to something? Yet she seems to be saying that if Novell does something (distribute GPLv3 software, despite the MS disclaimer), that that act will now cause acceptance of the GPLv3 by MS, without MS ever having accepted the license.
And as so many others have pointed out, this theory (and it is just a theory. Or even just an opinion/wishful thinking, really) will require that some judge somewhere decide that selling a voucher for support is legally equivelant to distributing. That might happen, but I kind of doubt it. What is almost certain is that some, or all of this, will end up in court at some point.
And how many times has PJ hammered it into her readers that contract law does not allow a 3rd party to commit someone to something? Yet she seems to be saying that if Novell does something (distribute GPLv3 software, despite the MS disclaimer), that that act will now cause acceptance of the GPLv3 by MS, without MS ever having accepted the license.
And as so many others have pointed out, this theory (and it is just a theory. Or even just an opinion/wishful thinking, really) will require that some judge somewhere decide that selling a voucher for support is legally equivelant to distributing. That might happen, but I kind of doubt it. What is almost certain is that some, or all of this, will end up in court at some point.
