Microsoft's role in Novell-Attachmate deal?

[Christopher Chan]

On Thursday, November 25, 2010 03:30 PM, Liam Proven wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 7:13 AM, Christopher Chan
> <christopher.chan at bradbury.edu.hk>  wrote:
>> On Thursday, November 25, 2010 01:28 PM, Basil Chupin wrote:
>>> On 25/11/2010 15:59, Christopher Chan wrote:
>>>
>>> [pruned]
>>>
>>>> Them copyrights have zarro to do with Linux. Nor will they give them any
>>>> teeth over Unix operating systems
>>>>
>>> Everything affects something, or someone. Linux is no exception.
>>>
>>
>> Not when no single entity owns 'the' Unix copyrights. No owner, no arm
>> wringing. That is besides the fact that there is no infringing code too.
>
> Um. I beg to differ:
> http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1017183/linux-innovation-missing
>

Sorry, that article pretty much says there is no infringing code in 
Linux. Before we lose context, the 'Unix copyrights' have to do with the 
kernel and maybe some core operating bits. Nothing on Linux (kernel only 
- not enough to make an operating system) or GNU (the provider of the 
rest of the core bits for a Linux-based operating system) infringes 
whether kernel-wise or core system wise.

What that article talks about is possible infringements on PATENTS which 
are pretty much only applicable in the sad USA. Somehow, I don't see the 
X Consortium suddenly infringing given their LONG history. As for 
OpenOffice, I'd love to see Oracle and Microsoft go head to head. The 
rest about the gui/desktop environment...HAHAHHAHAHAHA.