I’m confused. Isn’t Linux free, like in open source free. And if the word free and open source seem to be what Linux advocates all say is the best of both worlds, than how can a group say they own a part of Linux? I don’t get it.
Well that is what the Free Software Foundation seems to imply and they are going to try and stop deals such as the one between Microsoft and Novell. Seems back in late 2006 the boys in Redmond joined with Novell [Suse Linux] to play together in joint ventures, one of which turned out to be a Wal Mart deal. Which didn’t sit to well with some folks.
So now a new General Public License is being drafted which may prevent such deals such as the one that took place between Microsoft and Novell, and which could in theory, prohibit Novell from using future versions of Linux code. Which brings me to another question. Why doesn’t Microsoft just take the Linux code and come up with their own distribution of MS Linux?
If Linux is free, why hasn’t this happened? Microsoft could actually come up with a distribution that could also run their other software, like Office. Sounds like a great idea, so why haven’t they did it yet?
Comments as always welcome.
[tags] linux, microsoft, novell, open source, [/tags]