[Gllug] Microsoft was distributing Ubuntu

Peter Cannon peter at cannon-linux.co.uk
Mon Jun 25 10:10:47 UTC 2007

Andy Smith wrote:

> Your words:
> "I'm wondering if the offer was withdrawn at Mr Shuttleworths
> request"

Um with the greatest of respect I take it you know what the emphasis 
means of "Wondering"?

> Why would he make such a request when the promotion and distribution
> is acceptable under GPL?

I have no idea thats why I was "Wondering".

> It seems incredibly unlikely that any Linux distribution would
> attempt to prevent someone from distributing and promoting them
> where legal; why bother, no matter how sour relations are?
>>> 2. Why do you feel that distributing GPL software or even selling
>>>    distributions of it would be "getting the GPL slightly wrong"?
>>>    Hint: Microsoft has distributed GPL software before, and may
>>>    still do so.
>> I don't the article does, quote The part Microsoft got wrong is it says 
>> the license is "Free" and "No limitations".
>> Didn't you read it?
> Yes *I* did.  Why wouldn't Microsoft just change the description in
> that case?  You implied that there was some issue with the GPL that
> would prevent Microsoft distributing such software.

No you are wrong, I never implied anything so you can stop right there!

"Posted by Zonk on Friday June 22, @12:06PM
from the but-not-so-much-anymore dept.

ausage writes"

I said that Microsoft got it wrong based on what was written in the 
article and that it was strange that they had made such a mistake given 
  their general usage of licenses in numerous court cases.

The emphasis was on MS's failure to proof read what had been written on 
their site at no time did I allude to any problems or restrictions 
within the GPL.

> It's fairly obvious that they just don't want to promote Linux for
> business reasons, no big drama.

What? They was promoting it, maybe it was only a couple of days but even 
so.And yes its no big drama.

> I'm saying that when you ask "what if Microsoft distributed and gave
> download space to Linux".. that it is in this case a purely
> hypothetical question with no relation to the event at hand since in
> this case Microsoft is doing neither, contrary to what your post
> implied.

No you are wrong again I never implied anything of the sort plus whats 
wrong with asking a "Purely hypothetical question"? Thats the whole 
point! Many would be appalled at the thought of MS promoting Linux 
rather like the MS/Novell alliance.

>> I'm obviously agreeing with you in the paragraph below
> Now that you have snipped all context, yes.

Now your splitting hairs, snipping or not the relevant paragraph stayed 
the same so the fact remains that we are in agreement which means your 
comment was baseless.

> It was a load of tosh you copied verbatim from a source of much
> tosh, without bothering to find the few parts of it that were
> factual.

If you say so, what a happy bunny we are today.


Peter cannon

"There is every excuse for not knowing
There is no excuse for not asking"
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk

More information about the GLLUG mailing list