John Pugh wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Jun 4, 2007 at 8:34 PM, in message
> <20070605003445.GA74025@demeter.hydra>, Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com>
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 06:16:06PM -0600, John Pugh wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 4, 2007 at 6:27 PM, in message
>>> <20070604222727.GA69643@demeter.hydra>, Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 10:11:26AM -0600, John Pugh wrote:
>>>>> Microsoft, Xandros Broad Collaboration Agreement Extends Bridge Between
>>>> Commercial Open Source and Microsoft Software
>>>>> http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/070604/aqm106a.html?.v=1
>>>>>
>>>>> Interesting.
>>>> Yeah . . . it *is* interesting.
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, these announcements never actually cover any of the legal
>>>> details that may affect those of us with an interest in the state of the
>>>> software.
>>> As in disclosure of said details?
>> Pretty much. I guess what I'd really like to see is a disclosure of the
>> complete agreement and a point-by-point explication, but that might be
>> pushing it.
>
> Agreed. While it's not a full version, Novell did publish a redacted version with it's recent 10-K filings.
>
>
The substance of a contract is in the details. To the extent those details are
redacted, important information is missing. The full contractual wording would
better inform shareholders about the nature of the deal.
Smitty
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:41:58 EDT