There's an old saying
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| tracyanne May 15, 2007 1:19 AM EDT |
"every dog has his day" I'm just thinking this dog might be smarter than we think. |
| Libervis May 15, 2007 3:55 AM EDT |
MS already had its day. They're just screaming on their way down. |
| tracyanne May 15, 2007 5:10 AM EDT |
I'm talking about a different dog |
| dinotrac May 15, 2007 5:47 AM EDT |
>MS already had its day. They're just screaming on their way down. Problem is that it's a long trip and lots of mischief can be made during the ride. |
| jimf May 15, 2007 5:53 AM EDT |
Bill's dog was always an ankle biter. As a pup, he piddled in inappropriate places and as he got bigger that behavior got even worse.Now a huge poorly controlled monster, he not only pees in the corner, but, poops on the rug as well. No one wants to go near him for fear of being bitten. It's such a shame when a potentially good dog goes this bad. My understanding is that even the dog whisperer has turned this one down. The humane thing is to put him down. |
| henke54 May 15, 2007 6:01 AM EDT |
>I'm talking about a different dog not one of these dogs then?..... ;-P http://blogs.business2.com/business2blog/2007/05/yahoo_and_m... |
| jimf May 15, 2007 6:11 AM EDT |
More like http://www.pecancitypedalers.org/images/bad_dog.jpg |
| dthacker May 15, 2007 2:02 PM EDT |
Microsoft: If you can't innovate, then litigate. Dave |
| tracyanne May 15, 2007 5:42 PM EDT |
I'm talking about a rather Novel dog. One that Bill kicked around a bit, the same one that recently got kicked around by a different community.Quoting:Why should Microsoft care? Because, Microsoft, by distributing SLES (SUSE Linux Enterprise Server) certificates to customers such as Dell, as part of the Novell/Microsoft partnership, may have just placed any IP they might or might not have in Linux, under the GPL. |
| tracyanne May 16, 2007 6:18 PM EDT |
Are we all missing something? |
| azerthoth May 16, 2007 8:24 PM EDT |
Interesting but I'm not sure how well that argument holds up. You can intentionally include proprietary stuff in a linux distro that is not released under the GPL. Which means that even if they distribute an "infringing" product it in no way frees that code to GPL. They have the legal right to distribute their IP in any way they choose. So under GPL2 and possibly 3 depending on how MS lawyers manage to twist things, its a big ... so what. Picture this, M$ could do their own linux under GPL whatever and include their own IP without having to release their proprietary code or patents to the GPL. It would come in under "added value". I'm sorry but it is going to take a heck of a lot more than MS passing linux CD's or certificated around to remove the IP monkey. |
| tracyanne May 16, 2007 11:47 PM EDT |
Yes, but by distributing alleged infringing code as FOSS under the GPL, they may have made themselves subject to the GPL. The other thing, of course, is that their alleged patents are only worth anything, so long as they don't bring them out in the open, and they can spread enough FUD to panic enough people fast enough. But I can't see that happening. Personally I don't see the monkey as being very big or very dangerous, it's more like a very small capuchin, very noisy yes. |
| dinotrac May 17, 2007 3:54 AM EDT |
>Yes, but by distributing alleged infringing code as FOSS under the GPL, they may have made themselves subject to the GPL. No. At most it makes them subject to copyright infringement actions. Nothing more and nothing less. |
| tracyanne May 17, 2007 5:08 AM EDT |
So Eben Moglen would be wrong? |
| jdixon May 17, 2007 5:39 AM EDT |
Dino: Doesn't distributing SuSE under the GPL mean that Microsoft acknowledges that the GPL license on the code is valid? If Microsoft has knowledge that the GPL licensing of that code is invalid (i.e., if they hold patents invalidating the license), they should not be distributing it. It would seem to me that distributing it anyway would effectively grant an automatic exemption to the patents in question, as that's the only legal way they could be distributing it (edit: and of course we know Microsoft would never knowingly break the law). Added: Of course, that assumes that selling the Novell licenses makes them a distributor. I think that's a point which could be argued. |
| dinotrac May 17, 2007 6:06 AM EDT |
jdixon - Microsoft's acknowledgement of the GPL's validity has about as much relevance as the price of tea in China does to the Bulls' chances (good) against the Pistons tonight. When distributing GPL'd software, Microsoft must abide by the terms of the GPL. Otherwise, they have no right to distribute and are subject to enforcement actions by the copyright holders. Tracyanne - Sorry, kneejerk on my part. Yes, if you distribute GPL'd software, you are obligated to obey the terms of the license. I'm used to the implication that Microsoft would then have to GPL its code, which it most certainly would not. |
| azerthoth May 17, 2007 6:07 AM EDT |
Your missing one point, their is no onus on them to release anything under anything if they are distributing their own code. This is further complicated by telling the producer of that distro that they can safely use any and all IP. That permission was given prior to MS moving a single unit which means that Novell/SUSE can freely use and include that same IP without Microsoft having to free anything, as whatever is in SUSE immediately becomes a non-issue. tracyanne brings up a point that others have brought before, it would most likely be patent armageddon for M$ to pursue their claims. Unfortunately it does not mean that it cant or wont, nor does all the "they have nothing anyway" wishful thinking mean that they don't actually have a couple of valid show stoppers. We dont actually KNOW that they don't. IANAL so take all that with a grain of whatever you find handy. I'm just trying to put myself into their shoes, and with all their money and resources we would be crazy to assume that they didn't take into account what the ramifications of the Novell deal would bring.. |
| bigg May 17, 2007 6:31 AM EDT |
> their is no onus on them to release anything under anything if they are distributing their own code But remember that this gets into that boring business over what is a derivative work. If they are distributing GPL'd software, they would be in violation of the GPL (v2 or v3) if it contains their patents. If Linux really does include Microsoft patents, then anyone, including Microsoft, Novell, Dell, or Richard Stallman, is in violation of the GPL when distributing Linux. That doesn't necessarily mean that Microsoft gives up their patents, but it does mean Microsoft is violating the license. |
| dinotrac May 17, 2007 7:12 AM EDT |
>That doesn't necessarily mean that Microsoft gives up their patents, but it does mean Microsoft is violating the license. Yes, which is what I said in my post. They become subject to relief under copyright law. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!