dapunka wrote:
> On 29 Jun, 12:05, Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> ____/ spi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx on Friday 29 June 2007 11:49 : \____
>>
>> > Anonymous <m...@xxxxxxxxx> did eloquently scribble:
>>
>> >> All Linux distros and open-source projects based in the U.S. should
>> >> move their operations to the European Union *immediately*!! Software
>> >> patents are not allowed there and it's therefore the only safe haven
>> >> for Open Source Software.
>>
>> > In order for microsoft to sue, they must first DISCLOSE what they are
>> > suing about and give reasonable time for that stuff's removal and
>> > replacement.
>>
>> > They've been blowing the patent trumpet for months now and what have we
>> > got out of it? Not a jot, not a line of text, not even a patent number.
>>
>> > If they sue without due disclosure, they'll be laughed out of court.
>>
>> Their explanation was a very funny one. They don't offer disclosure
>> because it's a lot of paperwork. I'm not joking. That kind of gives away
>> it away, doesn't it? It shows that they are as confident as SCO.
>
> Frankly I find this whole business bizarre.
>
> If Microsoft want to make an issue about some Linux developer
> breaching patents of theirs, Microsoft have to specify which patent/s
> have been breached, right? In fact, don't they have to send the
> developer a "cease and desist" notice first? (IANAL, so please
> correct me if I've got anything wrong here)
>
> But Microsoft haven't specified any patents that they think have been
> breached... they've just made made vague noises about how Linux
> violates 235 or 238 unidentified patents.
>
> Any sane Linux developer would, you'd think, laugh at the whole
> thing. They certainly wouldn't enter into pacts with Microsoft to
> avoid these spurious legal actions. You'd think.
>
> But Novell - a company that is large, successful, and in possession of
> well-qualified business and legal minds, /has/ entered into such a
> deal (along with Xandros, Linspire... band-wagon-jumping developers
> who I've never had much time for anyway). What the hell is Novell
> playing Microsoft's bizarre game for?
>
I'm really do hate to think in this way, but there is only one line of
thought that makes sense. That someone up top was paid a heafty bung to get
the companies to go along with this.
Novell are not daft, they have done some very stupid things over the years,
some just bad business decisions, others just bad. But they weren't stupid
enough to risk alienating themselves. Plus over recent years they had built
up a very good relationship with their followers, and highly respected by
those who opted for other distros or systems.
So if MS did actually prove to Novell that they were in fact patents and
that Novell and their customers would be first up against the wall. Then I
could understand Novell being nervous enough to sign. Though it still would
have done them more good to open up and let the world know what the threat
was, then at least they do not have to fight MS on their own.
But we have had assurances that Novell's users were never at risk, in fact
that Novell itself was not actually at risk from MS. Various Novell and
non-novell legal experts have told us this through the press.
So what is left? There is a truth in this, that Linux and MS do need to pull
together in some areas, particularly in areas of communication. That was an
area that was put forward for collaberation at the time of the agreement,
and I had hoped that it was genuinely a part of that, I still do, what ever
else is involved we need Linux heads in the new comms systems.
Which I for one would have said was where Samba could come to the fore and
put forward new proposals for packet changes.
But no, that didn't happen, Linux hasn't been involved with the packet
changes at all. Though fair play to MS this time they are apparently going
to keep it open, Samba don't have to reverse engineer it this time. I did
see some details of the packets on the Internet for all to see, so I
believe MS are genuine this time (always said with your heart slowing
because you tend to fear the worst, will this packet type have a private MS
byte for example)
So the bung idea is the only part of all of the agreement chat that makes
sense, the only reason why such agreements would be made. And who would
really be able to turn down the key to a storage box deposited in a bank
vault, all you have to do is sign here ........
|
|
