Questions that need answering
Posted Dec 6, 2006 16:53 UTC (Wed) by NigelK
Parent article: Of hypocrisy and the FSF (Libervis)
Speaking of hypocrisy...
In 2004, OSRM identified 27 Microsoft-held patents that are possibly infringed by Linux. The Director of Research at the time was Groklaw editor Pamela "PJ" Jones.
Q. Why hasn't that list of patents ever been published now that Jones has gone on-record saying that Linux doesn't infringe on Microsoft patents, if those 27 patents are not valid?
OSRM offers policies to potential customers in which they are protected from the costs of fighting a Linux IP-related lawsuit initiated by any company. Some Linux vendors such as RedHat also offer similar services to their customers.
Q. With Novell offering potential customers protection from patent-related lawsuits initiated by Microsoft, how can OSRM and RedHat be in the clear, but not Novell?
Richard Stallman and Eben Moglen have gone on the record saying that GPL3 will "fix" the MS/Novell deal, but refuse to comment on whether or not the GPL2 has been infringed. Close allies such as Jones have advocated that it's cheaper to strengthen the GPL3 than to enforce the GPL2.
Q. If the FSF baulk at the thought of enforcing the GPL2 due to the size of the company that is infringing it, doesn't this give the largest companies a green light to infringe *any* version of the GPL without fear of prosecution?
Q2. If the FSF refuse to enforce the GPL2, then why should anyone trust them when it comes to enforcing the GPL3?
Q3. If the FSF refuse to enforce the GPL, then what is the point of them, what is the point of transferring copyrights to them, and why is it acceptable for them to break the trust placed in them by the coders of their projects?
The FSF appear to be acting in their own interests these days, rather than their members.
to post comments)