Weekly Edition
Return to the Announcements page| Weekly edition | Kernel | Security | Distributions | Search |
| Archives | Calendar | Subscribe | Write for LWN | LWN.net FAQ |
SFLC: Do not rely on Microsoft's Open Specification Promise
(Log in to post comments)
SFLC: Do not rely on Microsoft's Open Specification Promise
Posted Mar 12, 2008 21:31 UTC (Wed) by gabba (guest, #31909) [Link]
So I guess the SFLC would like Microsoft to agree to some kind of code laundering scheme, in which a developer could get a permanent patent license for any arbitrary piece of code by simply first using it in some implementation of a covered specification. Clever, but it won't happen.
SFLC: Do not rely on Microsoft's Open Specification Promise
Posted Mar 12, 2008 22:18 UTC (Wed) by beoba (guest, #16942) [Link]
Or MS could do what Sun, Novell, and IBM are doing as far as their "covenant[s] not to sue" for the relevant patents.
How can you name it "free software" then?
Posted Mar 13, 2008 8:18 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]
Developer could get a permanent patent license for any arbitrary piece of code by simply first using it in some implementation of a covered specification.
Yup. That's the basic idea behind the free software: I can take arbitrary piece of code (like Microsoft did in the past) and use it for any other purpose (for rival OS or for sharks with lasers on their heads!!) as long as I'm complying with what the license say. If I can not do it - it's not a free software anymore.
FOSS community generally frowns upon badgeware licenses exactly because it makes it hard to use for other purposes (small label can be bigger then the whole screen of MP3 player!) and what Microsoft is offering is 100 times worse.
Clever, but it won't happen.
We'll see. So far Microsoft produced only bunch of hot air and nothing else. And so situation is the same as it was yesterday. We should acknowledge it and move on.
How can you name it "free software" then?
Posted Mar 13, 2008 16:04 UTC (Thu) by gabba (guest, #31909) [Link]
The purpose of Microsoft's OSP is to allow free implementations of the covered specifications, not to fix the problem of software patents. While it might be nice to hope that Microsoft would agree to some backdoor means to fix the patent problem for free software in regards to Microsoft patents, such a hope is not realistic. The best one can hope for is a license for code that implements the covered specifications, while it is covering them. Well, I guess you can hope for anything you like.
How can you name it "free software" then?
Posted Mar 14, 2008 19:54 UTC (Fri) by robilad (subscriber, #27163) [Link]
The best one can do is to make Microsoft irrelevant through better software. The second best one can do is to turn the dismantling of Microsoft into a lucrative business for legal and financing companies globally, using the interesting quirks of the global intellectual property market for a concentrated attack on them to DOS their legal defense capacity, turning Microsoft into a larger copy of SCO. They don't perform well in panic mode. ;)
SFLC: Do not rely on Microsoft's Open Specification Promise
Posted Mar 13, 2008 8:11 UTC (Thu) by sylware (subscriber, #35259) [Link]
The MS/Novell collective is not to be trusted either. One more reason to get rid of mono from official gnome till it's too late.