| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
The FSF warns (again) against Mono: and correctly soThe FSF warns (again) against Mono: and correctly soPosted Jul 18, 2009 0:55 UTC (Sat) by mikov (subscriber, #33179)In reply to: The FSF warns (again) against Mono: and correctly so by rahvin Parent article: The FSF warns (again) against Mono
If Microsoft was truly interested in not using the patents against Linux in the future they would note which patents apply. Their refusal to even list the patents they believe Linux infringes is tantamount proof that they intend to use them against Linux in the future because if they told us which ones apply, developers and free software lawyers could work together to evade the patents (or they could work to invalidate the patent) like they are trying to do with the VFAT patches. I have never seen this put so clearly. 100% agreed.
(Log in to post comments)
The FSF warns (again) against Mono: and correctly so Posted Jul 18, 2009 17:57 UTC (Sat) by directhex (subscriber, #58519) [Link]
It's a tricky game, that.
Saying "this app is free from this patent" means two levels of work need to be done
1) you need to determine that the patent you hold is enforcable, and relates to the kind of thing an app does (the "easy" stage, although if you own thousands of patents with a combination of hundreds of thousands of claims, it might actually be tricky to identify specific ones)
2) you need to perform a detailed analysis of the app in order to determine whether its implementation really does infringe on the patent in (1)
A general "yeah, we probably have patents on X, or stuff like it" is much much cheaper to say - albeit less precise in its implications. But saying "yeah, we probably have patents on X, but don't worry, whatever they are, you can use them" is somewhat LESS concerning than "you can use patent X" whilst keeping Y and Z secret
The FSF warns (again) against Mono: and correctly so Posted Jul 19, 2009 0:41 UTC (Sun) by mikov (subscriber, #33179) [Link]
You are right. Plus, it occurred to me that if Microsoft listed all patents that they claim are infringed by Free Software, valid or not, it would be much harder to claim plausible deniability.
Patent X might be utter crap (like the long file names patent), but as soon as Microsoft announces it, everybody would have to stop using it, possibly for many years until it is invalidated.
Damn. It appears that no matter what Microsoft does, short of granting Comprehensive Patent License, it is all very very bad.
The FSF warns (again) against Mono: and correctly so Posted Jul 19, 2009 20:53 UTC (Sun) by directhex (subscriber, #58519) [Link]
Don't worry, no matter what they do, even your suggestion, they're still worse than Satan, Jack the Ripper, and Hitler combined
The FSF warns (again) against Mono: and correctly so Posted Jul 20, 2009 1:28 UTC (Mon) by mikov (subscriber, #33179) [Link]
Goodwin strikes again! :-)
Seriously though, I actually don't think that Microsoft is "evil" - that would be ridiculous. They are a for-profit corporation, which is allowed and expected to do whatever possible within the law for said profits. Clearly enforcing their patents is legal and desirable from their point of view.
Objectively I can't blame them for that. But clearly they are in a position of strength, which honestly scares me.
|
|
||||||||||||