| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Open Source "State of the Union" addressOpen Source "State of the Union" addressPosted Aug 7, 2003 18:37 UTC (Thu) by proski (subscriber, #104)In reply to: Open Source "State of the Union" address by mmarq Parent article: Open Source "State of the Union" address I know it's a bad style to criticize spelling of comments, but your comment is hard to read. Maybe you were in a state of great excitement, but it's a bad excuse. Spending some time spellchecking your comment would give you a chance to cool down and express your thoughts in a more coherent way.
(Log in to post comments)
Open Source "State of the Union" address Posted Aug 7, 2003 18:58 UTC (Thu) by josh_stern (guest, #4868) [Link] The author above made a thoughtful and interesting point.That is that even if Linux is not for sale as a shrinkwrap product, it may still have a legal identity as an integrated product. When we consider that the greater diversity of sources for various hardware drivers and the larger range of patents that they might potentially infringe on, it is worthwhile to ask whether Linux, the product, could achieve greater legal insulation by separating drivers into a different set of products - a kind of legal fireline to prevent small fires from turning into big ones. This idea deserves serious consideration on its merits.
Open Source "State of the Union" address Posted Aug 7, 2003 19:09 UTC (Thu) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] > various hardware drivers and the larger range> of patents that they might potentially infringe on I've haven't yet heard of a patent infringement within a driver. The patent infringments of Linux that I've heard about are in the virtual memory and filesystem code. Not so easy to break out. Anyway, it's the distros that will get targeted, they'd still have to include all the drivers. Ciaran O'Riordan
Open Source "State of the Union" address Posted Aug 7, 2003 20:37 UTC (Thu) by josh_stern (guest, #4868) [Link] In the case of SCO, they are specifically targeting the Linux kernel asan integrated product. I'm afraid that Bruce may prove prophetic when his says that we have only heard the very beginning of the patent wars. Of course stuff like virtual memory is not something to be broken out, but because device drivers interact with a huge assortment of different 'stuff' out there in the world, I believe there is more potential for them to touch a wide range of patents - especially ones that are not familiar to software developers. Suppose, for instance, it turned out that some obscure individual had a patent on a certain method of scheduling and driving ham radios using a computer device, and he decided that Linux infringes on his method. In that case, it would be a good thing if rich Linux targ^H^H^H^Husers with no ham radio driver involvement had prima facie nothing to do with his claim.
Open Source "State of the Union" address Posted Aug 7, 2003 19:28 UTC (Thu) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] I belive you know Open-Source is a worldwide movement.And i know that there must be lots of orthographic errors in it,... but the content and the spirit is perfectly understandble... ...should i state that you do not make sense because you can not wright in Protuguese... or am i trying to replay to someone at IBM, HP or SUN ! Mario Marques
Open Source "State of the Union" address Posted Aug 7, 2003 20:58 UTC (Thu) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] You are still not following my advice. "wright" and "replay" are English words, but "Protuguese" is not! It looks like you are trying to replay the intro to "Zero Wing" :-)I must respectfully disagree that your comment was "perfectly understandble". It's wasn't understandable for me, which prompted my comment.
Open Source "State of the Union" address Posted Aug 7, 2003 22:37 UTC (Thu) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] Other have understood it!... just read all the comments above this one.
Open Source "State of the Union" address Posted Aug 8, 2003 8:52 UTC (Fri) by ekj (subscriber, #1524) [Link] Maybe you should consider getting a hobby or something. Not everyone knows english equally well, and it is not reasonable to demand that people who are less able must spend a lot of time spell and grammar -checking everything before participating in a debate.A bad argument does not improve noticeably from being spellchecked, nor does a good argument degrade very much from containing a few stray errors.
|
|
||||||||||||