Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
LWN.net Weekly Edition for December 5, 2013
Deadline scheduling: coming soon?
LWN.net Weekly Edition for November 27, 2013
ACPI for ARM?
LWN.net Weekly Edition for November 21, 2013
Google's covers 10 patents. It's better than nothing, but I'd be cautious before even calling it a good start.
(I criticised Red Hat's "promise" in the past because they should have been clearer and given a "licence", but a January ruling at the CAFC has decided that promises have the same value as licences: http://en.swpat.org/wiki/The_value_of_promises_and_estopp... )
there not similar at all
Posted Mar 28, 2013 16:50 UTC (Thu) by rahvin (subscriber, #16953)
Posted Mar 28, 2013 17:02 UTC (Thu) by tkreagan (subscriber, #4548)
Google is not a friend of open-source, Linux, or anyone else. They are a parasite in sheep's clothing.
Posted Mar 28, 2013 22:48 UTC (Thu) by clump (subscriber, #27801)
Posted Mar 29, 2013 1:20 UTC (Fri) by robert_s (subscriber, #42402)
A great display of trying to abstain from any form of subtlety in your understanding of a situation.
Google, like any large organization has its bad sides. But, as I always say, Google is a many-tentacled beast. And to say none of those tentacles have been good to open source would be a lie.
For one, the Summer of Code programme has over the years put a huge amount of money into open source and helped to garner a lot of new contributors for projects.
Posted Mar 29, 2013 2:04 UTC (Fri) by geofft (subscriber, #59789)
In a lot of cases, a lot of these individual people believe that ensuring a healthy free software ecosystem brings the company profit. It's our job to prove them correct.
Posted Mar 29, 2013 14:31 UTC (Fri) by fjf33 (subscriber, #5768)
Posted Mar 28, 2013 18:03 UTC (Thu) by lxoliva (guest, #40702)
they're not similar at all
Posted Mar 29, 2013 15:05 UTC (Fri) by coriordan (guest, #7544)
But you're right that it's important to be sure about the details. I'll do a write up of the case tomorrow morning and put it here:
Posted Mar 30, 2013 5:39 UTC (Sat) by coriordan (guest, #7544)
Dennis Crouch's Patently-O is quite authoritative, and his summary is "Apple retains its license regardless of who buys the patent rights" - but it's not clear to me where he gets that from.
Maybe his summary is obvious when you know US bankruptcy law. But I don't.
Or maybe it's clear if you read the court cases referenced by that recent court case. I'll do that if I find time.
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds