Microsoft, co-author of the Linux kernel
Microsoft, co-author of the Linux kernel
Posted Jul 15, 2011 21:02 UTC (Fri) by leoc (guest, #39773)In reply to: Microsoft, co-author of the Linux kernel by david.a.wheeler
Parent article: Who wrote 3.0 - from two points of view
Isn't it a bit weird that Microsoft is simultaneously contributing code to the Linux kernel **and** claiming that it violates their patents?
Posted Jul 15, 2011 23:20 UTC (Fri)
by giraffedata (guest, #1954)
[Link] (4 responses)
Why? Because contributing code means you want to help Linux and claiming patent violation means you don't? I don't think it's that simple.
For one thing, Microsoft so far hasn't even prosecuted any of its patent claims. The main purpose for those claims seems to be to defend against insults against Microsoft of the form that a rag-tag bunch of people working for free put out something better than what the great Microsoft machine (or any other conventional software publisher) could make. The point of the claim is simply to say that Linux developers didn't do it alone.
Even if Microsoft were to sue over use of its patents in Linux, that wouldn't mean Microsoft doesn't like helping out Linux; only that it wants its fair share of the result.
Posted Jul 17, 2011 9:59 UTC (Sun)
by dgm (subscriber, #49227)
[Link]
Posted Jul 18, 2011 14:40 UTC (Mon)
by dag- (guest, #30207)
[Link] (1 responses)
Personally, if patents are there to protect corporate investments in research for the benefit of the general public, I do think the same general public should get full insight into patent settlements. I do think one (patent law) contradicts the other (closed patent-infringement settlements).
How can we make laws to protect the general public, if we don't know what backroom deals are made as a result of it? I also think if those deals were forced to be made public, support for patent law, especially in software development, will soon be impossible.
Posted Jul 18, 2011 15:25 UTC (Mon)
by giraffedata (guest, #1954)
[Link]
That's a little off-topic, since we're talking about whether there is some inconsistency or irony in Microsoft contributing code to Linux while claiming that Linux infringes some Microsoft patents. The only thing that would be relevant is whether Microsoft thinks it's getting its fair share (because if it does, then I must be wrong about Microsoft's motivation in making claims of Linux patent infringement).
Posted Jul 18, 2011 18:38 UTC (Mon)
by leoc (guest, #39773)
[Link]
If they are playing "fair", then why do they refuse to provide a list of the patents Linux allegedly violates? Seems to me that the only share they would ever consider fair is 100%.
Posted Jul 19, 2011 9:12 UTC (Tue)
by etienne (guest, #25256)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Jul 19, 2011 10:15 UTC (Tue)
by dgm (subscriber, #49227)
[Link]
Can I download the kernel from somewhere in microsoft.com? Is there a git tree somewhere? All those could count as "distributing".
Microsoft, co-author of the Linux kernel
Isn't it a bit weird that Microsoft is simultaneously contributing code to the Linux kernel **and** claiming that it violates their patents?
Microsoft, co-author of the Linux kernel
Microsoft, co-author of the Linux kernel
Microsoft, co-author of the Linux kernel
Do you think Microsoft is getting a fair share ?
it wants its fair share of the result.
Microsoft, co-author of the Linux kernel
Microsoft, co-author of the Linux kernel
(For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program. )
Microsoft, co-author of the Linux kernel