** Reply to message from "Lan Barnes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Fri, 25 Apr 2008 13:58:32 -0700 (PDT)
> Am I the only one who recognizes that this is a form of barratry? > Selective audits to punish Linux using shops without regard to M$'s > suspicion that they might actually be in violation? now that I've read up on what "barratry" is, unfortunately Linux is not owned by any one person or company. Well, Linus might have some rights here and I've often wondered if he couldn't bring a case agains Microsoft for their patent threats. Anyway, if the BSA was to be going ofter Redhat/Windows users then Redhat might be able to use this. Same for Novell or Canonical but they don't likely target one Linux distrobution and just put out a blanket threat. Or Microsoft does but either way, there is no single business harmed by multiple suits. All we keep finding out is that there always seems to be these back room or hidden threats which prevent or scare customers away from Linux and/or open source software. And one company is pretty much behind it all. I had heard of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation blocking use of open source software from anyone who accepts their "donations" but I'd not heard that libraries had been threatened with BSA audits if they brought in open source. Hey, after the ISO-MSOOXML thing, it is still very obvious those guys will do anything to make sure they get their way. Anything. Doug -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
