On Wed, 2006-12-13 at 01:47 +0100, Anselm Lingnau wrote: > So far they haven't been up to dodgy GPL shenanigans.
*EXCUSE*ME*?!?!?! Have you followed the Linux kernel development for the past 5 years?!?!?! You are so "rabid" you can't admit you're beyond ignorant. Oh how I'd wish you'd stop digging that hole for yourself! ;-> IBM just recently opened 500 patents. Now why did they do that? Or better yet, how did the Linux kernel team respond? "Not enough! Not enough! Not nearly enough!" IBM has been pushing and pushing and pushing countless code into the Linux kernel with*OUT* opening up the associated IP. That's because IBM fears various competitors that base their core products without a license (e.g., EMC's VMWare -- virtualization is a _huge_ market for IBM) gaining access to core IBM IP (and it only gets worse with GPLv3). All the meanwhile IBM wants it to infiltrate the kernel and become "the standard" forcing licensure. Their opening 500 patents had to do with all the countless code they've tried to put in the kernel but Linus, Andrew, Alan, etc... said "hell no" on until they did, as well as _some_ (but not all) earlier code that IBM put in that had been identified as carrying a heafty and important IBM owned IP payload. I recommend you read up on this, because you are vastly ignorant (along with the other 97% of Linux advocates). Now compare this to all of the IP Novell has put under FSF-approved open licenses. Who has the _far_better_ track record? Again, do _not_ practice "Linux McCarthyism." Instead of listening to PR BS, stop and _ask_ the people who _know_ -- _core_ Linux developers. IBM is _not_ our "friend," they are our "partner" -- and their track record is _not_ as good as HP, Novell, Red Hat, Sun, etc... As I've recently stated over and over, *IF* IBM would *VOUCH* to *PROTECT* Linux with its massive patent portfolio, *THEN* I would become the *BIGGEST* IBM fan. Until then, their $1.1B spent on Linux is virtually all _proprietary_ work speaks for itself (the last $100M being _entirely_ on _proprietary_ Lotus Notes). > For all I care, IBM can make secret contracts with Microsoft all the > time as long as they stick to the *intention* of the (L)GPL in that > part of their business that is to do with writing and distributing > (L)GPL software. IBM has donated _extremely_little_ GPL software of their own. So far, their largest code donation has been Eclipse, under a "close to" GPL license. Most of IBM's expeditures have been on partnerships and maturing their hardware line around Linux, but not actual Linux donations itself. Compared to HP, who sells a similar combination of hardware enterprise management solutions, they are _no_where_ close. > IBM or Sun may have the right to write and use code implementing methods > patented by Microsoft, themselves, but that doesn't automatically give them > the right to pass that code on to others under the LGPL (OpenOffice's > license). No, it doesn't. But did you _read_ Novell's _actual_ statements? This is an export/import _module_ that will be _dynamically_ linked with OpenOffice.org. And they will distribute that module as part of its SuSE Linux products. Not only is that _not_ a LGPL violation, they can license however the hell they want to! They have _full_rights_ to do so! Furthermore, even if it was an "alleged LGPL violation" as you say, *WHO* would that "violate"? The copyright holder! And who is the copyright holder? Sun! And who is supporting this _directly_? Sun! And what is Sun going to do? It's going to distribute it with StarOffice too! Furthermore, even if you don't buy a Novell or Sun product, if you get it directly from them pre-built, you're covered for any plausable situation your little, deviant mind can think of! Even if you think there is any _remote_ chance the IP _could_ be an issue, you're covered! Now what about the code? Well, what about it? There is [L]GPL code for MP3. There is [L]GPL code for CSS. *YOU*, the end user, decide how *YOU* will get your license to use it. You can get it from a commercial firm that has secured the license. Or you can get it from a rogue, community site, without a license, possibly claim "fair use." *YOU* Now let's step back even further. OpenXML aside, OpenOffice.org *ALREADY* has translators that are *NOT* -- as you would argue -- "licensed" from Microsoft. Or does it? ;-> Again, I don't think you're thinking this through. ;-> COUGH*Sun*COUGH* hint, hint, hint ;-> > The LGPL stipulates The *COPYRIGHT*HOLDER* stipulates. Who is the copyright holder? Sun! Sun can do what the hell it wants with OpenOffice.org! End-of-story! No "LGPL violation." No "evil" Novell. Sun! Sun! Sun! Don't think Novell one more minute! The fact that Sun, Novell and other companies are going to bundle an added, _separate_ OpenXML module that dynamically links against OpenOffice.org (and is included with StarOffice or their own products) also makes this all the more *IRRELEVANT*. > special patent license from Microsoft *YOU* decide if you do. If you don't, as many _other_ distros may, then they won't include it. Sun is *NOT* going to "force you" to use it any more than they did with various, 3rd party owned modules that are in StarOffice but not in OpenOffice.org. This is the essence of the _gross_ignorance_ of 97% of the Linux community. Let alone the fact that there are _already_ MS format translators in OpenOffice.org today! Translators introduced by _Sun_, who has had a cross-license with Microsoft for almost *3*YEARS*! So answer me this, WTF has changed with Novell?!?!?! What?! > As far as Sun is concerned (or Novell, for Mono), being the copyright holder > gains them exactly nothing in this respect (since we're talking patents, > which are a distinct concept). Sun: A) Owns 100% of the copyright on OpenOffice.org, and B) Has a cross-license with Microsoft (just like Novell) > If Microsoft were to come out and grant anyone who receives OO.o under > the LGPL (as well as Sun) Sun and Microsoft _already_ have a cross-license. I have said this over and over and over. You are so rabidly fixated on Novell that you are _deaf_. > [2] We can all agree that such people should know better (or employ and > listen to people who know better), but there is the old adage that no one > has ever been fired for buying IBM. Novell hasn't been around for quite > *that* long but it still has some standing in the marketplace -- in some > circles possibly more so than newish companies whose names involve > colourful headgear. I have been at a company where people *HAVE* been fired for buying IBM. I've worked closely with HP and see it happen my friend! Trust me! ;-> Ignorance, assumption, unintentional FUD combined with a new age McCarthyism -- guilt by association, but only selectively (e.g., again, why not IBM? -- oh that's right, $1.1B! Duh!). It doesn't matter what Sun has or has done as the copyright holder of the core software we _already_ use, it only matters that Novell did it just the other month, even though they aren't even in a position to do anything that Sun hasn't already, allegedly "done." -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://thebs413.blogspot.com ----------------------------------------------------------- Free, Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS) is about pure, individual choice. It's the furthest ideal from communism. Unfortunately too many Linux advocates practice McCarthyism _______________________________________________ lpi-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-discuss
