On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 11:05, Jeremiah Foster <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 8:27 PM, Dave Neary <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 08/02/2011 11:59 AM, Jeremiah Foster wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 9:44 AM, David Greaves<[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> "The Linux Foundation have told us in private conversations that they >>>> will >>>> not permit apps.meego.com to be served from the MeeGo.com infrastructure >>>> hosted by them. They do not have the resource at this time to provide a >>>> statement giving their reasons. We can not assess what other services may >>>> be >>>> impacted in the future." >>> >>> This type of behavior is fundamentally anti-community. This shows the >>> Linux Foundation's complete disinterest in users and developers, >>> they're beholden to the corporate "sponsors" and donors who pay their >>> bills. >>
[snip] >> From where I am standing, with no special knowledge at all, it looks like >> the Linux Foundation is simply a risk-averse organisation, conscious of the >> potential knock-on effects that any legal issues could cause for their >> members and the projects they host. > > This is extremely dangerous. It goes against the precedent that says > "there exist no legal claims against Linux." Linus has always said, if > there is something in Linux that belongs to someone else, point to the > code. That hasn't happened. Microsoft used to scream and shout that > they have proprietary technology in Linux, but they've never pointed > to a single line of code and today they contribute to Linux. This is > the path every company should take and if the LF itself starts to > doubt it's own legal positions, where will we end up? We'll end up > with a lot of vague patent claims and no users. > That's the Linux kernel. Apps developed on Linux may violate patents (we see this happening on the Apple App Store right now). What I don't understand is that they can easily write a legal statement, you need to read and agree upon, that states that they are NOT to be held legally responsible for the application you upload to their service. I am not a legal expert, but I don't see how this can't be happening. After all, LLoyd etc are hitting developers, not Apple. >> It looks to me like legal counsel has a >> pretty big say in some strategic decisions the foundation makes, more so >> than corporate members (in fact, there are a couple of examples of corporate >> members pushing for things which met with some resistance in the Linux >> Foundation). > > I don't know what you're referring to - perhaps you do have some > "special knowledge?" > >From the way LF is acting, it seems like their legal counsels have a big say in this. I don't think Dave has any more knowledge of how LF works than us. >> If my impression is correct, then you're not achieving anything with this >> characterisation - > > Obviously I disagree. I think devs who get involved with a LF project > should know how they treat devs and the faux legal hurdles they face. > Knowing this before hand helps them make the right decision when it is > time to contribute code. > True, but simply pointing fingers won't help. Aniello _______________________________________________ MeeGo-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev http://wiki.meego.com/Mailing_list_guidelines
