On Sun, Nov 19, 2006 01:31:30 AM -0600, M Harris
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> You counter point proves my point precisely... Stallman and the FSF
> (and thousands of others) have made sure that the GPL core code
> (kernel, gcc, *nix util packages, etc) are clean.
Mike,
please re-read the message you answered to. What I am criticizing is
almost exclusively the belief/confusion, from you and others, that a
simple fork, like XFree->Xorg or Debian->Ubuntu solves a patent
violation issue, that you just remove a few packages or source files
and you're done.
I have not said that there *are* patent violations in Linux. In the
context of _this_ discussion, it really doesn't matter if such
violations exist or not. What I was and am still suggesting is just
that a few people here get straight the deep differences between:
1) patents and copyright
2) what one thinks _should_ be legal and what _is_ legal today
3) the gut reactions of a few geeks and those of the mass of suits
who _do_ make company or state policies
> If there were patented algorithms in the (open source, as in
> everybody can read it !! ) kernel ( or FSF core ) then it would
> have surfaced long ago... SCO would have won...
This is just what I meant when I said "confusion": SCO sued for break
of trade secrets and copyright. Not for patent violation. It was IBM
that, just to hurt SCO as much as possible, threw in a few patent
violations in the _counterclaim_ .
Ciao,
Marco
--
The right way to make everybody love Free Standards and Free Software:
http://digifreedom.net/node/73
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
