Daniel Ortega danielsort...@gmail.com writes:
Barracuda Networks has filed for declaratory judgment in an effort to fight
back against patent threats made by Trend Micro against the open-source ClamAV
antivirus software.
At ito pa:
http://www.openmalaysiablog.com/2008/04/the-philippine.html
http://www.mb.com.ph/issues/2008/04/02/TECH20080402120850.html
http://www.zdnetasia.com/news/software/0,39044164,62039628,00.htm
--
Ciarán O'Riordan (+32 477 36 44 19) \ Support Free Software and GNU/Linux
How the Philippines Changed Its OOXML Vote from No to Yes
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080402003610230
--
Ciarán O'Riordan (+32 477 36 44 19) \ Support Free Software and GNU/Linux
http://ciaran.compsoc.com/ _ \ Join FSFE's Fellowship:
rick [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The Computer Professional's Union is compiling Free software tools that will
be of use to different People's organizations.
Malayang software ba lahat?
Hindi ko mahanap ang source code ng Zonealarm.
--
Ciarán O'Riordan __ \
loiscastillo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
http://www.noooxml.org/delegations
So this means the pinoy delegation can only vote to disapprove?
This would be very useful.
There are 104 members who can vote. If there are 26 No votes, the
application will probably be rejected.
To get a No vote,
Microsoft's faulty Office Open XML format (which isn't open and isn't
even proper XML) has been submitted to ISO for approval.
It should be rejected, but MS have a lot of influence among the ISO members,
so we don't know what will happen.
Companies, organisations, and individuals should contact
The fourth-and-last discussion draft of GPLv3 was released last week. The
plan is to continue the public consultation until June 29th and then finally
release the official GPLv3.
So, if you might have a comment, take a look asap. The text of discussion
draft 4 is:
if Henry Ford had the patent to the car, is Toyota in direct violation
of his patents?
Patents and copyright have almost nothing in common, so it's a bad idea to
make patent analogies when discussing copyright.
(See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html )
But to answer the question,
Orlando Andico [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Large corporate Linux
backers (like my employer.. and IBM..) aren't going to buckle down to
Microsoft on this.
Microsoft are not trying to scare other large software companies, they're
trying to scare non-software companies that are thinking of moving
Microsoft want two things. They want to make people afraid to use
GNU+Linux, and they want to get money from the people who do use GNU+Linux.
They worked together with Novell to find a way to get money from people who
use GNU+Linux. Today, customers of Novell are paying Microsoft. Microsoft
For anyone following the GPLv3 process, here's a transcript of a talk given
by RMS about GPLv3 on Sunday:
http://fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/brussels-rms-transcript
And the 2nd draft of LGPLv3 is just out:
http://gplv3.fsf.org/lgpl3-dd2-guide
--
Ciarán O'Riordan __ \
David R. Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I had pushed debian support
but was told to drop it (at my last company) because nobody else
supports it and MySQL is now proven that out.
MySQL say they haven't dropped Debian support:
http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS7941177766.html
--
Ciarán
Dean,
You now say:
THE FOSS BILL IS A TECHNOLOGY ISSUE!!!
But a few days ago, when I explained how it is not about technology. I said:
This is not about software technology, this is about software procurement
policy.
and you replied:
Agreed.
I didn't want to add further to this
Dean Michael Berris wrote:
The commercial reps misunderstand (or misrepresent) FOSS as a technology. It
is not. ...
IIRC FOSS means Free and Open Source Software. If the software
part isn't clear, I don't know what you mean...
This is not about software technology, this is about software
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes, I say pro-choice for that is the nature of a DEMOCRATIC society
Democracies prohibit some things and allow some things.
Here's a good explanation of why governments should reject non-free software:
Noong lingo, nagtalumpati si Richard Stallman sa Tokyo tungkol sa GPLv3.
Heto ang transcript:
http://fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/tokyo-rms-transcript
--
Ciarán O'Riordan __ \ http://fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3
http://ciaran.compsoc.com/ _ \ GPLv3 and other work
best way to convert more users into open
standards is not by requiring it but by convincing consumers to shift
to them due to better features and availability etc.
The weak point of this approach is that sometimes our software is not better
- and we can't guarantee that it will always be
Dean Michael Berris [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The GPL looks good, but it's really bad in so many instances, it doesn't
even make sense anymore.
It has been been enforced thousands of times, and has been upheld in court
multiple times. It defines the rules for the distribution of most free
kaloy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
i've heard of some open source legislations
in some countries, but i haven't finished reading them
yet.
Sa Amerikang Latino ang pinakamatagumpay na pagsisikap. Heto ang
legislation na sinulat nila:
Zak B. Elep [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Natutuwa ako (at sigurado ako, natutuwa rin ang aking mga kasama rito)
na kagustuhan mo na matutunan ang wikang Filipino. Nabasa ko sa iyong
pahina sa web[0] na nakakuha ka ng kopya ng diksyonaro ni Padre English
ng mga Redentorist =) Binabati
20 matches
Mail list logo
