”Novell has, in some respect, assisted the opening of that jar of worms. Novell granted Microsoft the precedence it so badly craved.“The list goes further than this. It remains a fact that at the time of Novell's deal with Microsoft (November 2006), patents were not seen as a principal challenge to Linux. Novell has, in some respect, assisted the opening of that jar of worms. Novell granted Microsoft the precedence it so badly craved. On numerous occasions shortly after the deal had been signed, Microsoft's CEO used that deal explicitly as proof "that open source is not free". That was before the middle of May when Microsoft decided to openly 'assert its rights'.
The Economist published a good article a couple of days ago. Other than the fact that it somehow attributes the success of Free software to Linus Torvalds (others like Richard Stallman will be rightly -- or leftly -- put off by this), it does point out the role of cost as an advantage.
Pundits agree: neither Microsoft nor Apple can compete at the new price points being plumbed by companies looking to cut costs. With open-source software maturing fast, Linux, OpenOffice, Firefox, MySQL, Evolution, Pidgin and some 23,000 other Linux applications available for free seem more than ready to fill that gap.
The twist with any new Linux lawsuit is that past cases have "mobilized a huge and passionate community," says attorney Andrew Updegrove, an open-source litigation expert. Today, any new open-source project is scrutinized by hundreds of erstwhile developers looking for potential patent infringement. "If a company is going to proceed with its claims of IP infringement, it better have a smoking gun," says Chris Swenson, the director for software industry analysis at NPD Group.
Comments
zoobab
2007-12-26 20:48:57
Bruce Byfield
2007-12-27 00:24:47
"Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit." - Proverbs 24:4-5
In this case, I hardly know which of these two pieces of advice to follow.
I acknowledge an error in talking about the OOXML voting; earlier today, I asked Datamation for a correction when I saw it earlier today, and I expect it will be corrected soon.
Otherwise than this purely factual point, from here on, I think that I'll go with not answering. If nothing else, it will save me from wasting time. As an ex-English instructor, misreading and misrepresentation irk me, but I also have learned to recognize a hopeless case when I see it.
Roy Schestowitz
2007-12-27 02:01:33
I do like your articles, but the only criticism I've had recently is an unfair depiction that involves terms like "conspiracy theory" (or "witch hunt" in some other places). These terms have a negative connotation and are therefore used to discredit us. They are used to intercept our message.
People speak. People exchange E-mails. They exchange phonecalls and they also exchange favours. That's the way things work, so there's no point in denying that. Not everywhere we look do secret agreements exist. However, in order to understand what is happening behind the scenes, one must take into consideration all sorts of evidence. This isn't a case of look and see. A lot is happening away from sight. If we identify many 'coincidences', we wish to draw the readers' attention and have them reach their own conclusion.
If you spot mistakes or inaccuracies, please weight in so that we can correct them (as we regularly do).
Having an uncomfortable or an unpopular assessment is not easy. There are many people who do not like what we show here. It doesn't falsify some factual information, such as the fact that a Novell Vice President was also the President of the GNOME Foundation, until recently.