Comments on: Groklaw Responds to FUD About OIN http://techrights.org/2010/08/23/response-oin-disinformation/ Free Software Sentry – watching and reporting maneuvers of those threatened by software freedom Fri, 25 Nov 2016 09:41:40 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.9.14 By: Dr. Roy Schestowitz http://techrights.org/2010/08/23/response-oin-disinformation/comment-page-1/#comment-98876 Tue, 24 Aug 2010 07:25:50 +0000 http://techrights.org/?p=37376#comment-98876 I think OIN fits under the “pragmatic” umbrella. It obeys a broken law rather than smash it.

]]>
By: Needs Sunlight http://techrights.org/2010/08/23/response-oin-disinformation/comment-page-1/#comment-98875 Tue, 24 Aug 2010 07:20:55 +0000 http://techrights.org/?p=37376#comment-98875 OIN, or Groklaw, could prove Müller wrong by publishing a road map of how OIN will work to make sure that it can be safely closed down at some future date and even offer some tentative timelines for that wonderful occasion.

The position that OIN is somehow necessary can very easily lead to a perpetuation of the current problems. Or it can lead to a severe worsening of the increased costs and decreased innovation of software patents.

If Prof Moglen and others can connect the dots for us and show us how OIN leads directly to returning to a sane patent policy in the US, then those two bad scenarios can be avoided. Without a reminder as to how OIN fits into restoring a sane patent policy, OIN looks more like a liability for Linux and FOSS in general than any resemblance to an asset.

]]>