From owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Nov 29 07:24:49 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1768916A494 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2006 07:24:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wizlayer@gmail.com) Received: from wx-out-0506.google.com (wx-out-0506.google.com [66.249.82.231]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B467943CF2 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2006 07:23:11 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from wizlayer@gmail.com) Received: by wx-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id s18so2070567wxc for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2006 23:23:09 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:from:reply-to:to:subject:date:user-agent:cc:references:in-reply-to:x-copyright-notice:x-copyright-info:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:message-id; b=WXVyx6N2Ia5jiAQ9o000Ov/WE+MSVZUnDW9MpSwktpO+xm5rCwf/9Xd6WUscOurVoQZOKBUU7ET9AAWBdNA6kf8BOJu5Cy45OJAkPn7xMNAqtP9H/fbibsuXrff2bdSUmLTy5lAr3r8PvRtFBtJz9b9jVSpHfjFbJlx4onSVtJo= Received: by 10.70.74.6 with SMTP id w6mr3097849wxa.1164774129602; Tue, 28 Nov 2006 20:22:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?192.168.1.100? ( [204.116.241.218]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id i15sm26637359wxd.2006.11.28.20.22.08; Tue, 28 Nov 2006 20:22:09 -0800 (PST) From: WizLayer To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org, jan.husar@skosi.org Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 23:23:34 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1 References: <197873.77889.qm@web50302.mail.yahoo.com> <541b7a870611281721o13fdb271q2797e419c75d9b0b@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <541b7a870611281721o13fdb271q2797e419c75d9b0b@mail.gmail.com> X-Copyright-Notice: 2006 Michael C. Hauber X-Copyright-Info: This transmission, including any data found herein is copyrighted material and may not be copied, forwarded, or repeated by any means without written consent from the copyright owner. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200611282323.35814.wizlayer@gmail.com> Cc: Subject: Re: BSD folks position on GPL, Novell, IBM, SCO, and MS... X-BeenThere: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: wizlayer@gmail.com List-Id: FreeBSD Evangelism List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 07:24:49 -0000 On Tuesday 28 November 2006 20:21, Jan Husar proclaimed: >> On 11/29/06, Tim Clewlow wrote: > > > > From: Mike Hauber > > > > > > > > What if Sun pulls a SCO with their Java? If IBM pulls a SCO with > > > > their contributions? If Novell pulls a SCO with their > > > > contributions? I would like to think that their intentions are > > > > honest, but after SCO, and then MSs very weird deal with Novell, > > > > who knows? (and by the way, is IBM working with the BSD community > > > > as well? I hadn't read anything on that, and would be interested > > > > to know more if they are). > > > > > >This is just a speculation and really lame one ;/ > > > BTW... It was not my intention to say IBM and Sun are going to turn around and do MsBrides. My point was just how much can we trust companies that contribute, when there _are_ MsBrides out there? Shouldn't there be some type of written agreement stating that they agree not to pull any SCOs? I'll keep my reservations for Novell, though. That was just too weird for my taste (and apparently so for most GPLees). > > Microsoft appear to be claiming that the idea of using one type of > > computer to build an operating system for a different type of computer is > > their idea. Unfortunately (for Microsoft) this practice has been known in > > the "public domain" for decades. This claim would be laughable if it > > wasnt serious - instead it is just pathetic. > > > > Tim. > > > You hited the target, but as you prolly know also double-click is > patentable.... > > ;( > > Jan > Something came up on CNET about the patent process being reviewed by the Supreme Court. Now I don't look so legally dumb... Yeah right. :) Link may wrap: http://news.com.com/Supreme%2BCourt%2Bweighs%2Bobviousness%2Bof%2Bpatents/2100-1014_3-6138969.html?tag=nefd.lede I don't know how old this is (the source doesn't include a date, either), but at least it's being looked at: http://www.point-of-law.com/report.asp?id=467&page=1 Us poor folk can't defend ourselves if our defense is going to cost us $2 million and up per claim... And what even makes it worse is that now, there's OSS insurance companies. Gee... Just in case the open source communities turn out to be a bunch of thieves, I better get me some insurance. That's sickening. People can't even be transparently honest these days without getting mud/fud thrown at them, and there are lions, tigers, and bears out there who are actually willing to take advantage of the FUD by ripping off their piggy banks while they're not looking? :) I'm really not trying to rant, here. I'm just trying to figure out a way to be productive about it. Is this something that we should be shrugging off or is this something we need to be openly fighting against? If it's something that we should be fighting, then how to go about it? Or is this something we just have to wait out and suffer the publicity blows until the FUDster's lights fade, and hope we won't owe our inheritances to a bunch of lawyers in the process? I found out from Groklaw that NYU is doing a study review of patents and supposedly MS has agreed to be reviewed along with IBM and a few others. There weren't any links provided, but that should be interesting. Mike