Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

[News] Attempts to Redefine "Open Source" Courtesy of Monopoly Abuser

  • Subject: [News] Attempts to Redefine "Open Source" Courtesy of Monopoly Abuser
  • From: Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 03:08:50 +0000
  • Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
  • Organization: Netscape / schestowitz.com
  • User-agent: KNode/0.10.4
How do you define ‘commercial open source’?

,----[ Quote ]
| SQLite has seen some success recently as the chosen database for Google’s 
| Android project. It also replaced MySQL as the default database for the Ruby 
| on Rails project. Adobe, meanwhile, uses SQLite as part of its new AIR 
| runtime software, amongst other things.   
`----

http://blogs.the451group.com/opensource/2008/02/26/how-do-you-define-commercial-open-source/

http://www.microsoft.com/interop/principles/osspatentpledge.mspx

Patent Pledge for Open Source Developers

,----[ Quote ]
| [PJ: Microsoft has come up with its own proprietary definition, if I may call 
| it that, of Open Source projects. Here it is, found on the new Patent Pledge 
| for Open Source Developers page of its website:  
| 
| "To benefit from this promise, You must be a natural or legal person 
| participating in the creation of software code for an open source project. 
| An "open source project" is a software development project the resulting 
| source code of which is freely distributed, modified, or copied pursuant to 
| an open source license and is not commercially distributed by its 
| participants. If You engage in the commercial distribution or importation of 
| software derived from an open source project or if You make or use such 
| software outside the scope of creating such software code, You do not benefit 
| from this promise for such distribution or for these other activities."        
| 
| Blech.]
`----

http://www.groklaw.net/newsitems.php


Related:

IP Issues with OOXML (DIS 29500)

,----[ Quote ]
| Out of all the free and open source licences which are available, there are 
| two which are disproportionately chosen by FOSS developers when licensing 
| their software. Those two are the GPL and the LGPL. Of these, the GPL is 
| disproportionately favoured over the LGPL.* If there are issues with GPL 
| implementations then there are IP issues with OOXML. Any assurance that 
| excludes implementation under these licences is just cause for the FOSS 
| community to voice concern.      
| 
| [...]
| 
| If there are issues with GPL implementations then there are IP issues with 
| OOXML. Microsoft implicitly concedes there are issues with GPL 
| implementations.  
`----

http://brendanscott.wordpress.com/2008/02/05/ip-issues-with-ooxml-dis-29500/


By Metes and Bounds

,----[ Quote ]
| But you might say, "Please Rob, you can't be serious. Who would try to get a 
| patent on laying out a footnote? That just doesn't happen in the real world." 
| 
| But consider for Microsoft's patent application "Method and computer readable 
| medium for laying out footnotes" (US20060156225A1). I'm not saying that 
| application matches the above feature in the standard, but if it did, is 
| there anyone who will argue that the Open Specification Promise would not 
| apply in this case?    
`----

http://www.robweir.com/blog/2008/02/by-metes-and-bounds.html


Defensive Patents, Other Fairy Tales

,----[ Quote ]
| "Defensive patents" make as much sense as leaving a loaded gun around the 
| house. Like a home robbery, it is more likely it will be used against the 
| home owner then the intruder.  
`----

http://krow.livejournal.com/578868.html


Microsoft patents by Brian Jones

,----[ Quote ]
| For fun we just did a quick search of published US patent applications 
| with "Brian Jones" as an author, and "Microsoft" as the assignee. 
| 
| [...]
| 
| Some of these, like the packing ones, seem to apply directly to OOXML. What 
| isn't clear to us is why Microsoft would pursue patent protection for patents 
| rights that their are promising that they won't assert over users of OOXML.  
`----

http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-35323/microsoft-patents-by-brian-jones


Wishful Spinning

,----[ Quote ]
| OOXML gets adopted. More and more projects are started. Let's see which of 
| these would survive without funding. Meanwhile a spin factory sends out 
| success stories that most bloggers find worthless to discuss. It is possible 
| to get the Krauts on board that are supposed to review OOXML but would OOXML 
| survive a review by the crowds?    
`----

http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-35292/wishful-spinning


Digging in the Comments: Patents

,----[ Quote ]
| Patent licensing is probably the most important aspect for all third parties 
| that want to implement or use the Open XML specification. Unfortunately the 
| Ballot Resolution Meeting cannot discuss these aspects because only technical 
| and editorial issues would get resolved.   
| 
| [...]
| 
| When you have a patent which covers Open XML and you refuse to license it, 
| the standard process gets stalled. Large companies in the standardization 
| process are reluctant to use that nuke option. Given the ambush that the 
| software patent practice means today it is quite possible that Open XML 
| infringes a patent and all parties eventually have an obligation to license 
| it.     
`----

http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-31491/digging-in-the-comments:patents


Patent threat looms large over OOXML

,----[ Quote ]
| "If OOXML goes through as an ISO standard, the IT industry, government and 
| business will encumbered with a 6000-page specification peppered with 
| potential patent liabilities" said NZOSS President Don Christie.  
| 
| "Patent threats have already been used to spread doubt amongst organisations 
| keen to take advantage of the benefits of open source. No one knows whether 
| such claims have any merit, but it is calculated to deter the development and 
| use of open and alternative toolsets."   
`----

http://nzoss.org.nz/node/179


Cyberlaw OOXML Seminar 14 December

,----[ Quote ]
| However, this raises the issue - what assurance does a developer have that 
| such a large specification is not the subject of third party patent claims?  
|       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| The pedigree of the specification is certainly no reason for hope, Microsoft 
| has been the target of third party patent claims for some time now including 
| some high profile losses in patent suits. The fact that the specification has 
| been developed behind closed doors and on a fast track means that there has 
| been no adequate opportunity to evaluate the likelihood of third party patent 
| claims against the specifications. The sheer size of the document suggests 
| there will be at least a couple hiding in there somewhere.       
`----

http://brendanscott.wordpress.com/2007/12/13/cyberlaw-ooxml-seminar-14-december/


ISO warned about possible patent violations of DIS29500 (aka OOXML)

,----[ Quote ]
| I have just send the following email to ISO members (you can find some of 
| their email addresses on the INCTIS website) to warn them about the possible  
| patent ambush... 
`----

http://jeremywang67.blogspot.com/2008/01/iso-warned-about-possible-patent.html

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index