Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 19th Jun 2007 18:38 UTC, submitted by AdamW
Mandriva has made a formal statement of its position regarding the recent Microsoft deals by other Linux vendors. "Up to now, there has been absolutely no hard evidence from any of the FUD propagators that Linux and open source applications are in breach of any patents. So we think that, as in any democracy, people are innocent unless proven guilty and we can continue working in good faith. So we don't believe it is necessary for us to get protection from MS to do our job or to pay protection money to anyone."
Thread beginning with comment 249107
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-03-06
Member since:2005-12-02
"I don't see it being wrong for a Linux developer to pay Microsoft to legally use their codecs, etc in Linux software. Though I find it appauling for Microsoft to openly imply this is for code protection claiming with out proving Linux distributions use Microsoft code. Why doesn't the USA DOJ (Department of Justice) step in to stop Microsoft until they can actually provide evidence of their code being used in the Linux kernel and Linux software."
Microsoft has not said anywhere that Linux is using Microsoft code. What they have implied is that Linux may violate patents that Microsoft holds. Patents and code are not the same thing.
Member since:2007-02-17
I don't see it being wrong for a Linux developer to pay Microsoft to legally use their codecs, etc in Linux software. Though I find it appauling for Microsoft to openly imply this is for code protection claiming with out proving Linux distributions use Microsoft code. Why doesn't the USA DOJ (Department of Justice) step in to stop Microsoft until they can actually provide evidence of their code being used in the Linux kernel and Linux software.
Linux doesn't use Microsoft's code.
If Microsoft wants to charge Linux users for Microsoft codecs, then Microsoft should offer said codecs for sale to Linux users.
Currently, Microsoft doesn't offer anything for sale for Linux.
Now, since Linux doesn't use Microsoft's code, and there is no code from Microsoft for Linux on offer for sale, what exactly does Microsoft possibly imagine any Linux user should pay Microsoft for?
This is the question.
Even Microsoft murmurs of "interoperability" are all about "you do the work to code our formats on Linux and pay us for your efforts".
Never does Microsoft offer to do anything for Linux, other than let Linux users pay Microsoft.
Thanks, but no thanks Microsoft. I'll skip that deal if you don't mind.
Member since:
2005-07-10
I don't see it being wrong for a Linux developer to pay Microsoft to legally use their codecs, etc in Linux software. Though I find it appauling for Microsoft to openly imply this is for code protection claiming with out proving Linux distributions use Microsoft code. Why doesn't the USA DOJ (Department of Justice) step in to stop Microsoft until they can actually provide evidence of their code being used in the Linux kernel and Linux software.