Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 28th Jun 2007 18:51 UTC, submitted by WillM
Linspire Kevin Carmony, CEO of Linspire, writes: "With the recent news of several Linux vendors entering into partnership agreements with Microsoft (Novell, Linspire, Xandros), there has been much debate recently about two factions of Linux forming. Saying that Linux is going to be torn in two, makes for good press and lively debates, but this is certainly nothing new for Linux."
Thread beginning with comment 251360
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
legal vs moral high ground
by niemau on Thu 28th Jun 2007 20:40 UTC
niemau
Member since:
2007-06-28

first off, licensing codecs has nothing to do with bogus patents, mr. carmony.

secondly, so some greedy asshat megacorporations have lobbyists and dollars that can sway some equally greedy and morally bankrupt politicians into pushing restrictive and reprehensible IP laws. guess what? taking the 'legal' high ground and taking the 'moral' high ground are two extremely different things. i will never submit to the agenda of greed that you seem so eager to subscribe to. maybe some microsoft cronies showed you some patents, maybe not. by signing this sort of agreement, you're basically slapping the face of those that truly take the moral high ground. you're telling the world that you're just fine with ridiculous software patents that should never have been granted. since microsoft refuses to make public which patents are being violated, you are by proxy denying developers the chance to even attempt to clean our code of these alleged violations.

when it comes down to it kevin, you know damn well nobody's mad at you for 'trying to give customers choices'. furthermore, it's despicable that you'd pull that kind of double-speak.

Reply Score: 5

RE: legal vs moral high ground
by leech on Thu 28th Jun 2007 20:56 in reply to "legal vs moral high ground"
leech Member since:
2006-01-10

I have to say here that I don't think 'cleaning code' is going to have any affect on these so-called 'software patents'. Namely because the system is so screwed up that they don't patent actual code, but ideas of user interface design, like clicking on text to create a drop-down menu. Not sure if that's actually one, but something like that. Who ever would buy the tripe that Microsoft is selling should be eating said tripe. Plain and simple, Software Patents should be eliminated. It'd be like me trying to patent the wearing of clothes. I'm sorry, everyone must pay me royalties to wear clothes. It doesn't matter that mankind has been wearing clothes for hundreds of thousands of years, but since I thought about patenting it first, then everyone has to pay me.

I'll be waiting for the first checks.... ;)

Reply Parent Score: 5

niemau Member since:
2007-06-28

i agree. the truth is, if microsoft actually showed these patents, they'd be in a lot of hot water. that's why they don't. they're scared that the second they do, they'll all get overturned for prior art, obviousness, etc. any patent not overturned would get worked around.

Reply Parent Score: 3