Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 23rd Jul 2007 12:49 UTC, submitted by Captain Pirate
Legal "We can read the Linspire-Microsoft patent agreement now, or more precisely Microsoft's 'Covenant to Customers', and I thought it would be worthwhile to give it a close, line-by-line reading. I'll explain it as best I can, but ask your lawyer if it matters to you in a real-world sense. For our purposes here, let's just have fun with the worst deal I've seen yet in this category."
Thread beginning with comment 257673
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
PJ gets it
by b3timmons on Tue 24th Jul 2007 03:42 UTC in reply to "Comment by elsewhere"
b3timmons
Member since:
2006-08-26

So I really don't see what the BFD is here. It's a rehash of the usual "MS is teh evil." Ok. We get it. But Linspire is a business with specific objectives...

I don't think PJ missed the point because the bulk of the analysis indeed shows that the deal indeed does not match the hype, as you acknowledge yourself. While Linspire likely has justifications that PJ does not address--as you point out, why should anyone else care? It chose its strategy long ago, and it clearly has to face with the consequences. These kind of deals do not necessarily help the sustainability of a community and process that many people have come to trust, and Groklaw's details here can strengthen people's justification in steering people away from the firms who do these deals with Microsoft. In the particular case of Linspire, some readers might be reminded of other compromises that it made in the past that did not inspire much trust. I think PJ "gets it" and continues to provide the same useful skeptical function that she has performed so well against SCO.

More generally, while you (or I) may disagree with PJ about whatever, what people really want to know are the specific mistakes that she might make [1], and these have been hard to come by in this story.

[1] One goof from PJ I recall (but may be quite wrong about) is some big stink she raised about some Novell OpenOffice "fork" a while back.

Edit: ubit disagrees with my recollection about the "fork", and my hunch is that he is better-informed on it than me. (That's too bad, since I have tried repeatedly to give Novell the benefit of the doubt)

Edited 2007-07-24 03:59

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: PJ gets it
by ubit on Tue 24th Jul 2007 03:47 in reply to "PJ gets it"
ubit Member since:
2006-09-08

"[1] One goof from PJ I recall is some big stink she raised about some Novell OpenOffice "fork" a while back"

I don't believe that's a goof, since Novell is incorporating Microsoft macro capabilities into their version, and has committed to OOXML. Could I read a Novell-OO.org created document with those features in my Ubuntu version of OO.org?

Now that we see all the patent deals with Linux distributors (Novell, Xandros, Linspire) have included the obligation to promote and code Microsoft's proposed document standard OOXML, I think it's very important to point that out. Especially since there are some very fishy activites around the standards technical committees, like what happened in Portugal where MSFT chaired the committee and refused to let Sun and IBM in on the meeting.

Reply Parent Score: 4