"Development of OpenHAL, a wireless network component for Linux, can now resume unfettered after months of legal uncertainty. OpenHAL allows people with wireless cards based on technology from Atheros Communications, Inc. to connect to networks using solely free and open source software. Earlier this year, allegations were made that OpenHAL might include material that infringed the copyright of Atheros' proprietary HAL software. The Linux Wireless developers asked the Software Freedom Law Center to investigate these rumors, and SFLC agreed to help on a pro-bono basis."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-08
We all read way too much journalism. Look, when you have legal issues, you hire counsel experienced in the field, and they work for you. They're not neutral, and they're not supposed to be. Their job is to analyze the situation and provide sound legal advice.
In this case, one of the foremost firms in free software IP law advised the developers of OpenHAL that they are in solid legal standing and can continue their work without any significant risk of legal action. They could be disbarred for providing unsound advice to their clients.
That's the difference between lawyers and analysts. Analysts are the ones pretending to be neutral and blatantly distorting the evidence to fit their agendas. Lawyers make no such pretense, and their recommendations are held to a higher standard.
When the Yankee Group opines on the legality of various free software projects, that's the time to be cynical.
Member since:2005-07-06
Thanks for the distinction - that was well put!
Member since:
2005-07-06
As much as I am a Free Software enthusiast, I would agree on that. However, the SFLC would be _one_ place I would get advice, because they are experts on this kind of issue. But, as you say, I would also ask a more neutral source.