Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 7th Oct 2010 14:55 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 444338
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: OIN's Linux definition is a fundamental problem
by JoeBuck on Thu 7th Oct 2010 16:33
in reply to "OIN's Linux definition is a fundamental problem"
The article Florian links to has a significant error, I think. The OIN definition of a Linux system includes a list of packages, and also says that it applies to "any predecessor or successor release". So it would appear that an OIN member can never sue GCC for patent violation, for example, since GCC is defined as a Linux system component (and yes, I can hear RMS gnashing his teeth over that).
Edited 2010-10-07 16:35 UTC
RE[2]: OIN's Linux definition is a fundamental problem
by FlorianMueller on Thu 7th Oct 2010 18:21
in reply to "RE: OIN's Linux definition is a fundamental problem"





Member since:
2010-10-07
I believe that the OIN's arbitrary and constantly changing definition of the "Linux System" is a fundamental problem: http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2010/06/oins-linux-system-only-cons...
I suggested four possible ways to address the problem (one of those ways consist of multiple measures, so all in all I made like a dozen suggestions).
The Oracle-Google situation proves that there is a problem: http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2010/08/open-invention-network-oin-...
But this is just one of many symptoms, and the worst thing that could happen is for OIN to turn against open source competitors of its backers, such as against Linux distributions competing with Red Hat/Novell.