Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 22nd Nov 2010 19:53 UTC
Novell and Ximian We were well aware that Novell had put itself on the market, coyly winking at passers-by, displaying its... Assets. VMware was a contender, but things have played out entirely different: Novell has been bought by Attachmate Corp., with a Microsoft-led consortium buying unspecified intellectual property from Novell.
Thread beginning with comment 450930
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[10]: rms was right- as usual
by gnufreex on Tue 23rd Nov 2010 23:19 UTC in reply to "RE[9]: rms was right- as usual"
gnufreex
Member since:
2010-05-06

Actually he is right, that means proprietary. If Free Software license is not enough and if other license is required, then that other license must be examined too. If that license is proprietary, the program is proprietary.

The problem with Mono is that additional license required from Microsoft is gray area and not talked about. Regular Mono zealot will claim that Mono is free software, and it would be so if there was not patent threat. Then, then you read the ECMA RAND terms and "Community promise", your head starts spinning. With those implied restrictions (and some explicit), Mono is not Free Software at all. The fact that MSFT is not enforcing restrictions now, doesn't mean they wont start tomorrow.

tl;dr If you look only copyright part and obfuscate patent issues, Mono is free software. But fact that you are required to get patent license to use Mono (legally) makes it proprietary.

Reply Parent Score: 5

TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

I can't license your software.

Patents must be tested in the courts to be show to be valid, since no one actually check if applications are for anything valid.

Only the creator of a work can determine how it is licensed.
I'm sorry that I assumed people on an OS-dedicated site would have enough of a grasp of reality to understand that software patents MAKE NO SENSE.

I think of a way to use math to do something, but only in a general, abstract, pseudo-code sort of way.
I send the US government that non-working concept, along with a $10,000us 'filing fee'(at that price, and since no one checks them for validity I call it 'bribe money').
They file my application and send me some papers.
I call up all your customers and demand money.

How does this make any sense?
"You also know how to use math to solve a problem. Give me money because I was the first person to send that equation into the patent office with a ton of money spent."

Software patents make no sense, and your argument makes no sense.

"Hey, I heard you were selling a product in this area... see... this here's my turf. You better pay up, or get out!"
Yeah, that sounds like legal activity...

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[12]: rms was right- as usual
by flynn on Wed 24th Nov 2010 00:42 in reply to "RE[11]: rms was right- as usual"
flynn Member since:
2009-03-19

along with a $10,000us 'filing fee'

I seriously don't know where figures like these keep coming from. A quick glance at the USPTO fee schedule[1] shows that the filing fee is $330 for a utility patent and $220 for a design patent. Half that if you are a 'small entity' (independent inventor, small business or a non-profit).

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/qs/ope/fee2009september15.htm

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[12]: rms was right- as usual
by silix on Fri 26th Nov 2010 02:32 in reply to "RE[11]: rms was right- as usual"
silix Member since:
2006-03-01

I'm sorry that I assumed people on an OS-dedicated site would have enough of a grasp of reality to understand that software patents MAKE NO SENSE.
suppose you are a developer working on a certain application and putting time (thus, money) into the study of a novel algorithm to maximise its efficiency - say, eg, a new data compression algorithm, possibly based on wavelets
suppose your application (at least the first releases) isn't exactly polished, since you being more of a researcher than an interface designer, cared more about the algorithm itself
now, wavelets being what they are, mostly any decent coder should be able to quickly enough reimplement your very same compression mechanism (and then add a shiny gui) after desuming it from your implementation
thus avoiding to spend on analysis and research the time and effort it took you to come up with the algorithm in the first instance
thus outcompeting you and your data compression application with an unfair advantage

sw patents don't make sense only in those fields where the rate of actual innovation is lowest
if you are a programmer/sw house working on actually innovative stuff and not some rehash of that from university /CS classes and books (ie what some call "public domain horizontal knowledge"), innovation you produce is an asset in itself
then, sw patents DO make sense...

Reply Parent Score: 2