Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 17th Jul 2011 20:58 UTC, submitted by fran
Linux It's strange. Microsoft has been patent trolling the heck out of the Linux kernel for a long time now, and is still using these patents against Android today in its protection money scheme. However, as LWN.net illustrates, Microsoft makes quite a few contributions to the Linux kernel. Shouldn't this invalidate their patent claims?
Thread beginning with comment 481406
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[9]: say what
by Rahul on Mon 18th Jul 2011 13:00 UTC in reply to "RE[8]: say what"
Rahul
Member since:
2005-07-06

No. It is FUD because you singled out GPL earlier. If you merely said, any free and open source software can be supported by multiple vendors, this is true and the strength of it because there is no vendor lock-in. However Oracle isn't merely supporting. They are engaging is under handed tactics which they have been doing to many others in the past and those were proprietary vendors. It has everything to do with the way it is running its business

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[10]: say what
by lucas_maximus on Mon 18th Jul 2011 13:43 in reply to "RE[9]: say what"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

No. It is FUD because you singled out GPL earlier. If you merely said, any free and open source software can be supported by multiple vendors, this is true and the strength of it because there is no vendor lock-in.[q/]

I didn't single out the GPL, I just said it is a problem ... which it is. Because we were talking about Linux kernel patches that must be GPL licensed.

[q]However Oracle isn't merely supporting. They are engaging is under handed tactics which they have been doing to many others in the past and those were proprietary vendors. It has everything to do with the way it is running its business


How it is underhanded?? Not very nice maybe, however they haven't violated the terms of the license. They have just found a (quite obvious loophole).

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[11]: say what
by _txf_ on Mon 18th Jul 2011 14:12 in reply to "RE[10]: say what"
_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

How it is underhanded?? Not very nice maybe, however they haven't violated the terms of the license. They have just found a (quite obvious loophole).


I think most people would consider "not very nice" to be underhanded. Also exploiting a loophole could also be considered underhanded.

One uses such terms against lawyers for navigating crooked paths through the law, why not this?

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[11]: say what
by Rahul on Mon 18th Jul 2011 14:55 in reply to "RE[10]: say what"
Rahul Member since:
2005-07-06

Don't play semantics. Exploiting loopholes and not playing nice are just other ways of saying that it is underhanded. Btw, you are wrong to claim that patches have to be GPL. They can under be under any GPL compatible license. These include MIT, revised BSD and many other licenses. There are some modules which are under BSD merged in the Linux kernel so this is not even theoretical.

Reply Parent Score: 3