Linked by snydeq on Sat 10th Mar 2012 20:29 UTC
Linux The open source community should feel a little safer from software patent attacks, writes InfoWorld's Simon Phipps. "The Open Invention Network, a consortium of Linux contributors formed as a self-defense against software patents, has extended the definition of Linux so that a whopping 700 new software packages are covered, including many developer favorites. Just one hitch: The new definition also includes carve-outs that put all Linux developers on notice that Phillips and Sony reserve the right to sue over virtualization, search, user interfaces, and more."
Thread beginning with comment 510253
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
How sincere
by Alfman on Sun 11th Mar 2012 09:12 UTC
Alfman
Member since:
2011-01-28

We don't mind participating in a patent cross licensing agreement with other Linux developers... so long as exceptions get carved out for any technologies that we may hold patents for.

Reply Score: 4

RE: How sincere
by moondevil on Sun 11th Mar 2012 14:11 in reply to "How sincere"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

After working for a couple of big corporations I have learned the sad truth how these "entities" deal with open source.

For them open source is just a way to cut development costs, with the added benefit of doing some good PR from time to time. While on the other hand patents and IP copyrights get done to prevent the competition.

Even companies I though were open source friendly, changed my mind, when I discovered how they actually work internally. Mostly is just a small section that is FLOSS friendly, while the rest thinks on the shareholders benefits.

In the end while Microsoft is seen as the dark lord, most big corporations behave exactly the same way, and just because a small unit does a few FLOSS contributions, then get forgiven by the community.

Reply Parent Score: 10

RE[2]: How sincere
by cyrilleberger on Mon 12th Mar 2012 08:50 in reply to "RE: How sincere"
cyrilleberger Member since:
2006-02-01

Mostly is just a small section that is FLOSS friendly, while the rest thinks on the shareholders benefits.


May I remind you that the goal of a company is to make "profit". So yes, everybody in the company should be concerned with the shareholders benefits, that is their jobs. Even the FLOSS friendly people should be mostly concerned with the shareholders benefits. And if there is a way to make profits by being FLOSS friendly, I am sure shareholders and companies will be very open to the idea.

The truth is that making money with FLOSS is very difficult, it is mostly consulting companies that manages to make a profit out of it, or companies that use dual licensing (GPL+Commercial for instance), but then it gets closer to the "free for non-commercial use" model.

So yes, most companies prefer to see FLOSS as a way to save cost on non-strategic components (like the kernel of the os) while keeping a firm grip on what differentiate them from the competitions (just try to imagine how much profit Apple would have made if they had opened source iOS).

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: How sincere
by zima on Sat 17th Mar 2012 23:21 in reply to "RE: How sincere"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

In the end while Microsoft is seen as the dark lord, most big corporations behave exactly the same way, and just because a small unit does a few FLOSS contributions, then get forgiven by the community.

And then, to top it off, there's irony bonus: how many remember MS open source contributions?

(yeah, not many of those - right off I can recall Allegiance, Barrelfish, F# and its relation and contributions to OCaml, maybe one or two another ~functional languages, IronPython, probably not much more - but this is MS, so they should be hostile or smth...)

Reply Parent Score: 2