Linked by on Wed 1st Feb 2006 19:53 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 91797
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/25/13 0:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 23:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Howard Fosdick on 05/24/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 14:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-06
Like he says in the article:
"Now we have a legal way to do this for free that's open source"
A legal way of doing this for free that is open source would be to get the patent overturned - and people are simply assuming that this patent implies something legally binding just because other companies have paid up.
You get some short-term joy out of this, but in the medium to long-term it just creates more and more problems for open source software. You'll get every tom, dick and harry patenting something to make companies like Novell and others license something for the wider community.