Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> ...And the FUD/legal (without prospects, thus just FUD) fight begins.
>
> Ballmer: Linux users owe Microsoft
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | In comments confirming the open-source community's suspicions, Microsoft
> | CEO Steve Ballmer Thursday declared his belief that the Linux operating
> | system infringes on Microsoft's intellectual property.
> `----
If he thinks this, then why did he offer to pay Novell hundreds of
millions of dollars instead of suing them ? I guess Steve is just
stupid.
Apparently the stolen code works better for us than it does for
Microsoft. Doesn't that sound odd ? Wouldn't the code likely work
better in the original and complete implementation ? If the code was
improved in porting, then the IP rights issue becomes a very different
story, as MS would not be able to use the improvement without GPLing
their code.
I'm going to guess that MS has used far more OSS code than most people
would like to admit. We already know they took their TCP stack from BSD
(whose license allows this), but how much code do they have from GPL
sources ? When we see MS trailing in the browser market, and suddenly
catching up to their OSS counterpart with features like tabbed
browsing, one wonders if the code was stolen. Consider if it was, if
even a small copyrightable section was included in IE 7. Anyone selling
IE, or Vista, would be potentially liable to the person or people who
wrote that section of code. Perhaps CompUSA and Dell should think about
that.
The sad part here is the Microsoft may be putting their customers at
great risk. If GPL code is found in Windows, Visual Studio, et. al.,
then developers who use these MS products may be at risk of losing
their IP rights, and perhaps even be liable for damages. MS had a
similar case with their SQL development tools, and the courts found
that even the third pary developers using MS tools were liable.
But back to the FUD. For MS, making their case would be very easy : all
OSS is by definition open and available to be viewed by anyone.
Apparently they have been railing about this for years, and they have a
huge technical base, and retain excellent legal council. Despite all
this, after years of looking, they have yet to even file a case ? They
have yet to even send out cease and desist letters ? Doesn't that sound
a bit odd to anyone ?
The proper response to Ballmer is "STFU". He has nothing, and it is
obvious he has nothing. The press missed this at the begining of the
SCO case, and they are being fooled twice.
Dean G.
|
|
