-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Open Database License
,----[ Quote ]
| If you think open data is as important as open source, then please take a
| look at a release candidate of the Open Database License (ODbL).
`----
http://opensource.org/node/428
Recent:
The OSI was hijacked
,----[ Quote ]
| Linux is where it is today, despite the constant attacks from Microsoft and
| its sycophants, and other proprietary businesses, entirely because it is
| impossible for them to hijack GPL code.
|
| So, if they can't hijack the GPL they tried the next best thing: surround the
| GPL with licenses which CLAIM to be similar to the GPL but were not. The
| uninformed, walking into the forest of OSI "approved" licenses, stands a
| strong chance of being deceived into believing that a license they might
| choose is "identical" because they heard that the GPL is Open Source and the
| OSI is the "Open Source" Initiative. What their guides through the forest
| lead them away from is the TRUE open source license, the GPL.
|
| When you acquire an application that is GPL you are guaranteed that:
| 1) You have the same rights over that application as the person or company
| from which you got the application.
| 2) You have the right to obtain the source code of the binary of that
| application which, when compiled, produces an EXACT copy of the binary of the
| application you were given.
| 3) You can modify the source code any way you wish and
| 3a) If you don't share your modified application then you don't have to share
| your changes,
| 3b) If you do share your modified application you MUST give the people
| receiving it the same rights you were given, which includes access to the
| original source and the source code you added.
| 4) If they violate the GPL then they lose ALL rights to distribute the GPL
| portion of the code, but you do not.
| 5) You cannot sign away your GPL rights as part of an agreement to recive a
| GPL application. See #4.
|
| Why do these PHONY FOSS companies want to lure you away from the GPL with
| PHONY FOSS LICENSES? Simple. If it is not "Bait and Switch" then it's called
| LOCK-IN.
|
| [...]
|
| SUMMARY: There is only ONE TRUE FOSS License, the GPL. Any other license
| gives the user less freedom and/or less security in knowing that the code
| can't be hijacked they way Microsoft and Apple HIJACKED the BSD and the
| FreeBSD.
`----
http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2009-02-17-010-35-OS-BZ-LL-0000
Crimes Microsoft Gets Away With - So Far
,----[ Quote ]
| News publications are cautious about making accusations, and because of that,
| some nasty acts of Microsoft are essentially being erased from the record.
|
| [...]
|
| Microsoft convinced Baystar Capital to put $50 Million dollars into SCO's
| lawsuit against IBM and other Open Source users, and promised to "backstop"
| Baystar's investment if SCO lost money, according to this sworn testimony.
| But I'm told that one person's testimony, even sworn testimony, isn't proof.
`----
http://technocrat.net/no-cache/d/2008/7/30/46981
EU accuses Microsoft
,----[ Quote ]
| The European Commission has accused Microsoft of harming competition by
| bundling its Explorer web browser with its Windows operating system.
|
| The commission said it had reached the preliminary view that the US software
| giant had undermined consumer choice and infringed EU rules.
|
| Microsoft and the European Union have engaged in legal battles over
| competition issues for years.
|
| Last year, the EU fined Microsoft 899m euros ($1.4bn; £680.9m).
`----
http://ghanabusinessnews.com/2009/01/17/eu-accuses-microsoft/
Microsoft + Novell = Monopoly 2.0?
,----[ Quote ]
| But is Microsoft really so stupid that they would write a $100M check to prop
| up a message that nobody believes? I don't believe so, and I especially don't
| believe so given that nobody in the world of open source is asking Microsoft
| to keep propping up Novell. My conclusion, especially given the lack of
| response from Sam Ramji, is that Microsoft knows perfectly well what it is
| doing. Microsoft's good-faith effort at technology innovation, Vista, has
| failed, and so they are resorting to their true core competency, updated to
| the 21st century: Monopoly 2.0.
|
| Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Asay may be right
| that Microsoft is throwing away their money, in which case customers and
| shareholders may wish to be less generous sharing their money with Microsoft.
| Or Microsoft may be pursuing a new way to undermine open source--is that
| something you want to support?
`----
http://opensource.org/node/363
Memo to Microsoft: Put up or shut up on patent claims
,----[ Quote ]
| They have signed innumerable contracts based on the claims, contracts which
| assume the truth of the claims, and caused the production of products whose
| chief selling point is that their makers admit the legitimacy of the claims.
|
| Microsoft seems in no hurry to change the status quo. They are not going to
| put up, in the form of a lawsuit. They are not going to shut up, either,
| given the commercial advantages they have created.
`----
http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=2460
Related:
Microsoft not so 'open' after all?
,----[ Quote ]
| Head of open-source group says more than half of licenses don't pass muster
|
| [...]
|
| Michael Tiemann, president of the non-profit Open Source Initiative, said
| that provisions in three out of five of Microsoft's shared-source licenses
| that restrict source code to running only on the Windows operating system
| would contravene a fundamental tenet of open-source licenses as laid out by
| the OSI. By those rules, code must be free for anyone to view, use, modify as
| they see fit.
|
| [...]
|
| By his count, the OSI has rejected "two dozen" or so license applications for
| language that restricted the use or redistribution of software and its source
| code, even when the restrictions were written with what Tiemann
| called "moral" intent. For instance, the OSI has rejected license
| applications from Quakers and other pacifists who sought to prevent the use
| of software for weapons such as landmines.
|
| "I am highly sympathetic to that point of view," he said. "But the OSI is not
| in the business of legislating moral use. We allow all use, commercial or
| non-commercial, mortal or medical."
`----
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9028318&intsrc=news_ts_head
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkoDeosACgkQU4xAY3RXLo5KrQCfaO5l7GXU4+AL5qTeTiDeXjXL
PJsAn1QmMvZWaqLxGSshjk81sPUSSJuE
=KJS0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
|
