As a budding software developer, I find this copyright and intellectual property topic increasingly tragic. Where does it end? Who doesn't copy ideas? Didn't Microsoft develop Windows 3.1 by borrowing the GUI idea from Apple ( and subsequently squashing them). Now they want to protect themselves from what they did to others. Or perhaps they want to continue to squash any other alternative to them ( or better put "Resistance is futile"
It might seem okay to protect ones self from being plagarised but where is the line that stops it going into the rediculous (if it hasn't already). I bet in 20yrs time my high school teacher will be able to sue me for using an idea he/she taught me. It is just getting stupid!!!! With governments continually allowing these parasites to squash invention (and making Australia even more the slave of the US and its Corporate feudalism) we will fast become a nation of consumers that can do nothing but sell off resources to support our need to obey advertisers and consume. It is a bit like that line of that movie "in space no one can hear you scream" To me, that is how it seems to be becoming for those who want to make a career out of software developement I appologise if this seems like some esoteric eccentric rant. but I just had to contribute something Regards Phill O'Flynn PS I am NOT anti american but there are certain aspects of their culture (like encouraging of unrestrained greed) that the rest of the world is better off without --------------------------------- Original Message --------------------------------- Subject: Re: [SLUG] Novell and Microsoft From: "Lindsay Holmwood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tue, November 7, 2006 2:24 pm To: "SLUG List" <slug@slug.org.au> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ On Tue, Nov 07, 2006 at 10:29:21AM +1100, James Dumay wrote: > > The Novell/MS should really mean nothing to developers who respect > intellectual property of Microsoft - Microsoft and Novell under the deal > (and any Novell customer) are able to share each others respective > intellectual property and allow external developers to extend and contribute > to those projects. > Sure, the world is rosier for Novell customers and non-commercial developers, but for the rest of us it's significantly murkier. Microsoft have effectively asserted rights over the creation of software by positioning themselves (with Novell) as arbiters of our community. (Note I said software, not FOSS. It has much broader implications than that, though FOSS is the obvious target.) They only have to say that a project *may* be infringing on their patents and businesses will have to reconsider whether they can use it under threat of licencing - a SCO redux. Granted, this is little different from before, though now the battle lines are drawn a lot more clearly. Now that this precedent has been set, Microsoft's strategy is pretty straight forward: Pick a few high profile projects (Mono, Samba, OpenOffice), sue their biggest commercial users for using "non-Microsoft licenced" software that *may* infringe on their patents, watch as customers flock to Microsoft and Novell seeking indemnity. If Microsoft deems your software to be "unlicenced", how are you going to fight it? You *know* you probably have a legal leg to stand on with GPL (if the software is licenced that way), but how would you as a company fund the fight against the Microsoft behemoth if they ever took you to court? Red Hat call it an innovation tax, and that's exactly what it is. > People crying about the entire community not getting covered simply don't > get it... You can be sued now and you could be sued before the deal if you > infringe on someones intellectual property and in some cases, rightly so. > If you are a non-commercial contributor, you are safe. If you are a commercial contributor, you are not. I don't know about the percentages, but i'd say the split in numbers between the two groups is weighted towards commercial contributors. For Microsoft it's never been about the non-commercial contributor. They don't see the backyard tinkerer as a threat. This deal strikes right at the heart of FOSS in commercial environments. > Novell are not handing the keys out to anyones castles, as GPL'd and > similarly licensed software will stay open and free - Novell can't give this > away on their own terms. > It's quite true they don't have the right to relicence the software they don't hold the copyright of. They *have* flagged companies who contribute to and use FOSS as potential patent violators through their actions. > Also take in the fact that the deal is very much product differentiation for > Novell - offering security in the knowledge that Microsoft will not come for > their first born son any time soon. > And what a big product differentiator that is. As a non-Novell customer, i'd like to keep my first born. Lindsay -- http://slug.org.au/ (Sydney Linux Users Group) http://lca2007.linux.org.au/ (linux.conf.au 2007) http://holmwood.id.au/~lindsay/ (me) -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
