|
Authored by: AntiFUD on Friday, July 15 2005 @ 06:23 AM EDT |
Please post links using Open standards (or use the clickable links on the Post a
Comment page.
Thanks
---
IANAL - But IAAAMotFSF(not related to Daniel Wallace) - Free to Fight FUD
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Intel to cut Linux out of the content market - Authored by: TiddlyPom on Friday, July 15 2005 @ 07:28 AM EDT
- Where are all the comments? - Authored by: eibhear on Friday, July 15 2005 @ 08:24 AM EDT
- Old article from El Reg - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 15 2005 @ 08:32 AM EDT
- Current events, calendar. - Authored by: gnuadam on Friday, July 15 2005 @ 10:32 AM EDT
- Information Week gets it inside-out - Authored by: noli on Friday, July 15 2005 @ 01:30 PM EDT
- SCO outraged by email leak - Authored by: Clujo on Friday, July 15 2005 @ 01:30 PM EDT
- 'Super Dell' denies weapon charge, says he will sue - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 15 2005 @ 01:58 PM EDT
- Microsoft's Stance - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 15 2005 @ 02:04 PM EDT
- IBM officially kills OS/2, suggests switch to Linux - Authored by: clark_kent on Friday, July 15 2005 @ 02:09 PM EDT
- Forbes: SCO Couldn't Find A Smoking Linux Gun - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 15 2005 @ 02:51 PM EDT
- SCO's next lawsuit? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 15 2005 @ 04:09 PM EDT
- "Microsoft and Claria: together at last?" - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 15 2005 @ 09:21 PM EDT
- 11pm, news.google continues to shine a light on SCO, TechNewsWorld mentions Groklaw up front - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 16 2005 @ 12:01 AM EDT
- Intel vs. AMD - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 16 2005 @ 12:37 AM EDT
- If you lie too much anyone will believe you - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 16 2005 @ 03:52 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Benanov on Friday, July 15 2005 @ 08:26 AM EDT |
This has me thinking about my company and some of the standards that we have
with other companies like us. I'm not sure what the agreements are and have no
voice in changing them, but it's still something I want to investigate.
Principles, and all.
At any rate, grab some popcorn, this one's going to be a fun one to watch.
---
That popping sound you hear is just a paradigm shifting without a clutch.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 15 2005 @ 09:31 AM EDT |
I find interesting that Mr. Updegrove accuses Mr. Rosen of attempting to hijack
the definition of "open" when his "standards" body is
already multilating it. He's like a child yelling 'no tag backs'. Until they
are free of all encumberances, their talk about "open standards" is
just an annoying attempt at dilution and confusion.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 15 2005 @ 10:31 AM EDT |
One of the players consistently pushing against the royalty-free frameworks
and towards standards they
can patent is IBM. There is still a large amount
of
evil in that overgrown company, and this is one clear
example. Their role is
perhaps not significantly greater
in this than Microsoft's, but it is also not
less, and
in that way, they oppose a good many other companies
like Apple, Sun,
HP and others with lessor patent
portfolios, but still nothing to sneeze at,
that you
might be less inclined to think well of but who have
supported very
free standards in some venues at least,
opposing the pair IBM and
Microsoft.
While there are enough people doing different things at
any
company that I would not rule out finding someone at
IBM who might support open
standards, they have taken
significant repeated actions against them in a
variety of
(usually closed) venues.
Perhaps someone from Groklaw should
approach them and
(using any good will Groklaw may have) try to get them
to
publicly endorse completely-unencumbered standards
frameworks. But they
don't get billions each year in royalties without it distorting them on the
subject.
Such an exchange between Groklaw and IBM would likely
come out
quite badly for all involved, so I do not recommend
it. Perhaps a less-direct
proposal on completely-
unencumbered standards that Groklaw asks all concerned
companies to sign, as an easy litmus test. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 15 2005 @ 10:35 AM EDT |
Updegrove has written an interesting essay on this topic:
http://www.consortiuminfo.org/ipr/
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 15 2005 @ 10:48 AM EDT |
Well, actually, I'd cast the PJs of this world in the role
of the mouse in the
Gruffalo story, who can get past the
owl, the smake, and the fox ... and back
again ... without
getting eaten. The only thing that gets eaten is the
mouse's nut.
You'll have to figure out who the Gruffalo is. But
actually,
the Gruffalo can't afford for the mouse to be
eaten. If there aren't any
well-educated mice around,
there will be nothing for the Gruffalo to do next
year.
And the Gruffalo thinks longer term than that. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 15 2005 @ 11:51 AM EDT |
From a talkback on the ZD site:
You missed however one of
the most insidious aspects of the new OASIS IPR policy. No matter which of three
IPR licenses a TC (OASIS Technical Committee) might choose for a specification,
the license can be changed at any time by a simple majority vote of the current
TC to amend the charter.
The post continues.
Karl O. Pinc
<kop@meme.com>
P.S. In my readings of the talkbacks so far, it
seems that there
is not a general awareness that U.S. patent law is being
changed to favor first to file over first to invent, which obviously favors
those with the means to hire armies of lawyers to file first. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: dyfet on Friday, July 15 2005 @ 12:21 PM EDT |
Please, let us try to Save Our Standards. These are where ideas and things
that permit alternate and multiple products and services from many providers
come into play in free and open markets. Standards are often things that are
mandated. A good example of what happens when internationally mandated
standards are locked away under patents by corrupt organizational structures
formed by gangs of criminal monpolies is the ITU, and we are so very lucky
they had no real involvement whatsoever in the Internet. Standards must be
there for everyone to participate, and not to selfishly control who is allowed
in the marketplace.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: artp on Friday, July 15 2005 @ 12:33 PM EDT |
Thanks to anonymous for not starting this thread.
[ Catch 'em being good! ][ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: meshuggeneh on Friday, July 15 2005 @ 01:30 PM EDT |
A really well-written, well-researched article from ZDNet.
David Berlind is to be congratulated.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: dwheeler on Friday, July 15 2005 @ 03:59 PM EDT |
Here is the
Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) statement
for OpenDocument:
Sun
Microsystems, Inc. ("Sun") will offer a Royalty-Free License under its Essential
Claims for the OpenOffice.org XML File Format Specification. One precondition of
any such license granted to a party ("licensee") shall be the licensee's
agreement to grant reciprocal Royalty-Free Licenses under its Essential Claims
to Sun and other implementers of such specification. Sun expressly reserves all
other rights it may have.
As such things go this is unrestrictive, and in
fact, OpenOffice.org and KOffice both implement it already.
In theory the text
above would let someone do royalty-free "but you have to relicense individually"
tricks, but to be fair there's no evidence that any OASIS partner is interested
in requiring that. It's not clear to me that this would even be legal to
add.
To be fair, it's not possible to write real software without
"infringing" on several thousand registered patents. The PTO routinely grants
patents that are not novel or are prior art, for example, even though they're
not supposed to. And a non-OASIS member could sue any implementor. But this is
the same risk for any software developer, so there's no increased risk.
The
real problem with OASIS is that it even allows patented standards. I was
interested in developing an extension of the standard for formulas; the new
OASIS policies were one of the reasons I stopped working on it (posting my work
so that others could build on it.)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SilverWave on Friday, July 15 2005 @ 04:34 PM EDT |
David Berlind is one of the good guys.
Just went through
this hugely informative article, the talkback and the links in David's article,
*wow*
Great article cannot believe its on "zdnet.com" :/
Links:
Web services in serious
jeopardy
March 5, 2003
"When people ask me to define Web services, I
tell them that it's primarily an idea hatched by IBM and Microsoft to steal
customers from each other."
link
http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/0,14179,2912083,
00.html
Talkback - ZDNet Clarification on my statements about the
WS-I
07/13/05
" I will concede though that the submissions to OASIS
did not come from the WS-I, per se and that I would have been better off saying
the "members of the WS-I" much the same way the press attributes certain
congressional proposals to "Democrats" (members of the DNC) rather than the DNC
itself."
Link
http://www.zdnet.com/5208-10532-0.html?for
umID=1&threadID=11752&messageID=235145&start=-9
Open
source: Are Microsoft and other holdouts about to crack?
7/13/2005
"It was only a matter of time. Commercial software
providers, including Microsoft, that have so far been steadfast in their resolve
to preserve at least some of their old business models, are finding that the
open standards card that they've so cunningly played as a part of those models
could now have turned out to be a deal with the devil. The open source devil."
Link
http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p
=1597
The hidden toll of patents on standards
Published on
ZDNet News: April 25, 2002, 4:00 AM PT
" COMMENTARY--My recent reports
regarding how Microsoft and IBM's control of next-generation Internet protocols
could lead to the two companies' control of the Internet itself have resulted in
a flood of responses via e-mail and ZDNet's TalkBack forums."
Link
http://news.zdnet
.com/2100-9595_22-891852.html
Cheers!
-
-- "They [each] put in one hour of work,
but because they share the end results
they get nine hours... for free"
Firstmonday 98 interview with Linus Torvalds [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 15 2005 @ 08:30 PM EDT |
On reading this article, it ooccurs to me that Groklaw readers might be
interested in an issue entirely within the opensource world.
In the past, Apache users needing database connectivity either had to do it
themselves, or use scripting languages such as Perl or PHP. More recently,
apache has acquired native SQL support (see
http://httpd.apache.org/docs-2.1/mod/mod_dbd.html ).
But - here's the rub - MySQL can't be fully integrated. There *is* a driver for
MySQL 4.1, but
* Because MySQL is GPL, the driver apr_dbd_mysql must also be GPL
* But the GPL imposes restrictions on users that are incompatible with ASF
(Apache) licensing
* So, apr_dbd_mysql can't be distributed with Apache.
Of course, third parties such as Linux distros can bundle these components
together, no problem (they already do bundle GPL modules with Apache). But not
packaging it with the canonical apache from apache.org is likely to hold back
deployment.
Now, there is more to this story. APR (Apache Portable Runtime) is a product
separate from Apache itself, and is used in other products such as subversion.
It's also, perfectly legitimately, used in proprietary software. ASF licensing
terms explicitly permit that. That means that APR provides a fully legal and
auditable route for incorporating MySQL without opening your code up.
Indeed, there was a somewhat similar issue before with PHP and MySQL, and PHP
was given a special exception to the GPL. That has since been generalised. But
APR is a different story again, because it supports closed-source compiled
programs, as against PHP scripts which are by definition at least technically
open.
This isn't just theory. There's already at least one closed-source application
that offers its users the option of using MySQL under this framework.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 16 2005 @ 06:18 PM EDT |
Earlier this year, IBM's web site said 'IBM Recommends Microsoft Windows XP
Profesional'
Now, IBM's web site points you to Lenovo's web site, and Lenovo
Recommends Microsoft Windows XP Professional. By all accounts, IBM does not any
more. IBM doesn't do PCs, there is no reason why it should.
But IBM does
market OS/2. So, not being in a position to say anything about one vendor's
software on another vendor's hardware ... none of IBM's business ... if you ask
the IBM salemsman, the only thing he can do is sell you OS/2. He hasn't got
anything else to sell.
Now, OS/2 is being pulled. And
there is no IBM product replacement for it. None. Nothing to run on these 'IBM
PCs' that do not exist any more.
"IBM suggests that OS/2 customers consider
Linux as an alternative operating system for OS/2 client and server
environments."
Suggests. Doesn't supply, or anything. Reckons that if you
find one growing in the garden, or raining from the sky, or arriving in the
mailbox, IBM will quote you to try and keep it working. But no promises.
The
concerning thing is, OS/2 and Windows are blood brothers. Take one out, the
other goes out with it. Knock OS/2 out by Christmas, I wouldn't give much for
Windows' chances of surviving until New Year.
So where does that leave us ? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|