With all the gruff about patent infringement going on, I thought I would investigate th i am most likely to have violated so I took a look at the licensing page for it, and I discovered a wonderful blurb
"However, no license is needed for private, non-commercial activities (e.g., home-entertainment, receiving broadcasts and creating a personal music library), not generating revenue or other consideration of any kind or for entities with associated annual gross revenue less than US$ 100 000.00."
*//**/http://mp3licensing.com/help/index.html
I checked out the site for DVD but it wasn't expressively clear, so i asked them in an email, I'll share the response when it gets back.
Anybody else know of any possible patents that could have been violated by the open source project as Microsoft has claimed? /*
Slander/Libel Lawsuit ought to be the response. Insinuating opensource companies are breaking laws or violating patent licences directly defames their character. This causes measurable financial damage, which Microsoft, SCO, and all other bastard companies should have to compensate for until they "fucking proove it".
On 5/15/07, Chuck chuck@mutualaid.org wrote:
Earle Beason wrote:
Anybody else know of any possible patents that could have been violated by the open source project as Microsoft has claimed?
Show us the code!
Four words which should be the heart of the free software movement's response to Microsoft.
Chuck _______________________________________________ Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
On 5/15/07, Earle Beason Earle-Beason@kc.rr.com wrote:
Anybody else know of any possible patents that could have been violated by the open source project as Microsoft has claimed?
MS isn't going to tell. Doing so will allow developers to code around them, or will allow the Software Freedom Law Center to work to prove the patent invalid. They will just use this FUD to extort money from large weenie companies who are scared of legal threats. By revealing exactly what patents are infringed, they open the door to people working very quickly to remove the infringing parts, and thus making the code base immune from further MS claims on those patents.
Jon.
On 5/15/07, Jon Pruente jdpruente@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/15/07, Earle Beason Earle-Beason@kc.rr.com wrote:
Anybody else know of any possible patents that could have been violated by the open source project as Microsoft has claimed?
MS isn't going to tell. Doing so will allow developers to code around them, or will allow the Software Freedom Law Center to work to prove the patent invalid. They will just use this FUD to extort money from large weenie companies who are scared of legal threats. By revealing exactly what patents are infringed, they open the door to people working very quickly to remove the infringing parts, and thus making the code base immune from further MS claims on those patents.
Jon.
In all fairness, not all patents can be coded around of.
On 5/15/07, Arthur Pemberton pemboa@gmail.com wrote:
In all fairness, not all patents can be coded around of.
True, and I'll venture a guess that most of the patents involved would tie into NTFS support and/or Samba, or even Mono. If that's true, simple removing those packages from a distro might free up a lot of threats.
Jon.
My boss and I had this conversation today. A lot of what Microsoft is saying with this claim is that they want compensation for accessing their proprietary services like Exchange and such.
It's screwy. A Blackberry (a non-MS product) can POP an Exchange server for free but if the Linux community writes a piece of code that will interact with an MS Exchange server, then this is infringement. There are even ways to POP an Exchange server without it counting as a "connection" and therefore not subject to client fees that MS would otherwise be getting. There are other examples like including (or offering) the codecs to play MS video or audio streams. MS feels that they should get money (of course) for sucking streams using their fat codecs.
I, and others, feel that this is a FUD stunt to try and gain back as much server and desktop real estate as they can. Vista is nothing but Windows XP (turd) painted in fruity colors (painted turd) that is killing them in expected revenue. Sales are not what they wanted and they are really pushing hard to get as much money as they can, for as long as they can. Business are listening. A company will not gamble on Linux, when the possibility of having an IP war with MS hangs over their heads. All they want to do is make the shit they make or sell the shit they sell. They are not in the IT industry and don't understand the evils that MS does.
Either way, it sucks. Microsoft is a very bad company.
On 5/15/07, Arthur Pemberton pemboa@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/15/07, Jon Pruente jdpruente@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/15/07, Earle Beason Earle-Beason@kc.rr.com wrote:
Anybody else know of any possible patents that could have been
violated
by the open source project as Microsoft has claimed?
MS isn't going to tell. Doing so will allow developers to code around them, or will allow the Software Freedom Law Center to work to prove the patent invalid. They will just use this FUD to extort money from large weenie companies who are scared of legal threats. By revealing exactly what patents are infringed, they open the door to people working very quickly to remove the infringing parts, and thus making the code base immune from further MS claims on those patents.
Jon.
In all fairness, not all patents can be coded around of.
-- Fedora Core 6 and proud _______________________________________________ Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
-
Arthur Pemberton -
billycrook＠gmail.com -
Chuck -
Earle Beason -
Jon Pruente -
RtX