Slashdot Mirror
Wine Now Has Big-Time Lawyers On Its Side
Roblimo writes "For years there's been fear that the Wine Project would get sued by Microsoft at some point, and this fear has kept IBM and other major free software-using companies from participating openly in it. Now the Software Freedom Law Center, headed by Columbia University law professor Eben Moglen, is offering free legal services to Wine (and other FOSS projects) to allay corporate fears and head off potential lawsuits."
From all of us, thanks.
-Jesse
Nothing says "unprofessional job" like wrinkles in your duct tape.
Ironically, this might be exactly what will trigger lawsuits against wine.
Microsoft: "Hey, they have backing now, we should go after them"
Isn't the real fear for businesses (IBM and other free software using companies) is getting entangled in long, lengthy and technical litigation (see SCO v. Everyone) which can still (and does) happen no matter how great of representation someone has?
Sure...I might not choose to run Windows, but that doesn't mean I won't chosoe to run Office or something else from Microsoft that Wine will enable. I run a Linux Desktop at work but use CrossOver to run Office, and at home I have to use Wine for some of my kids games. I think Microsoft would say "well, we might not get all of their business, but we'll take what we can get." From a business standpoint, that would seem to make more sense. But then again, we're talking about Microsoft.
I'm not a troll, but I play one on Slashdot.
Because we all know Microsoft can't afford lawyers.
Surely MS haven't sued simply because they can see no legal grounds to do so. Otherwise they would have used this against Lindows.
Is that really the case that IBM and "other big companies" did not get involved with Wine because they feared litigation? Can anyone provide a source on this please?
I think we've seen that just about anything can be spun as illegal under the DMCA.
Hear that? That's the sound of Microsoft shaking in its boots. Really! Can you hear it?
Yeah, me neither.
I'm sorry, that's rude, but the big problem with lawsuits isn't just having one thrown at you, it's the long and drawn-out process of having to see it all the way through to the end. Forget about the merits of the case, if you've got a lawsuit coming, and you're small, you're a hell of a lot less worried about a guilty verdict and a hell of a lot more worried about going bankrupt, because in the big time lawyers prey on fears of the latter more than the former.
If Microsoft wants to sue, they're going to do it whether or not there's a bunch of lawyers working pro bono on the case. You'd need an entire army of tech-minded geeks engaging in "open source law" (in quotes not to refer to open source software, but to "open source journalism", which was a pretty horrible catch-phrase but analogous to this situation...). In which case, maybe this dept could act as a sort of marshalling station.
But still, if they were thinking about dropping the gauntlet before, they're not going to be deterred now.
I applaud this effort, but I think people should also look at the larger picture.
We need to think about representation in the government. Lawyers can defend within the boundaries of the law. But, what laws will they have to fight? What laws will protect them?
From patent law to the fight for telecommunications control there are important decisions being made by our government. I think that there are a lot of special interests being served. The OSS movement needs a voice in Washington and even at the state level.
I really hate seeing so many industry-driven bills going before congress. Many decisions will affect the way you design software, use the internet, and even watch television. There are a lot of college grads who can't immediately finding work. Send them out to represent the needs and desires of the OSS community.
I disagree. Caring about the issues means that you have an activist, not a lawyer. If that individual (activist) changes his mind, dies, has other concerns, etc.--your support dries up.
I'd much prefer that the larger community see its interests connected to mine. In this case, my interest being the health of the FOSS movement.
The little guy (FOSS) can win battles by winning converts. But winning hearts and minds takes resources. The little guy, by definition, is little.
The little guy wins the WAR by co-opting the power of the big guys. Appeal to the self-interest of the big guys. If a powerful legal organization sees helping FOSS as an easy way to satisfy some pro-bono requirement and get some exposure, then it doesn't matter if a particluar lawyer is a GNU fan.
Judo.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
Thanks to Wine for making sure Windows programs dominate the Linux desktop
While I understand your argument, it DOES also make switching easier. I use wine (actually cxoffice) on my gentoo box. It allowed me to switch from windows quickly and fairly easily. As time goes on and I find OSS projects that I like to use instead of the windows app under wine I switch to them. There are still some that I haven't found replacments that I like for so I use the windows apss. There are a number of windows apps i have stopped using for OSS replacments. If it wern't for cxoffice i would have had to switch all my programs at once, which would have been a huge task, perhapse large enough to make me think it was just easier to deal with windows then to make the switch.
1. IBM has no lawyers?
2. IBM is scared of Microsoft's lawyers?
What on earth? Yes, this is great for Wine, but the idea that this somehow changes IBM's view of Wine is so naive it's almost hard to believe this hit the front page of Slashdot.
Let's go over this again.
IBM have more legal experience and probably more lawyers than the rest of the IT industry put together. If they don't support Wine it's for reasons other than "fear of lawsuits". Perhaps IBM are betting on Java, and Wine is kind of irrelevant in the Java view of things.
Companies that sue IBM tend to be very short-lived. They are either SCO-style attack dogs, or pure patent claim firms. Any real IT company that sues IBM will find itself in sudden and extremely expensive violation of more patents than they knew possible.
The article's premise is BS. The rest is interesting though.
My blog
I'm not disagreeing with your statement. I'm just wondering out loud. Why does this stuff always have to come down to money? It would be great if we could just dump all the business interests from computing and just focus on making great software. I do this stuff because I love it and making money from it just happens to be incidental. To me, it's a lot like being a musician. You are either a musician who makes music because you love music, or you're a hack who gets into music to "make it big" and get paid. Personally, I associate myself with the more honest make music (or software) because you like doing it. If you happen to make money then consider yourself lucky.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
What is the standing of their GPL compliance?
That's kind of a frightening prospect. It implies that what we have is a world made of people who don't honestly enjoy their professions. I know that this is true, but it's not a good reflection on the state of the human race. Of course, I'm not advocating selflessness as a motivation. I'm simply saying that people should love their jobs otherwise they should try to find something more suitable to their personalities even if it means less money.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o