Linspire/Microsoft Agreement Useless to Users

Stephen Samuel writes "Groklaw host PJ has dissected the 'patent peace' agreement between Linspire and Microsoft, and has determined that what Linspire agreed to is next to useless for many users. Essentially, under the agreement Linspire software is almost unusable: 'You can't share the software with others, pass it on with the patent promise, modify your own copy, or even use it for an "unauthorized" purpose, whatever that means in a software context. You must pay Linspire for the software, but then the "covenant" says to use Linux, you must also pay Microsoft. That payment doesn't cover upgrades. Linspire said it was absorbing the initial fees, but I don't know about upgrades. New functionality means you lose your coverage or presumably must pay again.'"

Comments

Re:All I can say is...

[Blakey Rat]

First of all, despite the rhyming, your comment is unnecessarily hostile. Linspire adoption is a good thing for Linux, and Linspire itself is a good thing for Linux-- right now Linspire is the easiest way to get a legal MP3 or DVD player for your Linux computer and that's unlikely to change in the near future.

Secondly, the market that Linspire is aiming towards doesn't give a flying crap about:
1) software licenses
2) patents
3) irrational hatred of Microsoft

Leave those three particular concerns to every other Linux distro.

Re:Groklaw?? How about objective analysis instead?

[VGPowerlord]

I'm not the anonymous user you're replying to, but PJ has little credibility with me.

PJ started losing credibility when she started calling things like an OO.o plugin made by Novell a fork of OO.o. Her exact reasoning is "It may not be what it says, but to me it's what it means." and "To me, it's a fork because of the patent deal."

Then stories that are blatant Microsoft bashing, like A Brave New Modular World - Another MS Patent Application, started popping up.

Then the GPLv3 posts started popping up.

One of the moments I remember the most is when PJ accused Linus of "enabling the Microsoft patent strategy" by remaining with the GPLv2, at which point I lost all respect for her.

So no, Pamela is not an unbiased source, particularly not when it comes to the GPLv3... and it's not surprising, since she was on one of the committees that created it.