I believe this is a relatively simple set of changes in Firefox. Have at it, and post back here when you've got a build to share. I for one will give it a try.
No, no. If it weren't for the legal pressure brought by Netscape (back when it was a commercial entity), raising the spectre of legal action for anticompetitive behavior in developing and distributing a web browser of its own, Microsoft would be much further along in enhancing IE (in non standards-compliant but probably user-friendly ways) than it is today. The legal manouverings at that time encouraged the minds at Microsoft to entangle the browser with the OS as a defensive stragegy, reducing its rate of change to the release schedule of the OS (i.e, glacial), IMHO.
Anyway, can someone point us at an article listing the patents that Microsoft is known to be enforcing/defending/litigating, with special focus on ones not embodied in something they're shipping? That would provide some basis for evaluating the liklihood of the article at top of this thread.
I don't recall reading about MS acting on any patents beyond the ones they claim are used in products they ship. For reading about truly parasitic patent-trolls, see: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_17 /b3981070.htm and comments.
Novell is merely engaging in a quaint, pre-GPL business practice; indemnifying their customers against potential legal issues even when they consider the probabilities remote. Novell hasn't licensed any particular MS IP for the distro, and nobody has claimed to find a specific potentially infringing Novell contribution, have they? So the risk is hypothetical for the moment.
Outside of explicit agreements such as this, MS could claim that any other new contribution to open source software infringes on one of their patents, they don't have to do a deal with a contributor first. GPL doesn't indemnify its users for such action. All GPL will do is allow FSF to gang up on the same alleged infringer along with MS: can't you see the headline now?
All Novell has done by this deal is add a bit of reassurance for their customers, and more power to them if they can get customers to pay for it.
So I think that this whole brouhaha is open source community mass hysteria. No one who suspects Novell's contributions might be tainted needs to pick up their contributions -- let the buyer beware!
Or maybe it's simply an attempt by the zealots to goad the mob into shunning a company which has traded with the enemy. Or maybe here's a glimpse of the iron beneath the FSF's velvet glove, asserting a right to regulate the business practices of commercial software licensed under GPL. Funny, they're not a bank, a national government or even the better business bureau. I thought it was "free" software.
But, of course, IANAL.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe this is a relatively simple set of changes in Firefox. Have at it, and post back here when you've got a build to share. I for one will give it a try.
No, no. If it weren't for the legal pressure brought by Netscape (back when it was a commercial entity), raising the spectre of legal action for anticompetitive behavior in developing and distributing a web browser of its own, Microsoft would be much further along in enhancing IE (in non standards-compliant but probably user-friendly ways) than it is today. The legal manouverings at that time encouraged the minds at Microsoft to entangle the browser with the OS as a defensive stragegy, reducing its rate of change to the release schedule of the OS (i.e, glacial), IMHO.7 /b3981070.htm and comments.
Anyway, can someone point us at an article listing the patents that Microsoft is known to be enforcing/defending/litigating, with special focus on ones not embodied in something they're shipping? That would provide some basis for evaluating the liklihood of the article at top of this thread.
I don't recall reading about MS acting on any patents beyond the ones they claim are used in products they ship. For reading about truly parasitic patent-trolls, see: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_1
Novell is merely engaging in a quaint, pre-GPL business practice; indemnifying their customers against potential legal issues even when they consider the probabilities remote. Novell hasn't licensed any particular MS IP for the distro, and nobody has claimed to find a specific potentially infringing Novell contribution, have they? So the risk is hypothetical for the moment. Outside of explicit agreements such as this, MS could claim that any other new contribution to open source software infringes on one of their patents, they don't have to do a deal with a contributor first. GPL doesn't indemnify its users for such action. All GPL will do is allow FSF to gang up on the same alleged infringer along with MS: can't you see the headline now? All Novell has done by this deal is add a bit of reassurance for their customers, and more power to them if they can get customers to pay for it. So I think that this whole brouhaha is open source community mass hysteria. No one who suspects Novell's contributions might be tainted needs to pick up their contributions -- let the buyer beware! Or maybe it's simply an attempt by the zealots to goad the mob into shunning a company which has traded with the enemy. Or maybe here's a glimpse of the iron beneath the FSF's velvet glove, asserting a right to regulate the business practices of commercial software licensed under GPL. Funny, they're not a bank, a national government or even the better business bureau. I thought it was "free" software. But, of course, IANAL.