Acceptance to H.264 as a standard, even a defacto one, IS acceptance of the patented for profit technology into what is currently a patent free community shared environment. This will change the face of the internet as we know it
I would think that this cat door (http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/09/intelligent-cat-door-utilizes-twitter-rfid-masterfully/) would be considered prior work, depending upon when the patent application was submitted. Seems the patent site is currently being slashdotted.
I heard that NT uses prolog to work out dependencies. This may be a cool and simple option for working out dependencies in the Linux boot up. May be useful for package management too.
If SCO found code that they beleived belonged to them and they did not want share it why are they sueing. Why not contact Linus and/or other maintainers and have the code removed. It's unlikely that the code could not replaced with GPLed code. Also, there must be logs as to who submitted the code, why haven't those logs been subpoenaed.
Obviously, they beleive they can make more money from the lawsuit then communicating with those who maintain the linux source
Does any one think that this could be a repercussion of the release of SELinux. I know that it's a bit of a reach, but M$ has quite a bit of political clout and could have lobbied for a reduction in the gov't funding of competitive projects. This would, of course, be a closed door deal.
I less then pleased with this tax. Especially, as I don't copy any music onto CD. I figure things will just stay the same if we don't change it. Complaints go to: CLAUDE MAJEAU Secretary General 56 Sparks Street, Suite 800 Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0C9 (613) 952-8621 (Telephone) (613) 952-8630 (Facsimile) majeau.claude@cb-cda.gc.ca (Electronic mail)
Note: Objections must also state if the objector intends to participate in the pre-hearing conference to be held on Thursday, May 23, 2002 at 10:00 a.m., the object of which is set out below. Where possible, the Board asks that all comments and objections be sent by electronic mail.
Slashdot Mirror
Wouldn't be better to make patents non-transferable and therefore only those who actually created them could enforce the patents?
Acceptance to H.264 as a standard, even a defacto one, IS acceptance of the patented for profit technology into what is currently a patent free community shared environment. This will change the face of the internet as we know it
I would think that this cat door (http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/09/intelligent-cat-door-utilizes-twitter-rfid-masterfully/) would be considered prior work, depending upon when the patent application was submitted. Seems the patent site is currently being slashdotted.
doesn't pass acid2 on Ubuntu Linux 7.10
Seems like it should be called visible source instead of open source
Even the linux kernel has someone guarding the gate, unless, of course, you are willing to maintain your own branch/fork
I heard that NT uses prolog to work out dependencies. This may be a cool and simple option for working out dependencies in the Linux boot up. May be useful for package management too.
If SCO found code that they beleived belonged to them and they did not want share it why are they sueing. Why not contact Linus and/or other maintainers and have the code removed. It's unlikely that the code could not replaced with GPLed code. Also, there must be logs as to who submitted the code, why haven't those logs been subpoenaed. Obviously, they beleive they can make more money from the lawsuit then communicating with those who maintain the linux source
Does any one think that this could be a repercussion of the release of SELinux. I know that it's a bit of a reach, but M$ has quite a bit of political clout and could have lobbied for a reduction in the gov't funding of competitive projects. This would, of course, be a closed door deal.
I less then pleased with this tax. Especially, as I don't copy any music onto CD. I figure things will just stay the same if we don't change it. Complaints go to:
CLAUDE MAJEAU
Secretary General
56 Sparks Street, Suite 800
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0C9
(613) 952-8621 (Telephone)
(613) 952-8630 (Facsimile)
majeau.claude@cb-cda.gc.ca (Electronic mail)
Note:
Objections must also state if the objector intends to participate in the pre-hearing conference to be held on Thursday, May 23, 2002 at 10:00 a.m., the object of which is set out below.
Where possible, the Board asks that all comments and objections be sent by electronic mail.
Seems like all these companies getting sued should get together to battle the big giant.
Once precedence is set it is very difficult to changes