Multithreaded won't be optional any more.[...] Given that most machines are already starting to come default with 2 cores, and you can fit 8 cores (2 CPUs) in a nice desktop package, it's pretty clear that it's going to be a requirement.
Sure, the trend towards more cores does imply that an inherently multithreaded OS makes more sense. But on the other hand, the main advantage heard about such pervasive multithreading is 'better responsiveness', and I am not sure that modern OSes are 'unresponsive' - current Linux desktops seem very responsive even when running multiple apps (except Firefox, btw, which locks up often for a second or two on intensive websites. Annoying, but still the best browser out there.)
So, I am not convinced a rewrite of an OS just to add pervasive multithreading is a good idea. Anyhow, for those interested in that concept, there is Haiku, which is the FOSS OS inspired by BeOS. Looks like they are making nice progress (but nothing you'd want as your main productivity OS just yet).
For technology to be developed, someone needs to pay for it.
That's the critical question, isn't it?
But really the question is what 'pay' means. Obviously development requires effort, but not necessarily monetary payment. But you might say that the effort is a sort of payment; "someone needs to make the effort." I won't argue semantics.
The issue is how the effort should be motivated. Patents are just one way to create incentives for effort, but there are other ways. Overall, I do not think that software is a good example of the necessity of patents (drugs would be a better area to argue for patents, IMHO), but of course we can argue this.
The US grants too many patents and of too low quality which are cheaper to obtain and often quite trivial.
Continuing your quote,
The Chinese Patent Office is fully funding patents of SMEs and thereby fostering speedy innovation. Thus, the European system is under threat.
The EU parliament members stated fairly clearly how they see the current global competition among the major ecomomies (US, EU, China): The US grants trivial patents cheaply, while the Chinese system even funds patents, making them much easier to obtain.
One interpretation is that the EU is therefore worried that if software patents were legal, a torrent of cheap and trivial patents from the rest of the world might stifle EU productivity. Therefore by not allowing such patents they hope to stimulate their economy.
In this interpretation, it doesn't matter how patent law helps businesses within your economy compete internally with others, it matters how it helps your entire economy (comprised of businesses) compete with other economies. That is, the decision to not allow software patents isn't because the EU 'gets it' (in the geek sense), but rather a response to the US patent strategy, a counter to it. For example, if the US didn't allow software patents, the EU might have thought to do the opposite, if they thought it might give them an edge (as the US currently does).
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that while the nicotine makes quitting smoking hard to do, its health effect is not as great as that of the other substances in smoke such as tar. That's what gives you lung cancer, not the nicotine itself.
That is mostly true. Wikipedia says
The currently available literature indicates that nicotine, on its own, does not promote the development of cancer in healthy tissue and has no mutagenic properties. However, nicotine and the increased cholinergic activity it causes have been shown to impede apoptosis[citation needed], which is one of the methods by which the body destroys unwanted cells (programmed cell death). Since apoptosis helps to remove mutated or damaged cells that may eventually become cancerous, the inhibitory actions of nicotine creates a more favourable environment for cancer to develop. Thus nicotine plays an indirect role in carcinogenesis.
If Novell chooses to provide software and services beyond what is required by the voucher, Novell is free to do so. That choice is not in any way binding on Microsoft. This is no different than saying that a grocery store may choose to give me a free box of cereal in exchange for a 35 cent coupon. That store's choice does not in any way compel Kellogg's to give me more free Froot Loops.
Well, yes and no.
The choice to give you a free box of cereal doesn't compel Kelloggs to do anything. However, if (1) this isn't a small grocery but a major retailer, and (2) Kelloggs insists that the free boxes of cereal infringe on its patents (say, something in the packaging) in a way worthy of a lawsuit, and (3) Kelloggs continues to do business-as-usual with that retailer, in fact supporting that particular product in indirect ways - then that is something else. It appears that Kelloggs is tacitly agreeing to the practices of the retailer. If Kelloggs sues a reseller of that cereal, then the immediate question is why not prevent the infringement by dealing directly with the original retailer.
In other words, by not doing a reasonable effort to prevent the law from being broken, Kelloggs may forfeit its position as an innocent victim. I have been told by lawyers that this has potential legal implications, but IANAL. In any case it certainly has implications from a public image point of view.
And this reasoning may exactly be why Microsoft just stated that the coupons do not apply to GPL3. They must appear to be doing a reasonable effort to prevent what might be a problem to them later on. If they do nothing, it seems that they tacitly agree to the GPL3. They don't want to appear as such, legally binding or not.
Well, let's see. If MS does decide to sue somebody (say, a major customer of Red Hat) for infringement of a patent because of some piece of software which Novell is distributing under GPL3, then what? Somebody would have to countersue.
Assuming this is a patent relevant to the Microsoft-Novell deal and the GPL3 code Novell distributes, there is no need to countersue. The GPL3 would be a defense in the lawsuit Microsoft brings.
But there would be countersuits. That is what OIN is for.
Sorry, but it's getting to the point where "Google buys" stories just aren't informative anymore.
You are correct in general, but wrong about this particular case.
Google Apps is Google's attempt to make money from Corporate America, selling software-as-a-service. Were this ever to work, it might be a very lucrative venture, and finally wean Google off of their single money-making business (ads). It would also mean that Google is competing directly with Microsoft in Microsoft's home turf. So, the reason why this purchase is interesting is because Postini is described by Google as a way to achieve that goal. Aside from anti-spam, Postini offer services to large corporations that need to comply with various regulatory practices, which Google Apps currently doesn't offer.
Google reports 'thousands' of small businesses using Google Apps, but apparently very few if any large ones (where the big money is). Perhaps Postini is their way to reach that market; time will tell.
I then wondered exactly WHY I'd want to use simple questions anyway, surely I'd want people posting intelligently, so why not moderate at the first access point!
Good point. Actually I wondered what Slashdot would look like if, before posting comments, you had to answer a question that ensured you had actually read TFA. It would certainly make for far more intelligent discussions (yes, I know, I must be new here).
For whatever a reason in 2002 there was a worldwide hoax that scientists predicted blonds were eventually going to become extinct. The hoax cited WHO as the source of the scientific study. See recessive alleles for more information on the genetic basis of blond hair.
Recessive genes have no reason to vanish, assuming they carry beneficial traits. And why would non-genuine blonds be more attractive? A clear hoax.
I read on the Internet (so it must be true) that 50% of the Americans believe that there are aliens on the earth, I wonder why so many Americans?
In France, from my informal questions hardly no-one believes in aliens living on the earth, of course on the other hand we have our own myths, for example the Graphological analysis (believing that you can know someone by looking how his writing look)
Why? Well, why do Americans like fast food or blockbuster movies? It's a cultural thing. UFOs are as much American as Bruce Willis action flicks or interest in people like Paris Hilton.
Why specifically are UFOs an American cultural thing? Well, for some reason in the US many conspiracy theories thrive (JFK assassination, etc.), perhaps because there have been plenty of actual conspiracies: Nixon, Iran-Contra, and so forth. (Or do all countries have conspiracies, but the US is better at finding them? Who knows.) The US has a thread of anti-establishment thought that is quite strong, this might also factor into it.
That, and sci-fi was very big in the US around the middle of the century; the Roswell incident - whatever happened there - was in the right place at the right time.
The author tries to make it seem like preference for blond hair is universal
Furthermore, the problem is that sociobiological theory can be used to argue against itself: If being blond is indeed a factor that makes women more attractive, why is it not more prevalent? In fact, why isn't it ubiquitous?
Some might say that it is because men are less attractive with blond hair, so the trait tends to reach a balance. Perhaps; yet I have never seen evidence for that claim, and in fact, sociobiological theory generally claims that appearance is more important for women (whereas power, authority and resources/money are more important for men). Given that, we would expect to see blond hair in more than half of the population - at least given enough time. Thus, the only defense left is that not enough time has passed for the trait to spread. Perhaps. Yet research seems to show people with blond hair appearing in sizable numbers 10,000 years ago in Europe - quite a long time indeed. Not enough...?
Blond hair does seem like an attractive trait these days. But we can't tell if that is a cultural matter (which, in turn, can be either long-lived or just a fad) or something biologically-based - or both. Sociobiological theory cannot quantify the effect of biology on social behavior, and therefore is somewhat limited as a science.
100% agreement, this should be an exception under fair use.
People have figured out chords to songs from the radio for decades. Is playing the song for a friend, or teaching them the chords, a violation of copyright? Then I should be signing checks to the RIAA every other day, it seems. But that is silly; it's just simple sharing. Doing it over the internet is nothing new (although, doing it over the internet commercially is something else. If anyone makes money, it should be the artists).
Here is a little sharing of my own. I figured out the chords to 'Cloudbusting' by Kate Bush the other day. But I won't post the actual chords (which might be 'copyright violation', supposedly), instead, I modulated the song to a different key. So actually they aren't the chords to anything:
B#m A G / A /
G A B#m A
B#m A G /
And anyway these are probably inaccurate, like 95% of internet chords.
Has there been any successful court action enforcing any version of the GPL? The point is that the GPL is so obviously-enforceable, that there is no need to test it.
If you want to distribute code, you need a license, or you are in violation of copyright law. So if the GPL is invalid, you don't have a license, since the GPL is the only thing giving you such a license to begin with. This simple logic has kept the GPL out of the courts, since (except for SCO) lawyers and the people that pay for them generally do not like unwinnable cases.
This current matter with Microsoft and the GPL3 is a completely separate issue, though. Microsoft aren't directly distributing code; they are just handing out vouchers for said code (or will be, if they continue handing out vouchers after Novell starts to distribute GPL3 code - which will be soon). That is Microsoft's defense - they aren't distributing the code themselves. Yet, if a major lawsuit should ensue between Microsoft and a Linux vendor, the issue may arise nonetheless: Even if Microsoft are not distributing the code, they are helping a partner to distribute it. This implies that they are tacitly not contesting certain claims in that code, or that the basic business model implied by that code is not seen as illegitimate by Microsoft. I am sure the lawyers can argue this for a few years.
Surely someone's done a redundant db with a web services interface before? How else could they have done it than that? You see, this is what happens when non-lawyers read patents. Now, I am not a lawyer either, but I at least read what Wikipedia says about this matter. As I understand it, claim #1 that you mention is an 'independent' claim. Later claims (some of those 74) are 'dependent' claims. They refine and specify what the independent claim states.
So, yes, the independent claim #1 is very broad. It probably wouldn't hold up in a court. But since no legal precedent exists, Amazon don't know if it will or not. So they keep it as independent claim #1. If in fact prior art invalidates it, then the patent still pertains to whatever the far-more-specific dependent claims #2-#75 refer to. Presumably a very specific manner of implementing #1. Amazon actually hope to patent that specific implementation, but they write it in this notation of independent-dependent claims because that is how patents are written.
But, as I said, IANAL. So perhaps we all shouldn't speculate too much.
Universal health care may indeed be the future for the US, but this isn't necessarily the way to get there.
By starting down the path to universal health care in a single state, you are setting yourself up for failure. If businesses are forced to pay for the new benefits, some of them may move to neighboring states. And if the overall quality of health service rises for the non-rich, then many of them will move into Massachusetts, burdening the system.
The only way for universal health care to work is to change things at the federal level.
[...]depending on the fact that the user has the library on their system already, which you can't do, because if they don't, your app, and therefore your whole commercial premise, is down the drain
Well, not for GTK, at least. If you use GTK, then you can in fact assume that users will have it on their system already since (1) it is the default on all major distros (Red Hat/Fedora, Suse, Ubuntu), and (2) if your clients are running a more obscure distro that uses KDE/Qt, and GTK isn't pre-installed, have your app pop up a little window requesting that they install GTK in order for your app to run. Simple enough.
If you are talking about other LGPL libraries than GTK, then they might pose actual problems, depends on the specific library of course.
QT is free if your software is free.
It only costs if you charge for your software.
No, that is not accurate. You can either use Qt under the GPL, or you can pay Trolltech.
So, if your app is GPL, or GPL-compatible, then you can use Qt under the GPL for free (and Free). But if your app is proprietary or uses a non-GPL-compatible FOSS license then you have to pay. The part in bold is what you forgot. As one example, Apache-licensed apps are a problem (although the GPL3 is compatible with Apache, so if Trolltech moves Qt to the GPL3, that particular issue should improve. I have no idea if they will do so, though).
Redmond doesn't want to obliterate all comers such as Linux and Apple because that would trigger yet more legislation and court cases. Redmond has to 'suffer' a 10% or 15% market share to its competitors in order to preserve the illusion of a loyal opposition. You're right about Apple. Apple is the perfect 'competitor' for Microsoft - an opponent that has no intention or capability to conquer any sizable portion of the market (and why would they? Apple makes more money per computer than Microsoft do, since they sell hardware as well. Market share != profit).
But Linux is nothing like that. Linux can run on the same hardware, and costs less. It already controls a very large part of the server market. Given time and opportunity, it can do the same to the desktop market. Linux is therefore something that Microsoft does want to eradicate.
Microsoft's not interested in destroying Linux in the slightest. Why would they? it's been a fantastic vehicle for them to land a firmer grip on the corporations throughout the US.
That makes no sense whatsoever. How can their grip be any firmer than having a monopoly on all the software that is used by corporate America?
Huh, I thought I supplied that information to every website I visit.
1. You choose to visit websites. If you don't want to visit a particular website, you don't have to. But most people don't choose to run Windows, they are forced to (or not have a computer at all; Macs and Linux aren't yet an option for the masses, sadly).
2. Here we have a single corporation receiving IP addresses from (essentially) all the computers in the world. As opposed to millions of websites, each with their own little list of IPs.
Excellent advice in general, and in this case specifically. As the Wine project's wiki page says,
This page is meant for keeping track of this, without starting legal action or a publicity campaign yet.
...but someone decided to post it to Slashdot, and the editors published it (effectively starting a 'publicity campaign' of sorts). That was really unnecessary. Sure, SWSoft said they would reply in 'days' and it has been weeks, but weeks is still very little time. I agree with the Wine people on that.
As for why they are waiting for 'confirmation from their legal department' or such, who knows, perhaps the lawyers just need to sign off on it and one of them is on vacation. Or perhaps the code contains snippets from other code sources and they need to ascertain some issues first. It does make sense to be careful before publishing source code - although, true, they should have been careful *before* distributing the binaries.
Re:OpenSolaris
on
GPLv3 Released
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Consider this possibility:
If Solaris moves to GPLv3 while Linux is stuck with v2, Debian might adopt the Solaris kernel as their main kernel (after a long transition process), since it is more in line with their principles of creating a pure GNU system. And then, what will happen to the Debian derived systems (such as Ubuntu)? If Sun plays their cards right, they can effectively shift a big chunk of the Linux world to Solaris. First, Debian already has multiple kernels (Linux and BSD). Second, sure, if OpenSolaris were as functional as Linux, and GPL3 to boot, it might be a nice replacement. However, at this point OpenSolaris is far behind Linux with regards to device drivers and other things. So, this won't happen in the near future. In fact, Nexenta are already basically doing what you suggested, with little popularity thus far (although it is an interesting project to watch).
Re:MS SLES Coupons
on
GPLv3 Released
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Is it really true that they're "distributing" Linux by selling the SLES coupons?
[...]
Given that Microsoft isn't screaming bloody murder about this, I think they must not see it as a big risk, and that to me isn't a good thing. Well, to be honest, the whole Microsoft-saying-Linux-infringes-patents thing is FUD, and vice versa, the FSF-says-Microsoft-are-distributing-Linux thing is FUD as well. Both are dubious and the results of testing them in court would be very uncertain, as no precedent exists for either. Their purpose is basically to deter people from doing things (from using Linux or from suing Linux, respectively).
So, this basically seems like a 'fight fire with fire' tactic on the FSF's part. If it makes Microsoft even more wary about suing Linux vendors, then why not, I guess (although I don't think Microsoft would have sued them anyhow).
Slashdot Mirror
So, I am not convinced a rewrite of an OS just to add pervasive multithreading is a good idea. Anyhow, for those interested in that concept, there is Haiku, which is the FOSS OS inspired by BeOS. Looks like they are making nice progress (but nothing you'd want as your main productivity OS just yet).
That's the critical question, isn't it?
But really the question is what 'pay' means. Obviously development requires effort, but not necessarily monetary payment. But you might say that the effort is a sort of payment; "someone needs to make the effort." I won't argue semantics.
The issue is how the effort should be motivated. Patents are just one way to create incentives for effort, but there are other ways. Overall, I do not think that software is a good example of the necessity of patents (drugs would be a better area to argue for patents, IMHO), but of course we can argue this.
The EU parliament members stated fairly clearly how they see the current global competition among the major ecomomies (US, EU, China): The US grants trivial patents cheaply, while the Chinese system even funds patents, making them much easier to obtain.
One interpretation is that the EU is therefore worried that if software patents were legal, a torrent of cheap and trivial patents from the rest of the world might stifle EU productivity. Therefore by not allowing such patents they hope to stimulate their economy.
In this interpretation, it doesn't matter how patent law helps businesses within your economy compete internally with others, it matters how it helps your entire economy (comprised of businesses) compete with other economies. That is, the decision to not allow software patents isn't because the EU 'gets it' (in the geek sense), but rather a response to the US patent strategy, a counter to it. For example, if the US didn't allow software patents, the EU might have thought to do the opposite, if they thought it might give them an edge (as the US currently does).
The choice to give you a free box of cereal doesn't compel Kelloggs to do anything. However, if (1) this isn't a small grocery but a major retailer, and (2) Kelloggs insists that the free boxes of cereal infringe on its patents (say, something in the packaging) in a way worthy of a lawsuit, and (3) Kelloggs continues to do business-as-usual with that retailer, in fact supporting that particular product in indirect ways - then that is something else. It appears that Kelloggs is tacitly agreeing to the practices of the retailer. If Kelloggs sues a reseller of that cereal, then the immediate question is why not prevent the infringement by dealing directly with the original retailer.
In other words, by not doing a reasonable effort to prevent the law from being broken, Kelloggs may forfeit its position as an innocent victim. I have been told by lawyers that this has potential legal implications, but IANAL. In any case it certainly has implications from a public image point of view.
And this reasoning may exactly be why Microsoft just stated that the coupons do not apply to GPL3. They must appear to be doing a reasonable effort to prevent what might be a problem to them later on. If they do nothing, it seems that they tacitly agree to the GPL3. They don't want to appear as such, legally binding or not.
But there would be countersuits. That is what OIN is for.
Google Apps is Google's attempt to make money from Corporate America, selling software-as-a-service. Were this ever to work, it might be a very lucrative venture, and finally wean Google off of their single money-making business (ads). It would also mean that Google is competing directly with Microsoft in Microsoft's home turf. So, the reason why this purchase is interesting is because Postini is described by Google as a way to achieve that goal. Aside from anti-spam, Postini offer services to large corporations that need to comply with various regulatory practices, which Google Apps currently doesn't offer.
Google reports 'thousands' of small businesses using Google Apps, but apparently very few if any large ones (where the big money is). Perhaps Postini is their way to reach that market; time will tell.
Why specifically are UFOs an American cultural thing? Well, for some reason in the US many conspiracy theories thrive (JFK assassination, etc.), perhaps because there have been plenty of actual conspiracies: Nixon, Iran-Contra, and so forth. (Or do all countries have conspiracies, but the US is better at finding them? Who knows.) The US has a thread of anti-establishment thought that is quite strong, this might also factor into it.
That, and sci-fi was very big in the US around the middle of the century; the Roswell incident - whatever happened there - was in the right place at the right time.
Some might say that it is because men are less attractive with blond hair, so the trait tends to reach a balance. Perhaps; yet I have never seen evidence for that claim, and in fact, sociobiological theory generally claims that appearance is more important for women (whereas power, authority and resources/money are more important for men). Given that, we would expect to see blond hair in more than half of the population - at least given enough time. Thus, the only defense left is that not enough time has passed for the trait to spread. Perhaps. Yet research seems to show people with blond hair appearing in sizable numbers 10,000 years ago in Europe - quite a long time indeed. Not enough...?
Blond hair does seem like an attractive trait these days. But we can't tell if that is a cultural matter (which, in turn, can be either long-lived or just a fad) or something biologically-based - or both. Sociobiological theory cannot quantify the effect of biology on social behavior, and therefore is somewhat limited as a science.
*whoosh* ;)
People have figured out chords to songs from the radio for decades. Is playing the song for a friend, or teaching them the chords, a violation of copyright? Then I should be signing checks to the RIAA every other day, it seems. But that is silly; it's just simple sharing. Doing it over the internet is nothing new (although, doing it over the internet commercially is something else. If anyone makes money, it should be the artists).
Here is a little sharing of my own. I figured out the chords to 'Cloudbusting' by Kate Bush the other day. But I won't post the actual chords (which might be 'copyright violation', supposedly), instead, I modulated the song to a different key. So actually they aren't the chords to anything: And anyway these are probably inaccurate, like 95% of internet chords.
Eben Moglen is a professor of law.
If you want to distribute code, you need a license, or you are in violation of copyright law. So if the GPL is invalid, you don't have a license, since the GPL is the only thing giving you such a license to begin with. This simple logic has kept the GPL out of the courts, since (except for SCO) lawyers and the people that pay for them generally do not like unwinnable cases.
This current matter with Microsoft and the GPL3 is a completely separate issue, though. Microsoft aren't directly distributing code; they are just handing out vouchers for said code (or will be, if they continue handing out vouchers after Novell starts to distribute GPL3 code - which will be soon). That is Microsoft's defense - they aren't distributing the code themselves. Yet, if a major lawsuit should ensue between Microsoft and a Linux vendor, the issue may arise nonetheless: Even if Microsoft are not distributing the code, they are helping a partner to distribute it. This implies that they are tacitly not contesting certain claims in that code, or that the basic business model implied by that code is not seen as illegitimate by Microsoft. I am sure the lawyers can argue this for a few years.
So, yes, the independent claim #1 is very broad. It probably wouldn't hold up in a court. But since no legal precedent exists, Amazon don't know if it will or not. So they keep it as independent claim #1. If in fact prior art invalidates it, then the patent still pertains to whatever the far-more-specific dependent claims #2-#75 refer to. Presumably a very specific manner of implementing #1. Amazon actually hope to patent that specific implementation, but they write it in this notation of independent-dependent claims because that is how patents are written.
But, as I said, IANAL. So perhaps we all shouldn't speculate too much.
Universal health care may indeed be the future for the US, but this isn't necessarily the way to get there.
By starting down the path to universal health care in a single state, you are setting yourself up for failure. If businesses are forced to pay for the new benefits, some of them may move to neighboring states. And if the overall quality of health service rises for the non-rich, then many of them will move into Massachusetts, burdening the system.
The only way for universal health care to work is to change things at the federal level.
If you are talking about other LGPL libraries than GTK, then they might pose actual problems, depends on the specific library of course.
So, if your app is GPL, or GPL-compatible, then you can use Qt under the GPL for free (and Free). But if your app is proprietary or uses a non-GPL-compatible FOSS license then you have to pay. The part in bold is what you forgot. As one example, Apache-licensed apps are a problem (although the GPL3 is compatible with Apache, so if Trolltech moves Qt to the GPL3, that particular issue should improve. I have no idea if they will do so, though).
But Linux is nothing like that. Linux can run on the same hardware, and costs less. It already controls a very large part of the server market. Given time and opportunity, it can do the same to the desktop market. Linux is therefore something that Microsoft does want to eradicate.
1. You choose to visit websites. If you don't want to visit a particular website, you don't have to. But most people don't choose to run Windows, they are forced to (or not have a computer at all; Macs and Linux aren't yet an option for the masses, sadly).
2. Here we have a single corporation receiving IP addresses from (essentially) all the computers in the world. As opposed to millions of websites, each with their own little list of IPs.
As for why they are waiting for 'confirmation from their legal department' or such, who knows, perhaps the lawyers just need to sign off on it and one of them is on vacation. Or perhaps the code contains snippets from other code sources and they need to ascertain some issues first. It does make sense to be careful before publishing source code - although, true, they should have been careful *before* distributing the binaries.
If Solaris moves to GPLv3 while Linux is stuck with v2, Debian might adopt the Solaris kernel as their main kernel (after a long transition process), since it is more in line with their principles of creating a pure GNU system. And then, what will happen to the Debian derived systems (such as Ubuntu)? If Sun plays their cards right, they can effectively shift a big chunk of the Linux world to Solaris. First, Debian already has multiple kernels (Linux and BSD). Second, sure, if OpenSolaris were as functional as Linux, and GPL3 to boot, it might be a nice replacement. However, at this point OpenSolaris is far behind Linux with regards to device drivers and other things. So, this won't happen in the near future. In fact, Nexenta are already basically doing what you suggested, with little popularity thus far (although it is an interesting project to watch).
[...]
Given that Microsoft isn't screaming bloody murder about this, I think they must not see it as a big risk, and that to me isn't a good thing. Well, to be honest, the whole Microsoft-saying-Linux-infringes-patents thing is FUD, and vice versa, the FSF-says-Microsoft-are-distributing-Linux thing is FUD as well. Both are dubious and the results of testing them in court would be very uncertain, as no precedent exists for either. Their purpose is basically to deter people from doing things (from using Linux or from suing Linux, respectively).
So, this basically seems like a 'fight fire with fire' tactic on the FSF's part. If it makes Microsoft even more wary about suing Linux vendors, then why not, I guess (although I don't think Microsoft would have sued them anyhow).