On Sun, Nov 19, 2006 01:31:30 AM -0600, M Harris (harrismh777@earthlink.net) wrote:
You counter point proves my point precisely... Stallman and the FSF (and thousands of others) have made sure that the GPL core code (kernel, gcc, *nix util packages, etc) are clean.
Mike, please re-read the message you answered to. What I am criticizing is almost exclusively the belief/confusion, from you and others, that a simple fork, like XFree->Xorg or Debian->Ubuntu solves a patent violation issue, that you just remove a few packages or source files and you're done. I have not said that there *are* patent violations in Linux. In the context of _this_ discussion, it really doesn't matter if such violations exist or not. What I was and am still suggesting is just that a few people here get straight the deep differences between: 1) patents and copyright 2) what one thinks _should_ be legal and what _is_ legal today 3) the gut reactions of a few geeks and those of the mass of suits who _do_ make company or state policies
If there were patented algorithms in the (open source, as in everybody can read it !! ) kernel ( or FSF core ) then it would have surfaced long ago... SCO would have won...
This is just what I meant when I said "confusion": SCO sued for break of trade secrets and copyright. Not for patent violation. It was IBM that, just to hurt SCO as much as possible, threw in a few patent violations in the _counterclaim_ . Ciao, Marco -- The right way to make everybody love Free Standards and Free Software: http://digifreedom.net/node/73 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org