[Discuss] Another entry on the care label manifest!

[Matt Maier]

Thanks, I hadn't seen more information on the story until now.

It does at least help advance the discussion around what "should" be open
and whether anything that "qualifies" as "open" should be protected or
otherwise cut some slack. If I'm reading that correctly then the argument
seems to be that TurboHercules never was protected under IBM's pledge
because their open software runs on a closed operating system and, like,
they charge for it, or at least for something. Also their software is open
only because Microsoft snuck a trojan horse license onto the list. And
maybe they started it.

For me, one of the most interesting parts of open source is that it
occupies a middle ground between free and proprietary. Those two groups
can't work together, but open is ground that has at least a little overlap.
That means that open also has a greater variety of structures and
perspectives claiming the same title. Some parts of open are closer to
proprietary in that they are just businesses with a strategy; some parts
are closer to free in that they are just some guys building something.

So anyone who uses the term "open" has to clearly explain their particular
definition and anyone who reads "open" has to be sure to check the author's
definition.

Then there are always the unstated things...like being evil.

On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 6:33 AM, Christopher Covington <cov at vt.edu> wrote:

> Shame on you for spreading Microsoft-funded FUD*. TurboHercules struck
> first.
>
> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100408153953613
>
> Cov
>
> * Florian Mueller has been paid by Microsoft and Oracle in the past
> without being forthcoming about these associations.
>
> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120817151150419
>
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 10:56 PM, Matt Maier <blueback09 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Yeah, promising to not assert patents is great in theory, but when IBM
> did
> > it they asserted 'em anyway.
> >
> >
> http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2010/04/ibm-breaks-oss-patent-promise-targets-mainframe-emulator/
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 8:08 PM, Robert Cornell <bobnet604 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Google talk specifically about specific software but they do own
> hardware
> >> patents.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/lets-defend-innovators-against-patent.html
> >>
> >> Picked up from Slashdot.Google has announced the Open Patent
> Non-Assertion
> >> (OPN) Pledge. In the pledge Google says that they will not sue any user,
> >> distributor, or developer of Open Source software on specified patents,
> >> unless first attacked.Source:
> >>
> http://tech.slashdot.org/story/13/03/28/194207/google-pledges-not-to-sue-any-open-source-projects-using-their-patents
> >> Google has a history of supporting OS software and litigating against
> >> hardware manufacturers.
> >>
> >> My cynical side thinks maybe Google think it's cheaper to give them away
> >> (or get 'free' community development) than defend them & Google gets to
> >> partner or sue on commercial implementations.
> >>
> >> Suggest: the 'care label' image looks like "the logo, but in a cage"!
> >>
> >> Rob
> >> --
> >> openpart.co.uk
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> discuss mailing list
> >> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
> >> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
> >>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > discuss mailing list
> > discuss at lists.oshwa.org
> > http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
> >
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.oshwa.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20130329/3d7362a3/attachment.html>