| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Are Microsoft's licences unfair to open-sourcerers? | |
|
||
| Time: 13:35 EST/18:35 GMT | News Source: The Register | Posted By: Brian Kvalheim | ||
|
Lawyers acting for the Free Software Foundation have accused the software giant of making it impossible for open source software developers to take part in its protocol licencing scheme. Microsoft was ordered to begin licencing its protocols by the European Union in its anti-trust ruling. This requires the company to make the code available under "reasonable and non-discriminatory" terms. Carlo Piana, a partner at Milan law firm Tamos Piana & Partners, which represents FSF Europe, told eWeek:"Microsoft has proposed a licencing agreement blatantly tailored to exclude free software from accessing it." | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 300 Last | Next |
The time now is
11:55:47 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 15406 (216.191.227.90) at 1/26/2005 4:56:06 PM |
|
Please stop, I'm laughing so hard I can't catch my breath. MS has a long history of "innovating" by lifting from others, including open source, so I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.
|
| #2 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 1/27/2005 12:40:44 AM |
|
SCO rocks! Ever run it? It really is a good Unices and it deserves to be heard.
We've used it in optical manufacturing control systems and it is pretty awesome. The OSS community should let the cases be heard - simply let the truth - whatever it is determined to be, come out. |
| #3 By 7797 (63.76.44.6) at 1/27/2005 10:48:09 AM |
|
Yeah Linux sux and will be toast along with Firefox any day now. SCO's recent huge court victory overshadows their previous small setbacks one kazillion fold. Mauren O'Gara is an extremely reputable source for well balanced information about the SCO Lawsuit. She's certainly backs her facts up unlike that stupid Groklaw lady.
As someone else said.... The new black is white. |
| #4 By 7797 (63.76.44.6) at 1/27/2005 3:50:06 PM |
|
LinuxIsTheft, you absolutely have no clue what you're talking about. You sound someone who's been reading a select few articles about the SCO Lawsuit. You definetely don't sound like someone who is reading all the different court documents themselves. If you would acutally read them you'd know that what you just said above is absolutely incorrect. In fact this is why SCO is currently facing a damning motion for summary judgement. Because they have thus far not been able to show ANY evidence that Linux contains ANY code that SCO __CLAIMS__ to own copyrights on. Nevermind the fact that they are in other litigation where the judge has already stated that its very likely that they (SCO) don't hold the copyrights. SCO's remaining argument boils down to saying that IBM against their contract contributed their OWN homegrown AIX code to linux. There is also ample evidence already showing that the IBM had full rights to do so.
"SCO's win is significant" What win? So far they have only lost, in their Daimler and Novell cases for example. This post was edited by tgnb on Thursday, January 27, 2005 at 15:51. |
| #5 By 7797 (68.142.9.161) at 1/28/2005 6:05:33 PM |
|
"What you fail to understand is that now that the judge has essentially agreed with SCO that code written by IBM that is derivative of SCO's directly owned code is also SCO's."
Umm no not at all. Not even close. "From a Slashdot discussion:" When you start quoting from court documents instead of Slashdot I'll maybe consider taking you halfway serously! This post was edited by tgnb on Friday, January 28, 2005 at 18:10. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 300 Last | Next |
The time now is
11:55:47 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
