From: "Craig White" <craigwhite@xxxxxxxxxxx>
On Mon, 2006-06-19 at 20:16 -0700, jdow wrote:
From: "Craig White" <craigwhite@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> All that notwithstanding, IP attorneys can be aggressive with opinion
> but it is companies and thus the consumer that ultimately pays their
> bills and that is perhaps the best argument for GPL since one of the
> intentions of the GPL was to level the playing field and permit the
> software consumer to own software to the point where they aren't subject
> to arbitrary corporate whim or obtuse IP attorneys bills.
That worked REAL well with regards to the SCO attorneys, didn't it?
----
one corporations attorneys squaring off against another corporations
attorneys...hardly anything anyone can stop but:
1 - it's not a GPL issue
2 - it's partially funded (SCO) by Microsoft investment
3 - judging by their total lack of a substantive or even a minor victory
so far, SCO is going down in flames
Do you go looking for the negative side of every issue or do they just
seem to find you?
Normally I try to find the negative side and then suggest fixes.
But that aside, I note that while this is SCO fighting other big
corporations it has served a purpose for Microsoft. It tied up
money that could have been spent making Linux even better. This is
not a good thing. But it is only one problem Linux faces today. Off
hand I see the GPL as a problem that by its very nature cannot be
solved without court review. And that may not even solve it. GPL
is a good concept that was carried perhaps 1 to 6 dB too far leading
to it getting tangled up in its own convoluted logic and intended
interpretations listed in their FAQ.
{^_^}
