Lyvim Xaphir wrote:
On Mon, 2007-04-09 at 22:41 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 12:18:30PM +1000, Res wrote:
That's not "stripped", that's "can't legally include".
BS, if the code producers have a complete package and fedora decide they
dont want to or cant for their own internal policy reasons include a part
of it, thats STRIPPED, it is STRIPPED code that IS in the
correct/real/publicly available TRUE source and binaries released by the
code producers.
Again, nothing is stripped gratuitously. If it's not free software, it can't
be included.
Kinda funny how Apple doesn't have this kind of bullshit problem and
their version of 'nix is working fine for everybody. Kinda funny how
Red Hat's profits are down by 25% this last quarter and Ubunto continues
to accelerate.
Well, what Apple does have is a fat patent portfolio and a competitor
that is probably treading on some of the UI ones at least. So Apple
doesn't get bullied and threatened by MSFT in the way Redhat does. It's
not so funny when you look at it that way.
BSD works fine for sure, but this "kind of bullshit problem" is about
patent covering something that a usermode app is doing. Apple might
have reason not to fear patent attacks from Microsoft, but Redhat has
good reason to fear it all right.
I wasn't able to work out how RHAT's profits and Ubuntu's apparent
popularity tied into this Open Office patent issue. Interesting to know
if Apple and Ubuntu ship a version of OpenOffice with their own hands
that includes this allegedly dodgy feature though.
-Andy
