[mdlug] Linspire caves in to Microsoft patent threat

[Michael Corral]

Wolfger a ecrit:
> On 5/16/07, Michael Corral wrote:
>> How is making Linspire users pay the Microsoft extortion fee an
>> example of "dedication to supporting their users"? That seems like
>> the opposite to me.
>
> I missed the part where they are doing this. Please show me.

Well, the Linspire CEO does the usual corporate speaking-in-tongues
routine, with lots of euphemisms. I didn't think it'd take a genius
to read between the lines, though perhaps I was wrong about that. ;)

>> since GPLv3 will prohibit Novell and Linspire from doing
>> what they intend to do.
>
> If GPLv3 prohibits me from using any closed source or patented
> software on my system, I want nothing to do with it either. Is GPLv3
> really that over-reaching?

No, but neither was that what I was saying. GPLv3 will prohibit
Linux distributors like Novell and Linspire from entering into
patent lawsuit protection schemes for their users, that is if
those distributors want to distribute code licensed under GPLv3.

> Then you don't think they're here to make money? Because they sure
> can't make money on Linux without supporting its spread and
> development!

Sure they could. They could let others do all the spreading and
development, and just make money on people who want an "easy"
Linux that looks like Windows. You know, kind of like how they
make money now. :) Throw some patent extortion fees on top of
that and they'll make even more money. Their "support" of the
"spread and development" of Linux can be basically zero.

> But for Linspire, Linux *is* their source of income. To fault them
> for trying to stay in business is ridiculous.

I did no such thing. I'm faulting them for caving in to Microsoft
when there is no need to. Red Hat, for example, is committed to
making money and staying in business, yet they have rejected
caving in to Microsoft's threats. Too bad Linspire couldn't
do the same.

Michael