MS Surface ...parody

OSI Approves Microsoft License Submissions

Via OpenSource.Org:
The OSI Board today approved the Microsoft Public License (Ms-PL) and the Microsoft Reciprocal License (Ms-RL). The decision to approve was informed by the overwhelming (though not unanimous) consensus from the open source community that these licenses satisfied the 10 criteria of the Open Source definition, and should therefore be approved.

The formal evaluation of these licenses began in August and the discussion of these licenses was vigorous and thorough. The community raised questions that Microsoft (and others) answered; they raised issues that, when germane to the licenses in question, Microsoft addressed. Microsoft came to the OSI and submitted their licenses according to the published policies and procedures that dozens of other parties have followed over the years. Microsoft didn't ask for special treatment, and didn't receive any. In spite of recent negative interactions between Microsoft and the open source community, the spirit of the dialogue was constructive and we hope that carries forward to a constructive outcome as well.

The Open Source Initiative is best known as the steward of the Open Source Definition and for its license review process. But, an open source license is just the starting point. Open source depends upon code (which can be made better), community (which can be made larger), and ultimately a commitment to the idea that the more free the market is for innovation, the more innovation the market can deliver.

Every approval that OSI issues represents our community's demand for more open-source code, a larger and more vital open-source community, and all the benefits open source brings to innovation in a free market. The new Ms-PL and Ms-RL are no exceptions.

From what I have read from these licenses they seem to be very forward thinking for Microsoft. I'm no sure how this will keep Steve "Monkey-Boy" Balmer from running his trap about Linux and other FOSS projects but maybe this can be a new era for Microsoft. I plan to keep microsuck.com in the bookmarks just in case though

threethirty's posts to SKT are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
Opensource.org site content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.

Here we go again

This is looking like SCO 2.0, from Ars,

Patent holding company IP Innovation has filed a patent infringement suit against Linux distributors Novell and Red Hat. The patent, which describes a "user interface with multiple workspaces for sharing display system objects," dates back to 1987 and originated in Xerox's PARC labs.

IP Innovation seeks damages and injunctive relief. "Red Hat's and Novell's infringement, contributory infringement and inducement to infringe has injured Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs are entitled to recover damages adequate to compensate them for such infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty," reads the complaint.

The Linux vendors aren't the only companies that have been on the receiving end of lawsuits for allegedly infringing this particular user interface patent. In April, IP Innovation sued Apple and demanded $20 million in damages. Apple eventually settled with the company for an undisclosed amount.

IP Innovation, which is a subsidiary of the Acacia Research Corporation, develops no products of its own. Acacia owns over 140 patents in 38 separate categories, accumulating patents and generating all of its revenue from licensing and litigation. Such companies are generally referred to as "patent trolls" because the manner in which they take advantage of the patent system is broadly considered detrimental to innovation.

Many companies that invest heavily in Linux development have long anticipated patent threats against the operating system, but the defensive measures in place might not be enough to stop this threat. Consider, for instance, the Open Invention Network (OIN), which was originally devised to deter patent litigation by establishing a vehicle for severe retaliation. As critics of the OIN have pointed out in the past, a defensive patent portfolio doesn't provide protection from companies that do not develop products because there is no basis on which to sue them. The OIN's powerful patent portfolio cannot be used to force IP Innovation into a cross-licensing agreement because IP Innovation has no need to license the patents held by others.

and here is a link to the patient itself

iPhone?

Maybe it's just me, but it looks like Apple is trying to grab a hold of any market that Microsoft doesn't already have their toes in. Since the iPod, Apple has been thinking of more and more ways to earn a dollar. First the iPod, then the iTV and now the iPhone! That's where I draw the line. The iPhone is an MP3 player, web browser, camera, movie player and of coarse a phone. That's just giving nerds a reason to get off their ass and do things. How dare they! Having saying that, all I want to know is: Where can I get one!?