FC4 or FC5

[jdow]

From: "Craig White" <craigwhite at azapple.com>

> On Mon, 2006-06-19 at 20:16 -0700, jdow wrote:
>> From: "Craig White" <craigwhite at azapple.com>
>> 
>> > 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.

{^_^}