Having said all that, while I think this is aĭifficult challenge, I don’t think it is an insurmountableĬhallenge. Microsoft can afford an army of lawyers and hopefully some of I kid! I kid! We’d probably see Steve Ballmer grooving to an IPodīack to the point at hand. Microsoft should require bundled OSS software to be licensed with the However, as far as I know, none of these licenses have any patent The licenses of the projects they would like bundled such as Open source code, watch out for the armies of patent trolls, lawyers inĪs an aside, some commenters mention the “commercial friendliness” of But as soon a big fry like Microsoft starts bundling
Nobody is going after small fries who release open source code such asĪyende or myself. Of engagement changes when compared to smaller companies. Microsoft really is a huge fat target with a gigantic bullseye on itsįorehead in the form of lots and lots of money. Think this point bears more thoughtful responses than simply dismissing I agree to some extent that it is paranoia, not all paranoia is bad. I In his post, Ayende dismisses this argument as “lawyer-paranoia”. While JonĪbout this argument a while ago in his post Why Microsoft can’t ship
Software pedigree, patents, and legal challenges. Lists several cases in which Microsoft duplicated the efforts of OSSĪyende is not convinced by the fear factor argument around issues of Perfectly capable Open Source Software already in existence. In the Microsoft’s “annoying” tendency to duplicate the