MESSAGE
| DATE | 2010-12-22 |
| FROM | einker
|
| SUBJECT | Re: [NYLXS - HANGOUT] 2010: The Year in Free and Open Source Software
|
From owner-hangout-outgoing-at-mrbrklyn.com Wed Dec 22 14:24:45 2010
Return-Path:
X-Original-To: archive-at-mrbrklyn.com
Delivered-To: archive-at-mrbrklyn.com
Received: by www2.mrbrklyn.com (Postfix)
id 2034439569; Wed, 22 Dec 2010 14:24:45 -0500 (EST)
Delivered-To: hangout-outgoing-at-www2.mrbrklyn.com
Received: by www2.mrbrklyn.com (Postfix, from userid 28)
id 0D34A39588; Wed, 22 Dec 2010 14:24:44 -0500 (EST)
Delivered-To: hangout-at-mrbrklyn.com
Received: from mail-ew0-f41.google.com (mail-ew0-f41.google.com [209.85.215.41])
by www2.mrbrklyn.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1676739569
for ; Wed, 22 Dec 2010 14:24:43 -0500 (EST)
Received: by ewy27 with SMTP id 27so3098561ewy.14
for ; Wed, 22 Dec 2010 11:25:04 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to
:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;
bh=9H9epppd6D18jbEj8OMi/TxOO84t8I5JGthCTMhAouw=;
b=m6e5E4gH5wSTPURe2lWPGNc/mdWsJzPz5JKagbP7VHGe5kwF6O5H0vXXsuN/U4OLGj
cIAAvGtloil0GIzfkQEEn9LHlgwWqCClERVWizLM5Ep3h5fCC/yxeXiH3TTJf1bdYSSW
OuTdLQMPKP8uOMhs3zFcWFrf1pMIei46oDhsI=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
:content-type;
b=iqjEVDamjUtkVd+OyO9nEe3M9+lNLDex7ZkSwpWOyJZLi4dknM31ESvzXzHeg7Q8tV
qBy8UTPie5FydfK0YVY76iWOfLDYG6Qoh961iEg3aKgTnCpNgL3KXn0/6W/KjV6parZn
/gY/aR6F3JCFJTTXKkzdNcDVNqn+idr77w1DQ=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.213.30.7 with SMTP id s7mr7310888ebc.32.1293045904382; Wed, 22
Dec 2010 11:25:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.213.108.129 with HTTP; Wed, 22 Dec 2010 11:25:04 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20101222174524.GA26168-at-panix.com>
References:
<20101222174524.GA26168-at-panix.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 14:25:04 -0500
Message-ID:
Subject: Re: [NYLXS - HANGOUT] 2010: The Year in Free and Open Source Software
From: einker
To: hangout-at-mrbrklyn.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0015174bdf2ecf1c4c049804b586
Sender: owner-hangout-at-mrbrklyn.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: hangout-at-mrbrklyn.com
--0015174bdf2ecf1c4c049804b586
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Enjoy and do with it is as you will
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 12:45 PM, Ruben Safir wrote:
>
> Evan - I'm going to add this to the resources and articles section of
> the website, if it is OK with you.
>
> Reuvain
>
> On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 12:50:54PM -0500, einker wrote:
> > 2010: The Year in Free and Open Source Software
> > By Bruce Byfield<
> http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/feedback.php/http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3918011
> >
> > December 21, 2010
> > http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3918011
> >
> > To all appearances, 2010 was a year of business as usual in free and open
> > source software (FOSS). It was neither the long-awaited and derided Year
> of
> > the Linux Desktop, nor a year marked by any great reversals. However,
> some
> > of the trends that emerged in 2010 may become more important over the
> next
> > few years -- particularly the emerging tendency of corporations to comply
> > technically with FOSS licenses while ignoring their intent.
> >
> > But in the short term, 2010 was marked by such a lack of drama that
> deciding
> > whether FOSS advanced or retreated in 2010 is next to impossible. For
> better
> > or worse, here are some of the leading FOSS events and trends in 2010 for
> > business, technology, legal matters, and the community:
> > Business Moves and Directions
> >
> > For those watching FOSS business, 2010 proved a mixed year. On the one
> hand,
> > Red Hat continued to thrive, to the extent that Forbes blogger Dan Wood
> > predicts<
> http://blogs.forbes.com/ciocentral/2010/11/30/red-hat-at-1-billion/?boxes=Homepagechannels
> >that
> > the company will reach $1 billion in revenues next year.
> >
> > On the other hand, other companies with FOSS interests showed signs of
> > struggling in 2010. Smaller companies such as Xandros, which have made
> > headlines in previous years, were quieter in 2010, and, if they enjoyed
> any
> > successes, they were quiet ones that went mostly unnoticed.
> >
> > As for the major players, Canonical, the commercial arm of the dominant
> > Ubuntu distribution, continued to search for profitability in a
> distribution
> > by adding cloud and music services, and laying the groundwork for
> expansion
> > into touch-screens. However, any success in these efforts is going to
> take
> > longer than a year to emerge.
> >
> > Even worse, Novell, one of the major contributors to the Linux kernel and
> > other FOSS projects, was
> > sold<
> http://www.novell.com/news/press/novell-agrees-to-be-acquired-by-attachmate-corporation/
> >to
> > Attachmate, with some of its patents going to a
> > consortium<
> http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Apple-EMC-Oracle-and-Microsoft-buy-Novell-patents-1155803.html
> >whose
> > members include Apple, EMC, Microsoft, and Oracle. Although
> > FOSS-related patents do not appear to have been involved, nobody knows
> yet
> > whether Novell's FOSS contributions will continue under Attachmate or
> not.
> >
> > Similarly, 2010 also saw the finalization of Oracle's acquisition of Sun
> > Microsystem, which includes major FOSS projects such as Java, MySQL, and
> > OpenOffice.org.
> >
> > Peter Brown, the executive director of the Free Software Foundation,
> > suggested to me that Oracle has still to develop a coherent free software
> > policy, but the decisions made by individual corporate units have caused
> > shockwaves throughout FOSS in the last year -- everything from a
> > campaign<
> http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3861016/The-Fight-to-Save-MySQL-Interview-with-Monty-Widenius.htm
> >to
> > prevent Oracle's acquisition of MySQL by Monty Widenius to the forking
> > of
> > LibreOffice from OpenOffice.org (see below). Such reactions leave little
> > doubt that the community lacks confidence in Oracle as a steward for its
> > FOSS acquisitions.
> > Technology Trends
> >
> > One piece of FOSS technology -- Google's Android mobile operating system
> --
> > thrived in 2010. Throughout the year, the sale of Android devices
> continued
> > to soar, with headlines telling us that sales were outstripping
> > manufacturing capability and that they were outselling the iPhone. This
> > success was mitigated by complaints about lack of openness in
> development,
> > and the use of Digital Rights Management technologies and proprietary
> Java.
> > All these things make Android a platform built on FOSS that has strayed
> > badly from its ideals.
> >
> > Another Google project, the Chrome browser, enjoyed something of the same
> > success in 2010, rising to an 8% market share by November, and developing
> a
> > supporting set of extensions at the same time. This growth makes Chrome
> the
> > major competitor for Mozilla's Firefox, so that it is now currently
> setting
> > the agenda for browser development. Chrome is an essential element of the
> > soon to be released Chrome OS, whose design choices raise
> > issues<
> http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3917011/Chrome-OS-Please-Dont-Open-the-Hood.htm
> >of
> > privacy and control, but is also available separately.
> >
> > A lesser known, but equally important development in FOSS technology
> during
> > 2010 is the development of the
> > Linux-libre> >kernel.
> > Unlike the standard Libre kernel released by the kernel project and
> > most distributions, the Linux-libre kernel does not include proprietary
> > firmware blobs for device drivers, making it the most philosophically
> free
> > version of the kernel available. The Linux-libre kernel has been adapted
> by
> > a small but growing number of
> > distributions,
> > despite being several releases behind the latest standard kernel.
> >
> > Recently, the idea of a free kernel received a major endorsement when
> > Debian, the largest independent community-based distribution,
> > announced<
> http://digitizor.com/2010/12/16/debian-6-0-squeeze-to-come-with-a-completely-free-linux-kernel/
> >that
> > its upcoming release would ship with a default free kernel. This
> > decision increases the likelihood of other major distributions providing
> a
> > free kernel as an option.
> >
> > 2010 also marked the start of a possible move away from Flash as the main
> > video format on the web. Although free Flash alternatives such as Gnash
> have
> > been in development for several years, they are still not ready for the
> > ordinary user's desktop, and Flash itself remains a non-free format.
> >
> > However, now, the development of WebM
> > and HTML
> > 5's video element mean that
> free
> > alternatives to Flash may soon become widespread. This possibility gained
> > momentum in 2010, although some browsers and applications do not yet
> support
> > the new alternatives.
> > Legal Landmarks and Licensing
> >
> > Arguments in the SCO legal cases continue to wind through the American
> > courts, and some details still need to be worked out. However, for most
> > observers, the beginning of the end came on March 30, 2010, when the
> United
> > States Supreme Court handed down the ruling that Novell, not SCO, was the
> > owner of the contested UNIX and UnixWare copyrights.
> >
> > The awarding of
> > coststo
> > Novell on December 10 provides further indications that the saga that
> > has
> > fascinated the community for so long might actually have an ending some
> day.
> >
> >
> > Another court case watched by FOSS advocates that concluded in 2010 was
> Re:
> > Bilski , which was ruled upon
> on
> > June 28. FOSS advocates had hoped to use the case as a means of
> eliminating
> > software patents altogether, viewing them as stiflers of innovation and a
> > method for attacking free software. The decision stopped short of
> > eliminating software patents altogether in the United States, but placed
> > some restrictions on them that could make them saner in the future.
> >
> > While these cases were winding down, the seeds of future concerns were
> also
> > sown. In 2010, the Free Software Foundation, which has long opposed
> Digital
> > Rights Management through its Defective By
> > DesignCampaign, turned its
> > attention to Apple's
> > iPhone<
> http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/why-free-software-and-apples-iphone-dont-mix
> >and
> > App
> > Store , and Amazon's Android App
> > Store.
> >
> >
> > Besides the issues themselves, these issues make 2010 the year in which
> > Microsoft lost its position as the major opponent of software freedom to
> > other companies. However, since Microsoft has recently entered the mobile
> > device market, this is most likely only a temporary change.
> > Community Concerns
> >
> > By far the most widely discussed community story in 2010 was the forking
> of
> > LibreOffice from OpenOffice.org. The fork has been waiting to happen for
> a
> > long time, due to widespread disillusion with Sun Microsystem's
> centralized
> > control of OpenOffice.org. However, the timing of the fork makes it a
> vote
> > of no confidence in Oracle's ability to run the project for the benefit
> of
> > the community. In place of Oracle, LibreOffice has created The Document
> > Foundation .
> >
> > Since the fork is only a few months old, its effect is still unknown. So
> > far, LibreOffice's mailing lists and code contributions seem far more
> active
> > than OpenOffice.org's have been for several years. Nearly everything is
> > being re-thought, down to the names of the applications in the office
> suite.
> >
> >
> > However, whether The Document Foundation has the resources to implement
> all
> > these changes has yet to be tested. Working against it is the fact that
> > OpenOffice.org has considerable recognition value. To what extent
> > OpenOffice.org and LibreOffice will borrow code from each other is also
> > uncertain. Possibly, the two code bases will diverge rapidly -- which
> would
> > be wasteful, although possibly unavoidable.
> >
> > Less publicized, but potentially as far-reaching in its consequences is
> the
> > project begun in 2010 to draft an anti-harassment
> > policy<
> http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Conference_anti-harassment_policy
> >suitable
> > for technology conferences. Such policies have already been
> > adopted
> by
> > a number of FOSS conferences, including LibrePlanet, Linux.conf.au and
> all
> > of Linux Foundation???s events. Given the ongoing concerns about
> > sexism<
> http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3838186/Sexism-Open-Source-Softwares-Dirty-Little-Secret.htm
> >in
> > FOSS, this development could help to mitigate at least some of the
> > symptoms of this often unacknowledged problem.
> > When the Letter Replaces the Spirit
> >
> > However, for me, the biggest story in 2010 is one that has gone largely
> > unrecognized: The increasing number of ways that companies have found to
> > keep to the letter of FOSS licensing while ignoring the spirit.
> >
> > Nothing is new, of course, in companies exploiting FOSS for their own
> > benefit. In the past, however, most companies, however, have eventually
> > realized that at least limited cooperation with a community that includes
> > their rivals can benefit them. What is different now is the number of
> ways
> > in which companies are technically conforming to the requirements of FOSS
> > while finding ways to continue business as usual.
> >
> > This trend takes numerous forms. At Oracle, it takes the form of
> maintaining
> > projects, but limiting releases and development, and of bringing a
> > claimof
> > infringement on Java patents against Google.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> >
> > Evan M. Inker
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> >
> > Evan M. Inker
>
--
Regards,
Evan M. Inker
--0015174bdf2ecf1c4c049804b586
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Enjoy and do with it is as you will
On W= ed, Dec 22, 2010 at 12:45 PM, Ruben Safir <mailto:mrbrklyn-at-panix.com">mrbrklyn-at-panix.com> wrote: ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-le=
ft: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
Evan - I'm going to add this to the resources and articles section ofr>
the website, if it is OK with you.
Reuvain
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 12:50:54PM -0500, einker wrote:
> 2010: The Year in Free and Open Source Software
> By Bruce Byfield<feedback.php/http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3918011" tar=
get=3D"_blank">http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/feedback.php/http://itmanag=
ement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3918011>
> December 21, 2010 > target=3D"_blank">http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3918011=
> > To all appearances, 2010 was a year of business as usual in free and o= pen > source software (FOSS). It was neither the long-awaited and derided Ye= ar of > the Linux Desktop, nor a year marked by any great reversals. However, = some > of the trends that emerged in 2010 may become more important over the = next > few years -- particularly the emerging tendency of corporations to com= ply > technically with FOSS licenses while ignoring their intent. > > But in the short term, 2010 was marked by such a lack of drama that de= ciding > whether FOSS advanced or retreated in 2010 is next to impossible. For = better > or worse, here are some of the leading FOSS events and trends in 2010 = for > business, technology, legal matters, and the community: > =A0Business Moves and Directions > > For those watching FOSS business, 2010 proved a mixed year. On the one= hand, > Red Hat continued to thrive, to the extent that Forbes blogger Dan Woo= d
://blogs.forbes.com/ciocentral/2010/11/30/red-hat-at-1-billion/?boxes=3DHom=
epagechannels>that
> the company will reach $1 billion in revenues next y=
ear.
>
> On the other hand, other companies with FOSS interests showed signs of=
> struggling in 2010. Smaller companies such as Xandros, which have made=
> headlines in previous years, were quieter in 2010, and, if they enjoye=
d any
> successes, they were quiet ones that went mostly unnoticed.
>
> As for the major players, Canonical, the commercial arm of the dominan=
t
> Ubuntu distribution, continued to search for profitability in a distri=
bution
> by adding cloud and music services, and laying the groundwork for expa=
nsion
> into touch-screens. However, any success in these efforts is going to =
take
> longer than a year to emerge.
>
> Even worse, Novell, one of the major contributors to the Linux kernel =
and
> other FOSS projects, was
> sold<s-to-be-acquired-by-attachmate-corporation/" target=3D"_blank">http://www.n=
ovell.com/news/press/novell-agrees-to-be-acquired-by-attachmate-corporation=
/>to
> Attachmate, with some of its patents going to a
> consortium<Apple-EMC-Oracle-and-Microsoft-buy-Novell-patents-1155803.html" target=3D"_=
blank">http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Apple-EMC-Oracle-and-Microsof=
t-buy-Novell-patents-1155803.html>whose
> members include Apple, EMC, Microsoft, and Oracle. A=
lthough
> FOSS-related patents do not appear to have been involved, nobody knows=
yet
> whether Novell's FOSS contributions will continue under Attachmate=
or not.
>
> Similarly, 2010 also saw the finalization of Oracle's acquisition =
of Sun
> Microsystem, which includes major FOSS projects such as Java, MySQL, a=
nd
> OpenOffice.org.
>
> Peter Brown, the executive director of the Free Software Foundation,r>
> suggested to me that Oracle has still to develop a coherent free softw=
are
> policy, but the decisions made by individual corporate units have caus=
ed
> shockwaves throughout FOSS in the last year -- everything from a
> campaign<icle.php/3861016/The-Fight-to-Save-MySQL-Interview-with-Monty-Widenius.htm"=
target=3D"_blank">http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/386101=
6/The-Fight-to-Save-MySQL-Interview-with-Monty-Widenius.htm>to
> prevent Oracle's acquisition of MySQL by Monty W=
idenius to the forking
> of
> LibreOffice from OpenOffice.org (see below). Such reactions leave litt=
le
> doubt that the community lacks confidence in Oracle as a steward for i=
ts
> FOSS acquisitions.
> =A0Technology Trends
>
> One piece of FOSS technology -- Google's Android mobile operating =
system --
> thrived in 2010. Throughout the year, the sale of Android devices cont=
inued
> to soar, with headlines telling us that sales were outstripping
> manufacturing capability and that they were outselling the iPhone. Thi=
s
> success was mitigated by complaints about lack of openness in developm=
ent,
> and the use of Digital Rights Management technologies and proprietary =
Java.
> All these things make Android a platform built on FOSS that has straye=
d
> badly from its ideals.
>
> Another Google project, the Chrome browser, enjoyed something of the s=
ame
> success in 2010, rising to an 8% market share by November, and develop=
ing a
> supporting set of extensions at the same time. This growth makes Chrom=
e the
> major competitor for Mozilla's Firefox, so that it is now currentl=
y setting
> the agenda for browser development. Chrome is an essential element of =
the
> soon to be released Chrome OS, whose design choices raise
> issues<le.php/3917011/Chrome-OS-Please-Dont-Open-the-Hood.htm" target=3D"_blank">h=
ttp://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3917011/Chrome-OS-Please-D=
ont-Open-the-Hood.htm>of
> privacy and control, but is also available separatel=
y.
>
> A lesser known, but equally important development in FOSS technology d=
uring
> 2010 is the development of the
> Linux-libre<inux-libre/index" target=3D"_blank">http://www.fsfla.org/svnwiki/selibre/li=
nux-libre/index>kernel.
> Unlike the standard Libre kernel released by the ker=
nel project and
> most distributions, the Linux-libre kernel does not include proprietar=
y
> firmware blobs for device drivers, making it the most philosophically =
free
> version of the kernel available. The Linux-libre kernel has been adapt=
ed by
> a small but growing number of
> distributions<ros.html" target=3D"_blank">http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html>>,
> despite being several releases behind the latest sta=
ndard kernel.
>
> Recently, the idea of a free kernel received a major endorsement when<=
br>
> Debian, the largest independent community-based distribution,
> announced<-0-squeeze-to-come-with-a-completely-free-linux-kernel/" target=3D"_blank">=
http://digitizor.com/2010/12/16/debian-6-0-squeeze-to-come-with-a-completel=
y-free-linux-kernel/>that
> its upcoming release would ship with a default free =
kernel. This
> decision increases the likelihood of other major distributions providi=
ng a
> free kernel as an option.
>
> 2010 also marked the start of a possible move away from Flash as the m=
ain
> video format on the web. Although free Flash alternatives such as Gnas=
h have
> been in development for several years, they are still not ready for th=
e
> ordinary user's desktop, and Flash itself remains a non-free forma=
t.
>
> However, now, the development of WebM
> <nk">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webm>and HTML
> 5's video element <_5_video" target=3D"_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML_5_video&g=
t; mean that free
> alternatives to Flash may soon become widespread. Th=
is possibility gained
> momentum in 2010, although some browsers and applications do not yet s=
upport
> the new alternatives.
> =A0Legal Landmarks and Licensing
>
> Arguments in the SCO legal cases continue to wind through the American=
> courts, and some details still need to be worked out. However, for mos=
t
> observers, the beginning of the end came on March 30, 2010, when the U=
nited
> States Supreme Court handed down the ruling that Novell, not SCO, was =
the
> owner of the contested UNIX and UnixWare copyrights.
>
> The awarding of
> costs<010121000335441" target=3D"_blank">http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=
=3D2010121000335441>to
> Novell on December 10 provides further indications t=
hat the saga that
> has
> fascinated the community for so long might actually have an ending som=
e day.
>
>
> Another court case watched by FOSS advocates that concluded in 2010 wa=
s Re:
> Bilski < target=3D"_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_Bilski>, which=
was ruled upon on
> June 28. FOSS advocates had hoped to use the case as=
a means of eliminating
> software patents altogether, viewing them as stiflers of innovation an=
d a
> method for attacking free software. The decision stopped short of
> eliminating software patents altogether in the United States, but plac=
ed
> some restrictions on them that could make them saner in the future.>
>
> While these cases were winding down, the seeds of future concerns were=
also
> sown. In 2010, the Free Software Foundation, which has long opposed Di=
gital
> Rights Management through its Defective By
> Design<=3D"_blank">http://www.defectivebydesign.org/>Campaign, turned itsr>
> attention to Apple's
> iPhone<are-and-apples-iphone-dont-mix" target=3D"_blank">http://www.fsf.org/blogs/=
community/why-free-software-and-apples-iphone-dont-mix>and
> App
> Store <nk">http://www.defectivebydesign.org/>, and Amazon's Android App=
> Store<m" target=3D"_blank">http://www.defectivebydesign.org/amazon-android-drm>>.
>
>
> Besides the issues themselves, these issues make 2010 the year in whic=
h
> Microsoft lost its position as the major opponent of software freedom =
to
> other companies. However, since Microsoft has recently entered the mob=
ile
> device market, this is most likely only a temporary change.
> =A0Community Concerns
>
> By far the most widely discussed community story in 2010 was the forki=
ng of
> LibreOffice from OpenOffice.org. The fork has been waiting to happen f=
or a
> long time, due to widespread disillusion with Sun Microsystem's ce=
ntralized
> control of OpenOffice.org. However, the timing of the fork makes it a =
vote
> of no confidence in Oracle's ability to run the project for the be=
nefit of
> the community. In place of Oracle, LibreOffice has created The Documen=
t
> Foundation <rget=3D"_blank">http://www.documentfoundation.org/>.
>
> Since the fork is only a few months old, its effect is still unknown. =
So
> far, LibreOffice's mailing lists and code contributions seem far m=
ore active
> than OpenOffice.org's have been for several years. Nearly everythi=
ng is
> being re-thought, down to the names of the applications in the office =
suite.
>
>
> However, whether The Document Foundation has the resources to implemen=
t all
> these changes has yet to be tested. Working against it is the fact tha=
t
> OpenOffice.org has considerable recognition value. To what extent
> OpenOffice.org and LibreOffice will borrow code from each other is als=
o
> uncertain. Possibly, the two code bases will diverge rapidly -- which =
would
> be wasteful, although possibly unavoidable.
>
> Less publicized, but potentially as far-reaching in its consequences i=
s the
> project begun in 2010 to draft an anti-harassment
> policy<ce_anti-harassment_policy" target=3D"_blank">http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/=
wiki/Conference_anti-harassment_policy>suitable
> for technology conferences. Such policies have alrea=
dy been
> adopted <ly-conference-update/" target=3D"_blank">http://geekfeminism.org/2010/12/16=
/friendly-conference-update/> by
> a number of FOSS conferences, including LibrePlanet,= Linux.conf.au and a= ll
> sexism</3838186/Sexism-Open-Source-Softwares-Dirty-Little-Secret.htm" target=3D"_b=
lank">http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3838186/Sexism-Open=
-Source-Softwares-Dirty-Little-Secret.htm>in
> FOSS, this development could help to mitigate at lea=
st some of the
> symptoms of this often unacknowledged problem.
> =A0When the Letter Replaces the Spirit
>
> However, for me, the biggest story in 2010 is one that has gone largel=
y
> unrecognized: The increasing number of ways that companies have found =
to
> keep to the letter of FOSS licensing while ignoring the spirit.
>
> Nothing is new, of course, in companies exploiting FOSS for their own<=
br>
> benefit. In the past, however, most companies, however, have eventuall=
y
> realized that at least limited cooperation with a community that inclu=
des
> their rivals can benefit them. What is different now is the number of =
ways
> in which companies are technically conforming to the requirements of F=
OSS
> while finding ways to continue business as usual.
>
> This trend takes numerous forms. At Oracle, it takes the form of maint=
aining
> projects, but limiting releases and development, and of bringing a
> claim<cle-java-lawsuit/" target=3D"_blank">http://techcrunch.com/2010/08/13/andro=
id-oracle-java-lawsuit/>of
> infringement on Java patents against=
Google.
>
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Evan M. Inker
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Evan M. Inker
--
Regards, r>
Evan M. Inker
--0015174bdf2ecf1c4c049804b586--
--0015174bdf2ecf1c4c049804b586
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Enjoy and do with it is as you will
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 12:45 PM, Ruben Safir wrote:
>
> Evan - I'm going to add this to the resources and articles section of
> the website, if it is OK with you.
>
> Reuvain
>
> On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 12:50:54PM -0500, einker wrote:
> > 2010: The Year in Free and Open Source Software
> > By Bruce Byfield<
> http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/feedback.php/http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3918011
> >
> > December 21, 2010
> > http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3918011
> >
> > To all appearances, 2010 was a year of business as usual in free and open
> > source software (FOSS). It was neither the long-awaited and derided Year
> of
> > the Linux Desktop, nor a year marked by any great reversals. However,
> some
> > of the trends that emerged in 2010 may become more important over the
> next
> > few years -- particularly the emerging tendency of corporations to comply
> > technically with FOSS licenses while ignoring their intent.
> >
> > But in the short term, 2010 was marked by such a lack of drama that
> deciding
> > whether FOSS advanced or retreated in 2010 is next to impossible. For
> better
> > or worse, here are some of the leading FOSS events and trends in 2010 for
> > business, technology, legal matters, and the community:
> > Business Moves and Directions
> >
> > For those watching FOSS business, 2010 proved a mixed year. On the one
> hand,
> > Red Hat continued to thrive, to the extent that Forbes blogger Dan Wood
> > predicts<
> http://blogs.forbes.com/ciocentral/2010/11/30/red-hat-at-1-billion/?boxes=Homepagechannels
> >that
> > the company will reach $1 billion in revenues next year.
> >
> > On the other hand, other companies with FOSS interests showed signs of
> > struggling in 2010. Smaller companies such as Xandros, which have made
> > headlines in previous years, were quieter in 2010, and, if they enjoyed
> any
> > successes, they were quiet ones that went mostly unnoticed.
> >
> > As for the major players, Canonical, the commercial arm of the dominant
> > Ubuntu distribution, continued to search for profitability in a
> distribution
> > by adding cloud and music services, and laying the groundwork for
> expansion
> > into touch-screens. However, any success in these efforts is going to
> take
> > longer than a year to emerge.
> >
> > Even worse, Novell, one of the major contributors to the Linux kernel and
> > other FOSS projects, was
> > sold<
> http://www.novell.com/news/press/novell-agrees-to-be-acquired-by-attachmate-corporation/
> >to
> > Attachmate, with some of its patents going to a
> > consortium<
> http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Apple-EMC-Oracle-and-Microsoft-buy-Novell-patents-1155803.html
> >whose
> > members include Apple, EMC, Microsoft, and Oracle. Although
> > FOSS-related patents do not appear to have been involved, nobody knows
> yet
> > whether Novell's FOSS contributions will continue under Attachmate or
> not.
> >
> > Similarly, 2010 also saw the finalization of Oracle's acquisition of Sun
> > Microsystem, which includes major FOSS projects such as Java, MySQL, and
> > OpenOffice.org.
> >
> > Peter Brown, the executive director of the Free Software Foundation,
> > suggested to me that Oracle has still to develop a coherent free software
> > policy, but the decisions made by individual corporate units have caused
> > shockwaves throughout FOSS in the last year -- everything from a
> > campaign<
> http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3861016/The-Fight-to-Save-MySQL-Interview-with-Monty-Widenius.htm
> >to
> > prevent Oracle's acquisition of MySQL by Monty Widenius to the forking
> > of
> > LibreOffice from OpenOffice.org (see below). Such reactions leave little
> > doubt that the community lacks confidence in Oracle as a steward for its
> > FOSS acquisitions.
> > Technology Trends
> >
> > One piece of FOSS technology -- Google's Android mobile operating system
> --
> > thrived in 2010. Throughout the year, the sale of Android devices
> continued
> > to soar, with headlines telling us that sales were outstripping
> > manufacturing capability and that they were outselling the iPhone. This
> > success was mitigated by complaints about lack of openness in
> development,
> > and the use of Digital Rights Management technologies and proprietary
> Java.
> > All these things make Android a platform built on FOSS that has strayed
> > badly from its ideals.
> >
> > Another Google project, the Chrome browser, enjoyed something of the same
> > success in 2010, rising to an 8% market share by November, and developing
> a
> > supporting set of extensions at the same time. This growth makes Chrome
> the
> > major competitor for Mozilla's Firefox, so that it is now currently
> setting
> > the agenda for browser development. Chrome is an essential element of the
> > soon to be released Chrome OS, whose design choices raise
> > issues<
> http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3917011/Chrome-OS-Please-Dont-Open-the-Hood.htm
> >of
> > privacy and control, but is also available separately.
> >
> > A lesser known, but equally important development in FOSS technology
> during
> > 2010 is the development of the
> > Linux-libre> >kernel.
> > Unlike the standard Libre kernel released by the kernel project and
> > most distributions, the Linux-libre kernel does not include proprietary
> > firmware blobs for device drivers, making it the most philosophically
> free
> > version of the kernel available. The Linux-libre kernel has been adapted
> by
> > a small but growing number of
> > distributions,
> > despite being several releases behind the latest standard kernel.
> >
> > Recently, the idea of a free kernel received a major endorsement when
> > Debian, the largest independent community-based distribution,
> > announced<
> http://digitizor.com/2010/12/16/debian-6-0-squeeze-to-come-with-a-completely-free-linux-kernel/
> >that
> > its upcoming release would ship with a default free kernel. This
> > decision increases the likelihood of other major distributions providing
> a
> > free kernel as an option.
> >
> > 2010 also marked the start of a possible move away from Flash as the main
> > video format on the web. Although free Flash alternatives such as Gnash
> have
> > been in development for several years, they are still not ready for the
> > ordinary user's desktop, and Flash itself remains a non-free format.
> >
> > However, now, the development of WebM
> > and HTML
> > 5's video element mean that
> free
> > alternatives to Flash may soon become widespread. This possibility gained
> > momentum in 2010, although some browsers and applications do not yet
> support
> > the new alternatives.
> > Legal Landmarks and Licensing
> >
> > Arguments in the SCO legal cases continue to wind through the American
> > courts, and some details still need to be worked out. However, for most
> > observers, the beginning of the end came on March 30, 2010, when the
> United
> > States Supreme Court handed down the ruling that Novell, not SCO, was the
> > owner of the contested UNIX and UnixWare copyrights.
> >
> > The awarding of
> > coststo
> > Novell on December 10 provides further indications that the saga that
> > has
> > fascinated the community for so long might actually have an ending some
> day.
> >
> >
> > Another court case watched by FOSS advocates that concluded in 2010 was
> Re:
> > Bilski , which was ruled upon
> on
> > June 28. FOSS advocates had hoped to use the case as a means of
> eliminating
> > software patents altogether, viewing them as stiflers of innovation and a
> > method for attacking free software. The decision stopped short of
> > eliminating software patents altogether in the United States, but placed
> > some restrictions on them that could make them saner in the future.
> >
> > While these cases were winding down, the seeds of future concerns were
> also
> > sown. In 2010, the Free Software Foundation, which has long opposed
> Digital
> > Rights Management through its Defective By
> > DesignCampaign, turned its
> > attention to Apple's
> > iPhone<
> http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/why-free-software-and-apples-iphone-dont-mix
> >and
> > App
> > Store , and Amazon's Android App
> > Store.
> >
> >
> > Besides the issues themselves, these issues make 2010 the year in which
> > Microsoft lost its position as the major opponent of software freedom to
> > other companies. However, since Microsoft has recently entered the mobile
> > device market, this is most likely only a temporary change.
> > Community Concerns
> >
> > By far the most widely discussed community story in 2010 was the forking
> of
> > LibreOffice from OpenOffice.org. The fork has been waiting to happen for
> a
> > long time, due to widespread disillusion with Sun Microsystem's
> centralized
> > control of OpenOffice.org. However, the timing of the fork makes it a
> vote
> > of no confidence in Oracle's ability to run the project for the benefit
> of
> > the community. In place of Oracle, LibreOffice has created The Document
> > Foundation .
> >
> > Since the fork is only a few months old, its effect is still unknown. So
> > far, LibreOffice's mailing lists and code contributions seem far more
> active
> > than OpenOffice.org's have been for several years. Nearly everything is
> > being re-thought, down to the names of the applications in the office
> suite.
> >
> >
> > However, whether The Document Foundation has the resources to implement
> all
> > these changes has yet to be tested. Working against it is the fact that
> > OpenOffice.org has considerable recognition value. To what extent
> > OpenOffice.org and LibreOffice will borrow code from each other is also
> > uncertain. Possibly, the two code bases will diverge rapidly -- which
> would
> > be wasteful, although possibly unavoidable.
> >
> > Less publicized, but potentially as far-reaching in its consequences is
> the
> > project begun in 2010 to draft an anti-harassment
> > policy<
> http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Conference_anti-harassment_policy
> >suitable
> > for technology conferences. Such policies have already been
> > adopted
> by
> > a number of FOSS conferences, including LibrePlanet, Linux.conf.au and
> all
> > of Linux Foundation???s events. Given the ongoing concerns about
> > sexism<
> http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3838186/Sexism-Open-Source-Softwares-Dirty-Little-Secret.htm
> >in
> > FOSS, this development could help to mitigate at least some of the
> > symptoms of this often unacknowledged problem.
> > When the Letter Replaces the Spirit
> >
> > However, for me, the biggest story in 2010 is one that has gone largely
> > unrecognized: The increasing number of ways that companies have found to
> > keep to the letter of FOSS licensing while ignoring the spirit.
> >
> > Nothing is new, of course, in companies exploiting FOSS for their own
> > benefit. In the past, however, most companies, however, have eventually
> > realized that at least limited cooperation with a community that includes
> > their rivals can benefit them. What is different now is the number of
> ways
> > in which companies are technically conforming to the requirements of FOSS
> > while finding ways to continue business as usual.
> >
> > This trend takes numerous forms. At Oracle, it takes the form of
> maintaining
> > projects, but limiting releases and development, and of bringing a
> > claimof
> > infringement on Java patents against Google.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> >
> > Evan M. Inker
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> >
> > Evan M. Inker
>
--
Regards,
Evan M. Inker
--0015174bdf2ecf1c4c049804b586
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Enjoy and do with it is as you will
On W= ed, Dec 22, 2010 at 12:45 PM, Ruben Safir <mailto:mrbrklyn-at-panix.com">mrbrklyn-at-panix.com> wrote: ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-le=
ft: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
Evan - I'm going to add this to the resources and articles section ofr>
the website, if it is OK with you.
Reuvain
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 12:50:54PM -0500, einker wrote:
> 2010: The Year in Free and Open Source Software
> By Bruce Byfield<feedback.php/http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3918011" tar=
get=3D"_blank">http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/feedback.php/http://itmanag=
ement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3918011>
> December 21, 2010 > target=3D"_blank">http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3918011=
> > To all appearances, 2010 was a year of business as usual in free and o= pen > source software (FOSS). It was neither the long-awaited and derided Ye= ar of > the Linux Desktop, nor a year marked by any great reversals. However, = some > of the trends that emerged in 2010 may become more important over the = next > few years -- particularly the emerging tendency of corporations to com= ply > technically with FOSS licenses while ignoring their intent. > > But in the short term, 2010 was marked by such a lack of drama that de= ciding > whether FOSS advanced or retreated in 2010 is next to impossible. For = better > or worse, here are some of the leading FOSS events and trends in 2010 = for > business, technology, legal matters, and the community: > =A0Business Moves and Directions > > For those watching FOSS business, 2010 proved a mixed year. On the one= hand, > Red Hat continued to thrive, to the extent that Forbes blogger Dan Woo= d
://blogs.forbes.com/ciocentral/2010/11/30/red-hat-at-1-billion/?boxes=3DHom=
epagechannels>that
> the company will reach $1 billion in revenues next y=
ear.
>
> On the other hand, other companies with FOSS interests showed signs of=
> struggling in 2010. Smaller companies such as Xandros, which have made=
> headlines in previous years, were quieter in 2010, and, if they enjoye=
d any
> successes, they were quiet ones that went mostly unnoticed.
>
> As for the major players, Canonical, the commercial arm of the dominan=
t
> Ubuntu distribution, continued to search for profitability in a distri=
bution
> by adding cloud and music services, and laying the groundwork for expa=
nsion
> into touch-screens. However, any success in these efforts is going to =
take
> longer than a year to emerge.
>
> Even worse, Novell, one of the major contributors to the Linux kernel =
and
> other FOSS projects, was
> sold<s-to-be-acquired-by-attachmate-corporation/" target=3D"_blank">http://www.n=
ovell.com/news/press/novell-agrees-to-be-acquired-by-attachmate-corporation=
/>to
> Attachmate, with some of its patents going to a
> consortium<Apple-EMC-Oracle-and-Microsoft-buy-Novell-patents-1155803.html" target=3D"_=
blank">http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Apple-EMC-Oracle-and-Microsof=
t-buy-Novell-patents-1155803.html>whose
> members include Apple, EMC, Microsoft, and Oracle. A=
lthough
> FOSS-related patents do not appear to have been involved, nobody knows=
yet
> whether Novell's FOSS contributions will continue under Attachmate=
or not.
>
> Similarly, 2010 also saw the finalization of Oracle's acquisition =
of Sun
> Microsystem, which includes major FOSS projects such as Java, MySQL, a=
nd
> OpenOffice.org.
>
> Peter Brown, the executive director of the Free Software Foundation,r>
> suggested to me that Oracle has still to develop a coherent free softw=
are
> policy, but the decisions made by individual corporate units have caus=
ed
> shockwaves throughout FOSS in the last year -- everything from a
> campaign<icle.php/3861016/The-Fight-to-Save-MySQL-Interview-with-Monty-Widenius.htm"=
target=3D"_blank">http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/386101=
6/The-Fight-to-Save-MySQL-Interview-with-Monty-Widenius.htm>to
> prevent Oracle's acquisition of MySQL by Monty W=
idenius to the forking
> of
> LibreOffice from OpenOffice.org (see below). Such reactions leave litt=
le
> doubt that the community lacks confidence in Oracle as a steward for i=
ts
> FOSS acquisitions.
> =A0Technology Trends
>
> One piece of FOSS technology -- Google's Android mobile operating =
system --
> thrived in 2010. Throughout the year, the sale of Android devices cont=
inued
> to soar, with headlines telling us that sales were outstripping
> manufacturing capability and that they were outselling the iPhone. Thi=
s
> success was mitigated by complaints about lack of openness in developm=
ent,
> and the use of Digital Rights Management technologies and proprietary =
Java.
> All these things make Android a platform built on FOSS that has straye=
d
> badly from its ideals.
>
> Another Google project, the Chrome browser, enjoyed something of the s=
ame
> success in 2010, rising to an 8% market share by November, and develop=
ing a
> supporting set of extensions at the same time. This growth makes Chrom=
e the
> major competitor for Mozilla's Firefox, so that it is now currentl=
y setting
> the agenda for browser development. Chrome is an essential element of =
the
> soon to be released Chrome OS, whose design choices raise
> issues<le.php/3917011/Chrome-OS-Please-Dont-Open-the-Hood.htm" target=3D"_blank">h=
ttp://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3917011/Chrome-OS-Please-D=
ont-Open-the-Hood.htm>of
> privacy and control, but is also available separatel=
y.
>
> A lesser known, but equally important development in FOSS technology d=
uring
> 2010 is the development of the
> Linux-libre<inux-libre/index" target=3D"_blank">http://www.fsfla.org/svnwiki/selibre/li=
nux-libre/index>kernel.
> Unlike the standard Libre kernel released by the ker=
nel project and
> most distributions, the Linux-libre kernel does not include proprietar=
y
> firmware blobs for device drivers, making it the most philosophically =
free
> version of the kernel available. The Linux-libre kernel has been adapt=
ed by
> a small but growing number of
> distributions<ros.html" target=3D"_blank">http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html>>,
> despite being several releases behind the latest sta=
ndard kernel.
>
> Recently, the idea of a free kernel received a major endorsement when<=
br>
> Debian, the largest independent community-based distribution,
> announced<-0-squeeze-to-come-with-a-completely-free-linux-kernel/" target=3D"_blank">=
http://digitizor.com/2010/12/16/debian-6-0-squeeze-to-come-with-a-completel=
y-free-linux-kernel/>that
> its upcoming release would ship with a default free =
kernel. This
> decision increases the likelihood of other major distributions providi=
ng a
> free kernel as an option.
>
> 2010 also marked the start of a possible move away from Flash as the m=
ain
> video format on the web. Although free Flash alternatives such as Gnas=
h have
> been in development for several years, they are still not ready for th=
e
> ordinary user's desktop, and Flash itself remains a non-free forma=
t.
>
> However, now, the development of WebM
> <nk">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webm>and HTML
> 5's video element <_5_video" target=3D"_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML_5_video&g=
t; mean that free
> alternatives to Flash may soon become widespread. Th=
is possibility gained
> momentum in 2010, although some browsers and applications do not yet s=
upport
> the new alternatives.
> =A0Legal Landmarks and Licensing
>
> Arguments in the SCO legal cases continue to wind through the American=
> courts, and some details still need to be worked out. However, for mos=
t
> observers, the beginning of the end came on March 30, 2010, when the U=
nited
> States Supreme Court handed down the ruling that Novell, not SCO, was =
the
> owner of the contested UNIX and UnixWare copyrights.
>
> The awarding of
> costs<010121000335441" target=3D"_blank">http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=
=3D2010121000335441>to
> Novell on December 10 provides further indications t=
hat the saga that
> has
> fascinated the community for so long might actually have an ending som=
e day.
>
>
> Another court case watched by FOSS advocates that concluded in 2010 wa=
s Re:
> Bilski < target=3D"_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_Bilski>, which=
was ruled upon on
> June 28. FOSS advocates had hoped to use the case as=
a means of eliminating
> software patents altogether, viewing them as stiflers of innovation an=
d a
> method for attacking free software. The decision stopped short of
> eliminating software patents altogether in the United States, but plac=
ed
> some restrictions on them that could make them saner in the future.>
>
> While these cases were winding down, the seeds of future concerns were=
also
> sown. In 2010, the Free Software Foundation, which has long opposed Di=
gital
> Rights Management through its Defective By
> Design<=3D"_blank">http://www.defectivebydesign.org/>Campaign, turned itsr>
> attention to Apple's
> iPhone<are-and-apples-iphone-dont-mix" target=3D"_blank">http://www.fsf.org/blogs/=
community/why-free-software-and-apples-iphone-dont-mix>and
> App
> Store <nk">http://www.defectivebydesign.org/>, and Amazon's Android App=
> Store<m" target=3D"_blank">http://www.defectivebydesign.org/amazon-android-drm>>.
>
>
> Besides the issues themselves, these issues make 2010 the year in whic=
h
> Microsoft lost its position as the major opponent of software freedom =
to
> other companies. However, since Microsoft has recently entered the mob=
ile
> device market, this is most likely only a temporary change.
> =A0Community Concerns
>
> By far the most widely discussed community story in 2010 was the forki=
ng of
> LibreOffice from OpenOffice.org. The fork has been waiting to happen f=
or a
> long time, due to widespread disillusion with Sun Microsystem's ce=
ntralized
> control of OpenOffice.org. However, the timing of the fork makes it a =
vote
> of no confidence in Oracle's ability to run the project for the be=
nefit of
> the community. In place of Oracle, LibreOffice has created The Documen=
t
> Foundation <rget=3D"_blank">http://www.documentfoundation.org/>.
>
> Since the fork is only a few months old, its effect is still unknown. =
So
> far, LibreOffice's mailing lists and code contributions seem far m=
ore active
> than OpenOffice.org's have been for several years. Nearly everythi=
ng is
> being re-thought, down to the names of the applications in the office =
suite.
>
>
> However, whether The Document Foundation has the resources to implemen=
t all
> these changes has yet to be tested. Working against it is the fact tha=
t
> OpenOffice.org has considerable recognition value. To what extent
> OpenOffice.org and LibreOffice will borrow code from each other is als=
o
> uncertain. Possibly, the two code bases will diverge rapidly -- which =
would
> be wasteful, although possibly unavoidable.
>
> Less publicized, but potentially as far-reaching in its consequences i=
s the
> project begun in 2010 to draft an anti-harassment
> policy<ce_anti-harassment_policy" target=3D"_blank">http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/=
wiki/Conference_anti-harassment_policy>suitable
> for technology conferences. Such policies have alrea=
dy been
> adopted <ly-conference-update/" target=3D"_blank">http://geekfeminism.org/2010/12/16=
/friendly-conference-update/> by
> a number of FOSS conferences, including LibrePlanet,= Linux.conf.au and a= ll
> sexism</3838186/Sexism-Open-Source-Softwares-Dirty-Little-Secret.htm" target=3D"_b=
lank">http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3838186/Sexism-Open=
-Source-Softwares-Dirty-Little-Secret.htm>in
> FOSS, this development could help to mitigate at lea=
st some of the
> symptoms of this often unacknowledged problem.
> =A0When the Letter Replaces the Spirit
>
> However, for me, the biggest story in 2010 is one that has gone largel=
y
> unrecognized: The increasing number of ways that companies have found =
to
> keep to the letter of FOSS licensing while ignoring the spirit.
>
> Nothing is new, of course, in companies exploiting FOSS for their own<=
br>
> benefit. In the past, however, most companies, however, have eventuall=
y
> realized that at least limited cooperation with a community that inclu=
des
> their rivals can benefit them. What is different now is the number of =
ways
> in which companies are technically conforming to the requirements of F=
OSS
> while finding ways to continue business as usual.
>
> This trend takes numerous forms. At Oracle, it takes the form of maint=
aining
> projects, but limiting releases and development, and of bringing a
> claim<cle-java-lawsuit/" target=3D"_blank">http://techcrunch.com/2010/08/13/andro=
id-oracle-java-lawsuit/>of
> infringement on Java patents against=
Google.
>
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Evan M. Inker
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Evan M. Inker
--
Regards, r>
Evan M. Inker
--0015174bdf2ecf1c4c049804b586--
|
|
