Posted on 04/05/2006 8:39:22 AM PDT by luthers_inkwell
At http://www.no-lobbyists-as-such.com/florian-mueller-blog/ballmer-linux/ we're reminded that Microsoft wants Linux dead. Ballmer is once again making noise about patents.
Unfortunately, Microsoft likely does have patents it could use against Linux. IBM can probably be replied upon to fight back on the side of Linux with its own patents - supposedly they've called Microsoft patent bluffs in the past just by pointing out that they also have stacks of patents and idle lawyers ready to look for violations by Windows code. However, Microsoft might now be willing to risk the battle.
Microsoft is not in a happy place right now. Vista is delayed, and both Apple and Linux are gnawing at its toes. The increasing interest in virtualization and particularly in package/OS bundling like VMware Player is a bumpy road for Microsoft because of OS licensing. Microsoft doesn't want its OS sales pirated, but it doesn't want to miss out on that market either. Linux apps can be shipped with a free OS; Microsoft apps cannot.
(Excerpt) Read more at aplawrence.com ...
Is this a lie, or just a "mistake"?
Yeah, which post?
Got a specific one?
Didn't think so.
You lie again.
Your very first one! I was pointing out that anyone in the world could get a "legal" copy of that source code once any single customer decides off the cuff to release it, and you came swooping in MISquoting Stallman's website and claiming they couldn't. When that didn't work, you resorted to insults and talking in circles, where you've been stuck ever since.
No, you weren't. Your post was "Don't they have to give a copy to anyone who wants a copy?" and that was the question he was responding to. That statement is incorrect as it stands.
By the license they DO have to give a copy of the source code to whichever of their customers asks for it, and then that person can can distribute it as much as they want to China or whoever without paying back a dime for those additional copies. That's how "Red Hat" gets resold in China as "Red Flag", without a dime back to Red Hat.
Flamer's lame denial was along the lines of if they never sold it, and kept it private, which obviously doesn't apply since this company is selling it (DUH). Once a single copy has been sold, ANYONE who bought a copy can get a copy of the source code and be allowed to make unlimted copies for whoever they want, including China.
If the guy really did say something to that effect, then show me the exact quote.
Your hijinks are old hat--if you're going to make an accusation against us, either put up or shut up.
"I was pointing out that anyone in the world could get a "legal" copy of that source code once any single customer decides off the cuff to release it, and you came swooping in MISquoting Stallman's website and claiming they couldn't. "
Wrong again...why don't you argue with what I said, instead of making up lies?
Do you have to distribute the source code if you don't distribute the Linux OS itself? Nope, you don't. That's the truth, and that's exactly what I posted in the first post. Go back and read.
Second, I never, as you claimed, said that the program could be distributed without the source code. If I did, show me the post. Once again, you won't because you can't.
But, I didn't expect you to tell the truth. Good try at being specific, though.
LMAO! Flamer is still trying to claim Concurrent isn't distributing Red Hawk when the whole thread was a PR release announcing the sale!
Now watch him start slinging more lies and insults, probably even try to misquote Stallman's website again and claim they're trying to keep it all private LOL!
Can you point to some examples?
Thanks, it was honest for you to correct yourself.
Sure, but I'm willing to suffer the odd Lilliputian in order to protect my own patent rights.
The jury's still out on whether you're a stalker. You do seem to have an unhealthy preoccupation with the dude. Maybe everybody should just take a deep breath and try to remember that none of this crap really matters all that much. It's entertainment.
The problem is when the mod pulls a tread the thread is gone, his shot at my family was removed from the site. He will not dispute that he has had his account suspended several times but says the mods do it becuase we wine, not because the mod sees anything in the post worth suspending for..
If you think you're entitled to Concurrent's source code because of that Pentagon deal, I'd really love to see you prove that. One easy way would be to contact Concurrent and request it.
LOL
As someone who has been observing this for quite a while, let me assure you that you have that backwards.
You make these accusations, but then cower in hideous fear when someone calls your bluff.
I'm still waiting for the exact quotes--which to my knowledge you've still failed to produce.
I'm saying anyone who bought a copy, including even the Chinese government, can then make infinite legal copies without a penny back to the US, just like they do when they take Red Hat and make it Red Flag.
The flamer is STILL arguing that the software isn't being distributed at all, and so Concurrent doesn't have to give their source code to anyone, which is just another one of his lies. He was even quoting Stallman's website, like Stallman doesn't want the Chicoms to get free copies LOL. I guess you're no better either.
How many copies of Red Hawk did the Chinese government buy? If they bought zero copies, then tell me again how they might get a copy of the source code?
How might anyone get a copy of the Red Hawk source code except Lockheed?
I guess you're no better either.
Your opinion of me is irrelevant.
GE is one of the finest specimens of troll I have ever seen.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.