[%TAGS (074db819ec% %074db819ec) %]

(074db819ec% subtitle %074db819ec)


(074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)chronological(074db819ec% END %074db819ec) (074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)Thread(074db819ec% END %074db819ec) 
(074db819ec% IF user.email && action == 'arc' %074db819ec)
(074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)Reply to sender(074db819ec%END%074db819ec) (074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)to list(074db819ec%END%074db819ec)

(074db819ec% IF user.email == 'brenno@dewinter.com' || is_owner %074db819ec) (074db819ec% END %074db819ec)
(074db819ec% END %074db819ec)

Pilch,

If they want to monopolise their calculation rule, they can still create a
system that keeps the rule separate from the kernel and interacts with the
kernel.  They can also create a free kernel patch that creates a perfectly
stable interface to the external patented calculation rule. In that case,
they could effectively make use of Linux while at the same time preventing
a free development of Linux-based systems.
Agreed. But that is the same as creating MS Office for Linux. A non-free system that runs on top of Linux. I don't see how we can prevent that. In the light of the project that would be a hard sell for the NSA, because integration into the kernel is part of their proposition (else the solution is less secure). That would mean they would have to devaluate their product to maintain a patent. That doesn't really help them out, does it?






(074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)Archive powered by(074db819ec%END%074db819ec) MhonArc 2.6.16.

(074db819ec%TAGS [% %]%074db819ec)