GPL code, you cannot. One of the good things about the GPL. If there's GPL code in a product, you have to release the source code.

Yes... that's a "good thing." No offense, but I'm not fond of the idea of opening intellectual property up for all to see. If people want to see if I've used GPL code, fine -- I'll show them the part of GPL code I've used. But the fact that I need to disclose my entire source code, freely for all to see?

freebsd, anyone? :D

Following a link in a recent TR article about Mike Dell, I downloaded and installed ubuntu on an unused PC at home, although I've never used Linux in my life (I don't even pronounce it correctly, apparently).

I was doing everything I like to do on my computer in no time.

I recently replaced my Vista upgrade with my original XP O/S, since neither my graphics card or HP printer worked properly with Vista (not to mention my older versions of software, like AutoCAD).

If Linux infringes on Microsoft patents, prehaps the Linux folks can explain the patents to Microsoft.

The way I see it, the objective for the FUD is two fold.

(1) To scare business customers into buying licenses that MS bought from Novell from their deal last year. => "If you don't buy the distro of Linux we provide, there *could* be legal issues because of patent violations!"

You can call this a protection racket.

(2) To try and get as many commercial Linux providers to do similar deals with them. ("Novell-MS like" deals). Why? If they have enough parties rolling over, they can reduce the adoption of GPLv3. (GPLv3 renders such future MS-Novell like deals useless...But it won't be in affect until July/August).

At the moment (1) will work on some businesses, but not all. However, (2) isn't gonna work. No commercial Linux provider would want to face such negative response (the community feels like they were betrayed) in PR. Remember, this is the very community that creates the software that their solutions depend on! (You don't bite the hands that feed you unless you're on the same mental capacity as the RIAA).

I wonder if this litigation is because Dell is going to start offering Ubuntu on its PCs.

I guess this means they're tired of going after Windows pirates and they'd rather rake in the cash from folks who don't even use their operating systems. Genius!

In the case that the patents are valid, changing the code after the fact doesn't change the fact that Linux shipped with infringing code and RedHat et al are still liable.

Thanks for pointing out the obvious, but I guess it takes someone famous saying it for common sense to see any press coverage.

Microsoft sues Linus Torvalds claiming it has 2,713 patents on FUD.

I figured most people would understand that to mean that the Linux vendor would cover all legal fees incurred by the customer in regards to patent litigation arising from Microsoft's claim that Linux infringes it patents.

This is not an unreasonable guarantee for the vendor. It would also be wise for all Linux vendors (except Novell who already has a patent agreement with MS) to pool their resources to fight Microsoft, basically ensuring that each vendor has the other's back.

These are common sense assurances to the customer. How would you like Microsoft software to be found violating patents and they basically throw you to the sharks. They would take the hit, I assure you.

Let's see who the bigger infringer is, shall we?

"The company [Microsoft] is no stranger to patent law disputes. From April 2004 through to March 2007 the company paid $1.25bn to Sun Microsystems, $536m to Novell, $440m to InterTrust, $60m to Burst.com, $6m to private inventor Carlos Amado, $115m to z4 Technologies, $74m to Korean company P&IB, and most recently, $1.52bn to Alcatel-Lucent over patents allegedly infringed by Microsoft's software." -- http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2189833/microsoft-claims-patents-...

Before then we had the Timeline Inc. vs Microsoft dispute where Timeline was going after MS end-users (who were not protected by MS). Not sure how that ended...

The way to end this FUD storm is for the Linux vendors to come out and guarantee that they will cover any legal expenses their customers might incur from patent litigation with Microsoft.

That will do two things. First, it will give the customer confidence in their open-source software and second it will throw the gauntlet down to Microsoft basically saying if you want to make these claims, go after your own loyal customers and we'll back them while you rape them. The added benefit is it will also make Microsoft reveal these "mystery patents" (OooOooooOoooooh) just as Linus stated.

Well at least he said it. Its the same thing everyone I know has already been saying, but now maybe it'll mean something.

... and i agree with Linus completely. Nothing new here - just the same old MS tactics.

title should read: Linus Torvalds calls Microsoft patent claims FUD