On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 8:27 PM, Dave Neary <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > On 08/02/2011 11:59 AM, Jeremiah Foster wrote: >> >> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 9:44 AM, David Greaves<[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> "The Linux Foundation have told us in private conversations that they >>> will >>> not permit apps.meego.com to be served from the MeeGo.com infrastructure >>> hosted by them. They do not have the resource at this time to provide a >>> statement giving their reasons. We can not assess what other services may >>> be >>> impacted in the future." >> >> This type of behavior is fundamentally anti-community. This shows the >> Linux Foundation's complete disinterest in users and developers, >> they're beholden to the corporate "sponsors" and donors who pay their >> bills. > > It's certainly easy to characterise things this way - but I think it's a > cheap shot, and not a fair reflection on the Linux Foundation.
Hardly cheap Dave. I'd say its rather expensive as my company and many of the companies we work with have assigned developers to work with LF tools and distro's like MeeGo and OBS. If we cannot develop things like app stores to compete with Google and Apple then we've invested considerable money at a significant loss. We cannot generate revenue through the "authorized" app delivery mechanism. Sorry, I don't see how this is not a fair reflection of the Linux Foundation. > From where I am standing, with no special knowledge at all, it looks like > the Linux Foundation is simply a risk-averse organisation, conscious of the > potential knock-on effects that any legal issues could cause for their > members and the projects they host. This is extremely dangerous. It goes against the precedent that says "there exist no legal claims against Linux." Linus has always said, if there is something in Linux that belongs to someone else, point to the code. That hasn't happened. Microsoft used to scream and shout that they have proprietary technology in Linux, but they've never pointed to a single line of code and today they contribute to Linux. This is the path every company should take and if the LF itself starts to doubt it's own legal positions, where will we end up? We'll end up with a lot of vague patent claims and no users. > It looks to me like legal counsel has a > pretty big say in some strategic decisions the foundation makes, more so > than corporate members (in fact, there are a couple of examples of corporate > members pushing for things which met with some resistance in the Linux > Foundation). I don't know what you're referring to - perhaps you do have some "special knowledge?" > If my impression is correct, then you're not achieving anything with this > characterisation - Obviously I disagree. I think devs who get involved with a LF project should know how they treat devs and the faux legal hurdles they face. Knowing this before hand helps them make the right decision when it is time to contribute code. > on the contrary, our potential advocates inside the > foundation I prefer my real advocates to the potential ones. And I have enough of those, Software Freedom Law Center, Software in the Public Interest, Free Software Foundation, Free Software Foundation Europe, etc. > and among their members are reading what you write, I doubt it, but I hope so. > while the > legal advisors responsible for the decision are not; you're potentially > forcing potential allies to circle the wagons, so to speak. An 18th century metaphor for a 21st century problem! :-) > I obviously hope that we find a way around the issues - perhaps EU hosting, > a different domain name, or a second legal opinion judging that the risk is > acceptable - but let's try not to be too hasty with the finger-pointing. Let's have a discussion about it shall we? And during the discussion some people might express strong opinions about the best way to do things. They may be right. But in the end, developers vote with their contributions, so we can molly coddle a thousand legal eagles and not advance GNU/Linux one tiny inch forward. David Greaves has done the only logical thing when you hit an impasse; fork. LF bears some of the responsibility for this situation and to let them avoid it in their stony silence is irresponsible. Regards, Jeremiah _______________________________________________ MeeGo-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev http://wiki.meego.com/Mailing_list_guidelines
