1 Oct 2005 01:14
Re: libungif (was: Re: 2nd summary (was Re: [HEADSUP] ALL Maintainers, please reply.))
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 10:43:46 +0200, in gmane.os.cygwin.applications you wrote: >On Sep 28 20:10, Nicholas Wourms wrote: >> On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 15:06:31 -0500, in gmane.os.cygwin.applications >> you wrote: [SNIP] >I don't think the FSF information given on >http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/gif.html qualifies as FUD. > Well, every time we reach the date that the FSF says the patent expires, they "revise" it to include "new" information which wasn't previously known. I know for a fact that they've moved the goalpost at least 3 times since the original UNISYS expiration date. I find it rather suspicious, as if opposing LZW is institutional and they refuse to change. Since I am not RedHat and you are, of course you should do what you think is right. However, I would find it very bizaare to see IBM sue over the LZW patent after they just spent literally millions of $$$ fending off a lawsuit from SCO based on similar concepts. They are heavily focused on consulting/software and it would not be in their best interest to alienate the FSF community. That is why I call it FUD. Frankly, I don't understand why either RMS or ESR doesn't just talk to senior management at IBM and clear this up once and for all. >(Continue reading)
RSS Feed