Funding FSF's fight vs. Microsoft

Don't worry about funding in this case. Not only would Microsoft hurt its image if it went litigious, but it would also see many companies that have Linux and FLOSS in their environment throwing cash at the FSF.

Microsoft won't pull an SCO, yet.

This article is an embarrassment to InfoWorld. If there is a court fight, the Software Freedom Law Center will be leading it, and they have plenty of funds from IBM, HP, et. al. The GPLv3 was written by the SFLC along with the top attorneys from the aforementioned major technology companies, they had a conference call every other week for 18 months! MicroSoft knows they aren't suing the FSF, they are suing the rest of the tech business community.

If I was editing InfoWorld, I'd examine my quality processes.

jwwjr

@jwwjr

Thanks for the information. I really did not know and most of what I've read indicated this is a FSF issue. But again, thanks for the clarification. I've emailed the Software Freedom Law Center to get a copy of their public financials.

BTW, this is a blog at InfoWorld and neither I, nor the others that blog at Open Sources are "professional journalists"....so, the "quality processes" includes folks like yourself to keep us honest. I've said I'm looking forward to learning from our readers, so I do hope you (and others) will excuse a few missteps such as this case.

@roy & @jwwjr - Who's saying Microsoft is going to go litigious on the GPLv3 topic? As far as I can tell, and I am in no way a lawyer, Microsoft would be the defendant and the SFLC/FSF/XYZ would be on the offensive. Microsoft just basically said "GPLv3 doesn't apply to us or what we've done". I'm not sure they need to do much else. If another party wants to test Microsoft's argument in court, they'd need to take MSFT to court, right?

@jwwjr, as promised: Here is the financial data for SFLC. You can get this data via free registration with http://www.guidestar.com

For tax year ending January 31, 2006 (i.e. 2005 data)
$1,685,070 in revenue
$1,175,742 in expenses
$509,328 in net assets

@ Savio, I think jwwjr went a little over the line. It's a blog and comments/discussion is what makes it a brainstorm, not just factual statements. That's where ideas can be formed.

Keep up the good work.

@ Savio, I'm with Roy. Let's not take this jwwjr person too seriously. He didn't even bother to identify himself/herself with a name, email or URL.

Seems to me that this person doesn't have the basics of blogosphere community participation etiquette down. How embarassing for him/her. :)

Keep up the good work, your posts are well intentioned and thought provoking.

Savio,

This may have been another anonymous astroturfers. I urge you to see:

http://weblog.infoworld.com/openresource/archives/2007/05/sco_was_microso.html

WATCH THE COMMENT:

,----[ Quote ]
| Backhanded compliments are always transparent. If you want your blog to
| have any credibility at all, you might want to consider putting some
| facts in with your opinion. You might also consider putting more of
| your own words in a blog post. You seem to have put the other blog'sw
| ords in your own little wrapper -- hoping to get credit for the ideas.
|
|
| [MATT'S NOTE: The IP address for this one came from One Microsoft
| Way in Redmond, WA. Imagine that.]
| Posted by: Tobin (Microsoft Employee) at May 29, 2007 08:39 AM
`----

They play hardball.

You never know...