Proprietary software, we all know it, almost all of us have once used it. Video games are software, and the majority of all games on the market are still proprietary. When a free game uses a popular GNU/Linux distribution logo, therefore, trademark, to describe something; most GNU/Linux distribution vendors let it slide.

Cory Doctorow just gets it. Here is what he said about copyright accusations. “The Internet’s a single wire that delivers freedom of speech, of assembly and of the press — it’s a conduit for civic engagement, health care, employment, education, distant family, love and life.

Simon Phipps speaks against intellectual property; software patents suffer in the US

«...The GPL is designed to put big corporations like Microsoft and individual contributors on equal footing," said Kuhn.

This time, Microsoft may have outdone themselves with a proposed patent of such breathtaking hubris that it makes their previous FUD pale by comparison.

RMS: « A US court rejected the RIAA's claim that every copy shared P2P means a lost sale. The outcome is nonetheless an injustice. Noncommercial sharing, and noncommercially helping people to share, must be legal. »

Will the friction between GPL and other licences finally start persuading projects that free != GPL, and that BSD-style licences better suit their needs? Or will it just be that GPLv3 fails to make headway?

Jim Allchin's plan to use patents to scare customers who consider or evaluate GNU/Linux