At OSCON, Mark Shuttleworth, founder of Canonical, says he doubts Microsoft would file a claim against Linux developers.

Setting the legal nuances of the chosen open source license aside, wouldn't two products under any open source license have the same claim to the open source moniker?

Long time followers of the ODF-OOXML story will recall that there is a third editable, XML-based document format in the race to create the documentary record of history. That contender is called UOF - for Uniform Office Format, and it has been under development in China since 2002, although I first heard and wrote about it back in November of 2006.

In Judge Dale Kimball's recent order in SCO v. Novell, he accepted SCO's story about licensing practices. I think that was a mistake, and I'd like to show you why I think so. Here's what he wrote:UNIX licensees often distributed and used binary products that included code from multiple releases of System V.

The GPL v3 Watch List is intended to give you a snapshot of the GPLv3/LGPLv3 adoption for July 11th through Juky 18th, 2008.

A frequent meme in piracy trash talking is that piracy is linked to malware (example). If your child is downloading pirated material (so the argument goes) they will be downloading it from a malware infected site and infecting their own computer resulting in poor performance, data loss and ID theft. A variant of this argument is that the downloads expose the kids to evil pornographers.

SC34 jumps the gun, assumes OOXML is an ISO standard, and treats only legacy ODF

Mark Webbink becomes the Executive Director of Peer to Patent; Finjan and Blackboard reappear