Jeff Haynie reached a crossroads last summer. Haynie, CEO of Appcelerator, a firm that develops open source cross-platform application development software, made a decision filled with implications for his company's future.

I have the court documents for you in the i4i v. Microsoft case, the judgment, the permanent injunction, and the memorandum and order, which explains the legal reasoning in support of the order.

So, apparently Microsoft isn't allowed to use the docx format. Another company has patent on using XML for documents. Wonderful. I would love to be rejoicing in Microsoft's ailings... but I'm not. That's a friggin' rediculous patent.

What do all these licenses do for you? That's the 64 license question. Today I'm pondering if the current open source model is still valid or if it's outdated. Do we need licensing for open source software? Do we need the GPL, LGPL, APL and all the other licenses that plague...er, grace us? If your software is free and open source, why bother with a license at all?

I detailed some of my findings on the internet...They decided to put two security investigators on the case and they paid me a visit.

THERE seems to be some revisionist forgetfulness over in Denmark, which neglects to account for the OOXML fiasco

In Microsoft's Emergency Motion for a Stay of Injunction [PDF], it argues that it would be irreparably harmed without a stay, that it's in the public interest to avoid disruption to its business and its partners' businesses, and that while they expect to win on appeal, they'd then would be out all the expense of implementing the injunction.

What's the point of GPLv2 libraries? What's the purpose of libraries associated with licenses anyway? Do they provide useful guidance or impose annoying restrictions? Who wants to puzzle out the legalese of licenses and their appurtenances when working with code and systems that are supposed to be open?