If you happen to believe that Microsoft could never open source one of its operating systems, think again.

When is an open source license not an open source license? The recent rush to "Open Core Licensing" as defined by Andrew Lampitt, the business development director of JasperSoft, raises many questions as to the meaning and purpose of free and open source software.

Keith Bergelt, CEO of the Open Invention Network (OIN), described the circumstances which led the company to recently purchase 22 Microsoft patents, as part of a talk at the first LinuxCon. While the circumstances surrounding that purchase were quite interesting—and indicative of Microsoft's patent strategy—he also described the mission of OIN as a protector of Linux from patent trolls.

We contacted Netgear to receive their perspective on the issue, and they wrote back to let us know that their Senior Product Line Manager Som Pal Choudhury has written a post which describes Netgear’s stance.

This article examines a field called compliance engineering. Compliance engineering was pioneered by technical experts who wanted to address misuses of software, and was made famous by gpl-violations.org, FSF, and similar organizations correcting Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) license violations.

It can be hard to get paid for producing free-licensed works. Software represents a niche where a lot of exceptions can be found, but for aesthetic works, the problem is severe. This has spurred a lot of innovative ideas for better incentive systems.

First they wrestled down Microsoft, now they're litigating against other big IT players: Eolas intends to enforce its patent on web technologies and plug-ins for integrating interactive content at all cost. However, a partner of the legal firm representing Eolas assured the readers of German Focus magazine that the vendor does not intend to cripple the internet.