Red Hat and Novell stood up to a patent bully and got a favorable jury verdict in the IPI trial which invalidated some software patents that should never have been issued. It's hard to see how that's not a good thing for open source. It's also good that the particular battle has inspired discussion of the need for fundamental reform of the U.S. patent system.

At last! Novell responds to SCO's motion for judgment in SCO's favor as a matter of law or for a new trial. It will not surprise you that they oppose, arguing that SCO is entitled to neither, that its position is ludicrous

Fluendo S.A. announces its first webinar entitled "Solving the Legal Puzzle of Linux Deployments" aimed understanding the legal implications o0f Linux deployments.

Only two countries in the world have software patents which make it impossible to freely use video codecs such as AVC (H.264). [The Wild Fox project] aims to release Firefox builds with the features previously excluded due to software patents. This software will be available to those in non-software patent encumbered countries.

Without a Fair Troll, it (Defensive Patent License supporters) is just a "Coalition of the Harmless". What's needed is at least one (ideally more than one) entity that will assert patents from the DPL pool very aggressively and systematically against entities who don't support the DPL.

Crimes aside, the obvious technical pitfalls of OOXML are made more apparent, whereas ODF proves to be future-proof because of its reuse of existing standards

Developers, exercising their legal right specify their own licensing terms, have come up with some pretty whacky stuff. Fact or fiction? Some software is only legal to use after you are dead.

Alfresco, SpringSource, Signavio, and Camunda collaboration born out of ISV weariness of GNU Lesser General Public License