So, negotiations between Red Hat and Microsoft appear to be ongoing in the media. [...] So, let's see. How does this work? "I got it and you got it but *I* make money when you use it." Who wouldn't want that? Um... Red Hat. Why not, Microsoft beguiles. I'll tip you. And, by the way, I won't interoperate with you unless you agree.

When Motorola decided to write an "open source" Service Availability Framework they, perhaps unknowingly, illustrated a disturbing trend in the FOSS (free and open source software) world. The new OpenSAF initiative is designed to "[u]tilize an open source licensing model not tied to any commercial implementation" and in doing so remove the need for vendors to implement their own proprietary infrastructure code. Naturally, Motorola describes their motivation to the trade press (Internet News, July 2007) as an example of their desire "to get people to move away from building proprietary platforms"

The Free Software Foundation on Friday released the third version of the GNU General Public License. The FSF says GPL v3 sets its sights on protecting users freedom to run, adapt, improve and redistribute free software. It also sets its sights on Tivoization -- the practice of trapping free software inside closed

Swiftfox is nice and fast Firefox replacement, it is an optimized built of Firefox. Some of us are using it. But, everything can't be so good. Why we shouldn't "get Swiftfox"?

There will be plenty of misinformation around the GPLv3 - and a lot of it spread by writers who see it as a threat to their own business. The reasoning runs thus: "More commercialisation of the FOSS industry will mean more advertising - and that means more profits for our businesses. Let's oppose anything that comes in the way.

Sun has so far elected not to use the GPLv3 for OpenSolaris, despite hinting previously that this was under consideration. They argue that CDDL is a polished version of a pouplar license family, and thus needs no replacement.

Does anyone else wonder why Microsoft was in such an awful hurry to line up partnership deals with Linux vendors before the final release of GPL 3? They surely must have known that the patent promise aspect of these deals were going to be rendered moot if Linux were licensed under GPL 3.

Stallman added that it's extremely important for Free Software users to upgrade their licenses to GPLv3 so that Novell will eventually put in the new version and the community will get this benefit.

Stallman advised viewers to be wary of those that advise against moving to GPLv3.