Fedora/RH policies sometimes suck

[Andy Green]

Lyvim Xaphir wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-04-09 at 22:41 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 12:18:30PM +1000, Res wrote:
>>>> That's not "stripped", that's "can't legally include".
>>> BS, if the code producers have a complete package  and fedora decide they
>>> dont want to or cant for their own internal policy reasons include a part
>>> of it, thats STRIPPED, it is STRIPPED code that IS in the
>>> correct/real/publicly available TRUE source and binaries released by the
>>> code producers.
>> Again, nothing is stripped gratuitously. If it's not free software, it can't
>> be included.
> 
> Kinda funny how Apple doesn't have this kind of bullshit problem and
> their version of 'nix is working fine for everybody.  Kinda funny how
> Red Hat's profits are down by 25% this last quarter and Ubunto continues
> to accelerate.

Well, what Apple does have is a fat patent portfolio and a competitor 
that is probably treading on some of the UI ones at least.  So Apple 
doesn't get bullied and threatened by MSFT in the way Redhat does.  It's 
not so funny when you look at it that way.

BSD works fine for sure, but this "kind of bullshit problem" is about 
patent covering something that a usermode app is doing.  Apple might 
have reason not to fear patent attacks from Microsoft, but Redhat has 
good reason to fear it all right.

I wasn't able to work out how RHAT's profits and Ubuntu's apparent 
popularity tied into this Open Office patent issue.  Interesting to know 
if Apple and Ubuntu ship a version of OpenOffice with their own hands 
that includes this allegedly dodgy feature though.

-Andy