[linux-elitists] FAT is the new GIF?

Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com
Fri Feb 27 08:18:40 PST 2009

On 2009-02-26 at 21:38:57 -0500, Dave Crossland <dave@lab6.com> wrote:
> 2009/2/27 Jason Spence <jspence@lightconsulting.com>:
>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 01:13:09AM +0000, Dave Crossland wrote:
>>> 2009/2/27 Jason Spence <jspence@lightconsulting.com>:
>>>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 12:56:02AM +0000, Dave Crossland wrote:
>>>>> 2009/2/27 Jason Spence <jspence@lightconsulting.com>:
>>>>>> the only motivation I can think of would
>>>>>> be Microsoft demanding higher license fees for FAT implementations.
>>>>> Maybe I've misunderstood the lawsuit, but er, isn't that what just started?
>>>> [higher than] $250,000 per [distributor]
>>> Doesn't higher than $0 per distributor chill free software?
>> It depends.
>> Therefore, if you mean free-as-in-beer when you're talking about free
>> software, the chilling effect may be negated by the fact that it's
>> dumb for people to sue you for infringing.
>> But if you mean free-as-in-libre and you're collecting cash money,
>> yeah, there's probably going to be a chilling effect.
> Debian, Ubuntu and Fedora (and perhaps OpenSUSE, didn't Novell get
> that spun out to a non-profit legal structure recently..? I forget)
> are all run by free-as-in-beer shell non-profits, backed by (in
> Debian's case, a consortium, and otherwise Canonical and RedHat) large
> corporate sponsors. GNOME is similar to Debian, with multiple backers.

This is incorrect. Fedora is not run by a shell non-profit. We
researched doing this at one point, but decided against it for a number
of reasons (including that US non-profit entities cannot take the
majority of their funding from a single source, which would be Red Hat
in the case of Fedora).


More information about the linux-elitists mailing list