Pour les juristes a l'origine de ce nouveau FUD, pour au minimum l'un d'eux, groklaw fait une petite remarque:
The lawyer who wrote about the header files, Edward Naughton, has a bio page at his law firm. Today it looks like this. But he recently changed it, stripping out the name Microsoft from his bio and replacing it with "a Fortune 50 software company". Now why might that happen? Here's how it used to look, as you can verify in Google cache for a little while longer (just go to Google, search for http://www.brownrudnick.com/bio/bio.asp?ID=512&ForwdName=Edward+J.+Naughton
and then click on cache), in the part where he lists his successes for clients:
Co-counsel defending Microsoft against a putative consumer class action alleging that it had violated wiretapping statutes and common law privacy rights by designing Windows to permit third parties to place cookies on computers. Obtained dismissal of complaint....
Represented Microsoft in several dozen lawsuits against resellers and corporate end-users of counterfeit, infringing, and unlicensed software.
Why so modest? Might it be possible that he or the firm decided it would be prudent to remove that connecting link once his article claiming Google might be in legal trouble over the GPL appeared on Huffington Post?
I'll let you be the judge. But shades of Get the Facts, y'all.
C'est fou comme des qu'il y a une attaque contre Google ou contre le libre on trouve toujours la meme boite lie d'une facon ou d'une autre.
[^] # Re: On en a déjà parle mais depuis...
Posté par Albert_ . En réponse au journal [ en attendant Vendredi ] Google, Linux et GPL. Évalué à 4.
Pour les juristes a l'origine de ce nouveau FUD, pour au minimum l'un d'eux, groklaw fait une petite remarque:
C'est fou comme des qu'il y a une attaque contre Google ou contre le libre on trouve toujours la meme boite lie d'une facon ou d'une autre.