<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Let&#8217;s Explore</title>
	<atom:link href="http://truthhappens.redhat.com/2007/10/29/lets-explore/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://truthhappens.redhat.com/2007/10/29/lets-explore/</link>
	<description>Just another WordPress.com weblog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Mar 2009 04:54:12 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Noah Clements</title>
		<link>http://truthhappens.redhat.com/2007/10/29/lets-explore/#comment-1134</link>
		<dc:creator>Noah Clements</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Oct 2007 20:30:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://truthhappens.redhatmagazine.com/2007/10/29/lets-explore/#comment-1134</guid>
		<description>Excellent!  I now take back the last two sentences and apologize for the snark.  To be honest I am pleasantly surprised that you will  be addressing the patent promise (hopefully) on these particulars.

The point I am most interested in is the unfairness of Red Hat&#039;s expecting a free grant of patent licenses from Microsoft without giving such a free grant in return.  Some of Red Hat&#039;s partners also have patents covering software included in the Enterprise version - does Red Hat likewise expect these partners to give it free licenses?

I found Mark Webbink&#039;s general post on patents very informative - all except his speculation on Microsoft&#039;s motivations behind their belated use of software patents (belated compared to Red Hat&#039;s partner IBM, certainly).  And I believe, as I&#039;m sure you do, that more discussion of the policies behind software patents and their (often poor) implementations in practice can only lead to better systems.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Excellent!  I now take back the last two sentences and apologize for the snark.  To be honest I am pleasantly surprised that you will  be addressing the patent promise (hopefully) on these particulars.</p>
<p>The point I am most interested in is the unfairness of Red Hat&#8217;s expecting a free grant of patent licenses from Microsoft without giving such a free grant in return.  Some of Red Hat&#8217;s partners also have patents covering software included in the Enterprise version &#8211; does Red Hat likewise expect these partners to give it free licenses?</p>
<p>I found Mark Webbink&#8217;s general post on patents very informative &#8211; all except his speculation on Microsoft&#8217;s motivations behind their belated use of software patents (belated compared to Red Hat&#8217;s partner IBM, certainly).  And I believe, as I&#8217;m sure you do, that more discussion of the policies behind software patents and their (often poor) implementations in practice can only lead to better systems.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
