Recently word started getting around that the terms for getting apps on Windows Phone 7, and indie games on the Xbox, have changed. Now, programs submitted to Microsoft cannot have any code licensed under a copyleft license. Even if a single file is licensed under a weaker copyleft license like the LGPL, Microsoft will apparently reject it.

In a world of technology openness is often treated as an imperative, something that has to be preserved or promoted as something inherently good. I’ve been a long time believer in this idea myself, but as I watch the evolution of technology I’m beginning to question its value and underpinnings. What exactly is it that makes openness worthy of a pedestal it’s often being put on?

The LPI gets into very bad company and heads off to play in a proprietary corporate playground.

When someone searches for OpenOffice, Firefox, VLC or any other popular open source package on the internet, are they necessarily going to get the genuine article?

In true open source fashion, the community debates the most important issue of the day

I for one, think we should remove the kernel version number from dmesg output. I mean, it's changing all the time anyways.

In other words, making Linux boot loaders work with secure boot would require breaking their licensing requirements, and arguably the spirit of Free Open Source Software as well.

What to buy and what to avoid for a truly DRM-Free Christmas. Add your own suggestions to the list.