On Tue, 2 May 2000, David Schwartz wrote:
>
> > I proposed other remedies that I think would be more beneficial to
> > free software development than releasing the Windows source code. The
> > URL might be http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/microsoft-remedies.html; if
> > not, look for it in http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/.
>
> Since the express purpose of the anti-trust laws is to preserve and protect
> commercial competition, remedies aimed at any other goal will be dismissed
> by the judge without further consideration.
Particularly the third item - restrict Microsoft's ability to endorse
non-free hardware?! The second - patent restrictions - is a bit
implausible too.
What interests me, though, is why people keep suggesting that forcing MS
to go open source would be the ideal punishment. Since when was releasing
your OS source code a punishment? :-)
IMO, the proposed solution (the govt's, not RMS's!) is a pretty good one.
It could do with a little refinement, and a few more restrictions in
places, but it could be quite effective.
(The nearby article on how the GPL should be used to keep "free" software
proprietary to the GPL crowd, locking out non-GPL users, was also
interesting. Some new definition of "freedom" which hasn't quite made it
into my language yet?)
James.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun May 07 2000 - 21:00:11 EST