On Thu, 4 May 2000, Jim Driscoll wrote:
> > I'd be interested to know why Richard doesn't encourage people to publish
> > their source code, personally...
>
> I think he's just griping about the term 'open source'.
Probably; he is a little biased here :)
> > > If Windows' source were opened, Microsoft could find itself in
> > a situation
> > > in which, in some areas at least, they are slower to improve
> > Windows than
> > > others are. That would be a little scary for Microsoft, and
> > perhaps quite
> > > good for the competition (hence the relevance) but it would have no real
> > > effect on Microsoft's ability to maintain a monopoly, so yes, it isn't
> > > exactly an appropriate action to take.
> >
> > On the contrary. Look at the issues with the NTFS driver now, for example:
> > if the Windows [NT] source were available (with the restriction on patent
> > usage) we could just read the source, and make the Linux driver work
> > perfectly (well, as well as their version does, anyway :P)
> >
> > Equally, the Wine project is hampered by the many undocumented API calls
> > used - while you can have "undocumented" calls in an open source OS,
> > there's nothing to stop you analysing the source code itself.
> >
> > Wine, Samba, the Linux kernel - there are plenty of open source projects
> > which would benefit from this.
>
> I agree, absolutely, particularly where Samba is concerned (However I
> suspect if any source will be opened it will be Windows 9x). But my point
> was that the decision of an appropriate action in the case should be taken
> with a view to ensuring it doesn't(or is less likely to) happen again.
> Opening the Windows codebase would be great for the OS community and it
> would strengthen companies competing with Microsoft (potentially), but
> nonetheless Microsoft would still be in a position in which it could without
> too much effort maintain/regain its monopoly. The idea of splitting the
> company up would actually be much more effective at ensuring that Microsoft
> is not a threat to competition.
This was my original point. Splitting MS up will do much more than opening
the source would. The proposed judgement, though, combines the best of
both: MS does get split, AND it is required to document the various
interfaces used.
> > Richard will probably object to my references to "open source", rather
> > than "free software"; I feel the former is more appropriate. The main
> > problem, I think, is the association between "free software"-FSF-GPL.
>
> Probably; however I think the more general (in some sense) term 'open
> source' is more appropriate when describing those who stand to gain from the
> opening of Windows' source.
Yes; I would consider "open source" more general than "free software",
which is why I use the former term rather than the latter.
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 - 21:00:16 EST