On Thu, May 04, 2000 at 09:39:32PM +0100, James Sutherland wrote:
> On Thu, 4 May 2000, Jim Driscoll wrote:
>
> > > 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? :-)
> > >
> > > I am surprised too. I never suggest anyone should "go open source",
> > > neither as a punishment or for any other reason.
>
> I'd be interested to know why Richard doesn't encourage people to publish
> their source code, personally...
>
Because simply making source code available doesn't do anyone any good. If
Microsoft's software was made free (libre) then I think that would be a
different matter.
Empracing an extending Bob Young's analogy in his recent defense of Free
Software (http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2560523,00.html), a
proprietary application is like a car with the hood welded shut. Free
software is like car hoods as we know them. Simply publishing the source code
under a non-free license is like having a car with a perspex hood - thats
welded shut (don't ask me how to weld perspex).
Ian
-- Ian McKellar | Email: yakk(a)yakk.net | Web: http://www.yakk.net/ Area: +61 (8) | Home: 9389 9152 | Fax/Voice: 9260 2903 | Work: 9384 4700- 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