Re: The i2o Bus: A Conspiracy Against Free Software? (fwd)

Juan Jose Casero (casero@kali.cox.miami.edu)
Fri, 18 Jul 1997 15:01:22 -0400 (EDT)


This is probably the best idea. If no one makes a stink about something
like this sooner or later those of us who like free software will be in
trouble. What it amounts to is a reduction of the available options for
consumers. There must be something wron with that.

Juan Casero
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evanseck Research Group
Department of Chemistry
University of Miami
Coral Gables, Florida
email: casero@kali.cox.miami.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
__ _
/ / (_)__ __ ____ __
/ /__/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / . . . t h e c h o i c e o f a
/____/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ G N U g e n e r a t i o n . . .

On Fri, 18 Jul 1997, Dan Hollis wrote:

> On Fri, 18 Jul 1997, Tethys wrote:
> > >The fact remains however that this new "standard" is a threat to the whole
> > >idea of free software. They want control over who has access to the
> > >hardware so they can keep thier grip on the market.
> > Agreed. The web site claims the NDA is necessary so they can ensure strict
> > comformance to the i2o standard, and control the i2o-{ready,compliant}
> > marketing phrases.
> >
> > A free licence to anyone meeting publicly available comformance tests would
> > achieve the same effect, though. As you say, the real reason is so they
> > can keep their grip on the market.
>
> Someone should make a comprehensive web page about why I2O is wrong, why
> the NDA is wrong, the real reason behind the NDA, why I2O is nothing new,
> compare I2O to MCA (that should scare a lot of management types), etc.
>
> Then notify as many journalists as possible.
>
> There needs to be a public outcry _against_ I2O ASAP. Also, a public
> education campaign would be good, hence the need for a page.
>
> -Dan
>
>