🚀 go-pugleaf

In <32IE7.4772$9M2.416694@news.xtra.co.nz>, Bryan Morgan wrote:

> I agree from the bits you posted (I didn't read the full article), that
> there appear to be few benefits for free software.  However, I do not
> believe this was the driving force for the settlement.  Isn't it the
> case that they wanted to clamp down on monoploy practises?  Doesn't this
> settlement open things up for other businesses (e.g. Real, IBM, Sun
> etc.) to get access to the information they need?  OK it doesn't make
> Microsoft's software 'free', but surely that cannot have been expected
> by anyone?

Bryan, I don't think I gave the impression that I wanted to see the DoJ
"make Microsoft's software 'free'". What can be expected is that people
working with free and open source software (and many of these people work
within your definition of "other businesses") should have "access to the
information they need" to create interoperable products. And it looks like
the terms for that access will be too onerous for such businesses to
license the information.

It is good to see a focus upon interoperability. I was just pointing out
that in my interpretation of the document you would only be able to access
communications protocol documentation on terms that would threaten free
software development. This is an entirely separate issue to making
Microsoft Windows free.

Regards,
Adam