🚀 go-pugleaf

Adam Warner wrote:
> 
> [Cross-posted to gnu.misc.discuss because of the RAND licensing terms that
> will make this settlement almost cetainly meaningless for free software].
> 
> http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-201-7758181-0.html
> 
>    Microsoft shall not retaliate against an OEM...because it is known to
>    Microsoft that the OEM is or is contemplating:
> 
>    ...
> 
>    2. shipping a Personal Computer that (a) includes both a Windows
>    Operating System Product and a non-Microsoft Operating System, or (b)
>    will boot with more than one Operating System; or

How on earth is anyone supposed to tell if Microsoft is retaliating
or not?  Microsoft can retaliate in very subtle ways by just
changing the source code so that all of a sudden an OEM's machine
doesn't work so well with Microsoft's operating system.

Unless Microsoft's operating system is made into an open source
system like Linux, there is absolutely no way a 3 person enforcement
team can look over the few million lines of code in Windows to enforce
the above requirements.

Once again, the Justice Department has absolutely no clue about how
software is designed.  The result is an unenforceable agreement
that still allows Microsoft to do whatever they want.

And even if Microsoft was to make its source code available to
the whole world to see if there was something actually wrong
with the code, no one else would have the right to change 
and distribute it.  So the whole world would still have beg
Microsoft to make changes to support their hardware.  They
can still perform the same "wait until the next release"
routine, and basically let the companies they don't like
go out of business in the meantime.


-----=  Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News  =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
 Check out our new Unlimited Server. No Download or Time Limits!
-----==  Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers!  ==-----