🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sat, 03 Nov 2001 23:20:12 +1300 "Adam Warner" <usenet@consulting.net.nz> wrote:

> Some more antitrust news from Salon.com:

> 
>    III-I(5) says that [developers and hardware manufacturers] "may be
>    required to grant to Microsoft on reasonable and nondiscriminatory
>    terms a license to any intellectual property rights it may have
>    relating to the exercise of their options or alternatives provided by
>    this Final Judgment; the scope of such license shall be no broader than
>    is necessary to insure that Microsoft can provide such options or
>    alternatives." Microsoft will use this to argue that code under the GNU
>    General Public License (GPL) [which protects such software as GNU and
>    Linux] must be licensed to it on non-GPL terms, so they can use the
>    code in their own programs without having to GPL their programs.
> 
> ***** I missed this second point [III-I(5)] Please read it and understand
> the implications. *****

How can a judgememt against Microsoft, and a subsequent settlement
between the US government and Microsoft impose obligations on 
Microsoft's competitors? 

-- 
Stefaan (GPG Fingerprint 25D8 551B 4C0F BF73 3283 21F1 5978 D158 7539 76E4)
-- 
"Technically, Windows is an 'operating system,' which means that it
supplies your computer with the basic commands that it needs to
suddenly, with no warning whatsoever, stop operating." -Dave Barry