🚀 go-pugleaf

philh@vision25.demon.co.uk (phil hunt) writes:

> Microsoft is guilty, Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!!!!!!!
> 
> The only think that remains to be decided is what sentence the judge will
> pass. Personally, I favour The Chair, but I will admit there is much to
> be said for a lethal injection.

But how do you apply either to a company?

Is splitting them up into a lot of monopolies all specialists in several
areas (particularly if they're all part of the "M$loth Group", or whatever)
any good?

Would the open-source community be interested in hacking Windoze code,
should (for example) IE5 be open-sourced?

~Tim
-- 
| Geek Code: GCS dpu s-:+ a-- C++++ UBLUAVHSC++++ P+++ L++ E--- W+++(--) N++ 
| w--- O- M-- V-- PS PGP++ t--- X+(-) b D+ G e++(*) h++(*) r--- y-	     
| The sun is melting over the hills,         | http://piglet.is.dreaming.org/
| All our roads are waiting / To be revealed | piglet@glutinous.custard.org

In article <m34s9i43ew.fsf@thyme.td.micromuse.co.uk>,
Tim Haynes <piglet@glutinous.custard.org> wrote:
>philh@vision25.demon.co.uk (phil hunt) writes:
>
>> Microsoft is guilty, Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!!!!!!!
>> 
>> The only think that remains to be decided is what sentence the judge will
>> pass. 

>Would the open-source community be interested in hacking Windoze code,
>should (for example) IE5 be open-sourced?

Rex Ballard has described how Microsoft uses non-disclosure 
agreements to prevent competitors like Linux from obtaining 
the details of various essential hardware and software 
interfaces.  MS should be required to stop this practice, 
and the current NDAs should be rescinded.

Search DejaNews ("power search") with:

author = ballard  

keyword = microsoft & (non-disclosure | nda*)

Tim Haynes <piglet@glutinous.custard.org> wrote:
>Is splitting them up into a lot of monopolies all specialists in several
>areas (particularly if they're all part of the "M$loth Group", or whatever)
>any good?

If their applications division is separate from their OS division, they no
longer have the same interest in having their applications only run on
Windows; they can maximise their profit by porting them everywhere.
Arguably, the suddenly not completely crap MacOS support we've seen
recently is in preparation for this.

Likewise, the OS division maximise profit by ensuring that everyone's apps
run well on their OS.

In the long term, of course, they make less money than they would from an
unholy alliance (like the situation at present) where Windows-specific
apps make one run Windows, and the fact that Microsoft apps work better on
Windows than (say) Corel's apps do makes one buy those; but they see a
short-term profit boost if they defect, and...
-- 
David/Kirsty Damerell.                       damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk
CUWoCS President.  http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~damerell/   Hail Eris!
|___|  You bought a mask: I put it on: you never thought to ask me if I wear
| | |  it when you're gone.     The Sisters of Mercy: When You Don't See Me.

An intersting wrangle is I *believe* the VAST majority of MS profit is NOT
from the OS.

Also there is a school of thought that believes MS will give away personal
(not server) versions of Windoze when Linux and/or something else really
hits the mainstream (i.e. average Joe on the street)

Simon

David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in article
<ubA*f4Noo@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>...
> Tim Haynes <piglet@glutinous.custard.org> wrote:
> >Is splitting them up into a lot of monopolies all specialists in several
> >areas (particularly if they're all part of the "M$loth Group", or
whatever)
> >any good?
> 
> If their applications division is separate from their OS division, they
no
> longer have the same interest in having their applications only run on
> Windows; they can maximise their profit by porting them everywhere.
> Arguably, the suddenly not completely crap MacOS support we've seen
> recently is in preparation for this.
> 
> Likewise, the OS division maximise profit by ensuring that everyone's
apps
> run well on their OS.
> 
> In the long term, of course, they make less money than they would from an
> unholy alliance (like the situation at present) where Windows-specific
> apps make one run Windows, and the fact that Microsoft apps work better
on
> Windows than (say) Corel's apps do makes one buy those; but they see a
> short-term profit boost if they defect, and...
> -- 
> David/Kirsty Damerell.                      
damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk
> CUWoCS President.  http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~damerell/   Hail
Eris!
> |___|  You bought a mask: I put it on: you never thought to ask me if I
wear
> | | |  it when you're gone.     The Sisters of Mercy: When You Don't See
Me.
> 

David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:

> Tim Haynes <piglet@glutinous.custard.org> wrote:
> >Is splitting them up into a lot of monopolies all specialists in several
> >areas (particularly if they're all part of the "M$loth Group", or whatever)
> >any good?
> 
> If their applications division is separate from their OS division, they
> no longer have the same interest in having their applications only run on
> Windows; they can maximise their profit by porting them everywhere.

And will Orifice 2001 "for linux" be written to use GTK+? (Or QT for those
who absolutely have to be so inclined :) Or will it be basically a port
like *Orifice where the interface implementation bloats all usability out
of the underlying desktop?

> Arguably, the suddenly not completely crap MacOS support we've seen
> recently is in preparation for this.

Interesting idea (says me, with powerbook on the way soon, I hope ;)

> Likewise, the OS division maximise profit by ensuring that everyone's
> apps run well on their OS.
> 
> In the long term, of course, they make less money than they would from an
> unholy alliance (like the situation at present) where Windows-specific
> apps make one run Windows, and the fact that Microsoft apps work better
> on Windows than (say) Corel's apps do makes one buy those; but they see a
> short-term profit boost if they defect, and...

Sounds frightfully confuddling, and still rather "80s" commercial (as in
commercial-multiple-UNIXen, not just NT.v.world).

I'm still sort of wondering about whether a true open-source fan will note
the OS-independence and take up porting windoze apps to everything or
whether some bigotry is allowed. Or indeed whether there's not already too
much of the "linux *is* 'open-source'" opposite at the moment.

I feel like the Sourcerer in PTerry's 'Sourcery'... world just not big
enough for the philosophies... ;|

~Tim
-- 
| Geek Code: GCS dpu s-:+ a-- C++++ UBLUAVHSC++++ P+++ L++ E--- W+++(--) N++ 
| w--- O- M-- V-- PS PGP++ t--- X+(-) b D+ G e++(*) h++(*) r--- y-	     
| The sun is melting over the hills,         | http://piglet.is.dreaming.org/
| All our roads are waiting / To be revealed | piglet@glutinous.custard.org

On 04 Apr 2000 10:32:39 +0100, 
Tim Haynes <piglet@glutinous.custard.org> wrote:
>philh@vision25.demon.co.uk (phil hunt) writes:
>
>> Microsoft is guilty, Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!!!!!!!
>> 
>> The only think that remains to be decided is what sentence the judge will
>> pass. Personally, I favour The Chair, but I will admit there is much to
>> be said for a lethal injection.
>
>But how do you apply either to a company?

I was thinking of Bill Gates personally. Embrace and extend his
neck, with a noose!

>Is splitting them up into a lot of monopolies all specialists in several
>areas (particularly if they're all part of the "M$loth Group", or whatever)
>any good?
>
>Would the open-source community be interested in hacking Windoze code,
>should (for example) IE5 be open-sourced?

Probably not.

But if Windows + Office were open sourced, i would expect companies to 
come forward to sell Windows+Office distributions, and perhaps add their
own enhancements. Like Red Hat with Linux.

In fact, RH might even come up with their own Windows distro -- obviously
if they did, it'd come with tools to make it work well with Linux; for
example it'd be able to read ext2 partitions.


-- 
***** Phil Hunt ***** send email to phil@comuno.com *****
Moore's Law: hardware speed doubles every 18 months
Gates' Law: software speed halves every 18 months 

On Tue, 4 Apr 2000 16:44:52 +0100, phil hunt <philh@vision25.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
>But if Windows + Office were open sourced, i would expect companies to 
>come forward to sell Windows+Office distributions, and perhaps add their
>own enhancements. Like Red Hat with Linux.

Been there, done that. IBM tried the "better Windows than Windows" bit with
OS/2, and fell flat on its corporate face. While a lot of the blame for that
has to be laid squarely at the feet of IBM's abysmal marketing, there's a
lesson there for anyone who would try to compete with Windows by trying to
out-Windows them: M$ was able to position Windows as the only way to run
Windows apps by making gratuitously incompatible changes and then trumpeting
their status as the only system what would run the changed programs. IBM was
perpetually plying catchup.

This is why I believe that open-sourcing Windows itself, and/or licensing
others to modify and sell it, will not curb M$'s monopoly abuses. That would
do nothing to prevent M$ from selling their version of Windows as the only
one, true, guaranteed-to-be-compatible-with-everything-past-future-and-
present Windows, and consumers would stick with theirs. It's a nice visible
patch that corrects nothing fundamental.

"Merrill Lynch" <anybody@ml.com> writes upside-down:

> An intersting wrangle is I *believe* the VAST majority of MS profit is
> NOT from the OS.
> 
> Also there is a school of thought that believes MS will give away
> personal (not server) versions of Windoze when Linux and/or something
> else really hits the mainstream (i.e. average Joe on the street)

Sounds like a bad strategy to me. Trying to give something away for zero
money but also with no source won't win more converts (everyone who wants
'doze already has it courtesy of the M$loth tax) and will just make
revealing its instabilities all the easier :)

~Tim
-- 
| Geek Code: GCS dpu s-:+ a-- C++++ UBLUAVHSC++++ P+++ L++ E--- W+++(--) N++ 
| w--- O- M-- V-- PS PGP++ t--- X+(-) b D+ G e++(*) h++(*) r--- y-	     
| The sun is melting over the hills,         | http://piglet.is.dreaming.org/
| All our roads are waiting / To be revealed | piglet@glutinous.custard.org

Tim Haynes <piglet@glutinous.custard.org> wrote:
>David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
>>Tim Haynes <piglet@glutinous.custard.org> wrote:
>>>Is splitting them up into a lot of monopolies all specialists in several
>>>areas (particularly if they're all part of the "M$loth Group", or whatever)
>>>any good?
>>If their applications division is separate from their OS division, they
>>no longer have the same interest in having their applications only run on
>>Windows; they can maximise their profit by porting them everywhere.
>And will Orifice 2001 "for linux" be written to use GTK+? (Or QT for those

Perhaps you've misunderstood me; it's not that I think Orifice for Linux
would be a useful tool for the likes of us; just that, once the apps are
widely ported, there won't be the same pressure to use Windows; and once
other software vendors can write just as effectively for Windows, there
won't be the same pressure to use the Microsoft apps; if that happens,
they've lost the stranglehold on the market, and that's good.
-- 
David/Kirsty Damerell.                       damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk
CUWoCS President.  http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~damerell/   Hail Eris!
|___|  You bought a mask: I put it on: you never thought to ask me if I wear
| | |  it when you're gone.     The Sisters of Mercy: When You Don't See Me.

David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:

> Tim Haynes <piglet@glutinous.custard.org> wrote:
> >David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> >>Tim Haynes <piglet@glutinous.custard.org> wrote:
> >>>Is splitting them up into a lot of monopolies all specialists in
> >>>several areas (particularly if they're all part of the "M$loth Group",
> >>>or whatever) any good?
> >>If their applications division is separate from their OS division, they
> >>no longer have the same interest in having their applications only run
> >>on Windows; they can maximise their profit by porting them everywhere.
> >And will Orifice 2001 "for linux" be written to use GTK+? (Or QT for those
> 
> Perhaps you've misunderstood me; it's not that I think Orifice for Linux
> would be a useful tool for the likes of us; just that, once the apps are
> widely ported, there won't be the same pressure to use Windows; and once
> other software vendors can write just as effectively for Windows, there
> won't be the same pressure to use the Microsoft apps; if that happens,
> they've lost the stranglehold on the market, and that's good.

Yup. Availability of something to do their jobs on all platforms is
good. What I was worried about is "distorting"[1] the underlying OSs by so
doing - either philosophically or in particular by direct-port in the
"style"[2] of star office.

[1] visions of gravity-wells and black rubber sheets at this point
[2] as in, "Volvos are styled for the American market" ;)

~Tim
-- 
| Geek Code: GCS dpu s-:+ a-- C++++ UBLUAVHSC++++ P+++ L++ E--- W+++(--) N++ 
| w--- O- M-- V-- PS PGP++ t--- X+(-) b D+ G e++(*) h++(*) r--- y-	     
| The sun is melting over the hills,         | http://piglet.is.dreaming.org/
| All our roads are waiting / To be revealed | piglet@glutinous.custard.org

philh@vision25.demon.co.uk (phil hunt) writes:

>The only think that remains to be decided is what sentence the judge
>will pass. Personally, I favour The Chair, but I will admit there is
>much to be said for a lethal injection.

  A corporation is just like any natural person, except that it has no
  pants to kick or soul to damn, and, by God, it ought to have both!

    -- A judge

---  Joe Fineman    jcf@world.std.com

||:  The difference between religion and science is that in  :||
||:  science there are mistakes.                             :||

Merrill Lynch wrote:
> An intersting wrangle is I *believe* the VAST majority of MS profit is NOT
> from the OS.

Completely false.

Arguably the majority of their profit (the way they choose to slice it
anyway) is not from their OS (they call it platform) products, but it is
far from a "VAST" majority.

Tim Haynes <piglet@glutinous.custard.org> wrote:
>But who is there to fight for the open-source model when its licenses are
>violated? 

Let us imagine that there is some GPLed code in Windoze. That would
require all of Windoze to be made available under the GPL, which would be
very amusing for IBM, Sun, Corel, DEC/Compaq, Apple, the FSF,
AOL/Netscape/Time Warner/Genom Corporation, etc. I suspect there
would be no shortage of lawyer money to fight that one with...
-- 
David/Kirsty Damerell.                       damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk
|   |I hear the fan of a big machine, Two days, I'm in between, break; |   |
|---|lost, code fall through, Loop forever then process kill. Hermes is|---|
| | |broken and lyra's down, lyra's down.     "Chimaera, my Nameserver"| | |

David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:

> Let us imagine that there is some GPLed code in Windoze. That would
> require all of Windoze to be made available under the GPL, which would be
> very amusing for IBM, Sun, Corel, DEC/Compaq, Apple, the FSF,
> AOL/Netscape/Time Warner/Genom Corporation, etc. I suspect there
> would be no shortage of lawyer money to fight that one with...

Or they could take that GPLed code out of the distribution.

-- 
Craig Brozefsky                      <craig@red-bean.com>
Free Scheme/Lisp Software  http://www.red-bean.com/~craig
"Hiding like thieves in the night from life, illusions of 
oasis making you look twice.   -- Mos Def and Talib Kweli

Craig Brozefsky  <craig@red-bean.com> wrote:
>David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
>>Let us imagine that there is some GPLed code in Windoze. That would
>>require all of Windoze to be made available under the GPL, which would be
>>very amusing for IBM, Sun, Corel, DEC/Compaq, Apple, the FSF,
>>AOL/Netscape/Time Warner/Genom Corporation, etc. I suspect there
>>would be no shortage of lawyer money to fight that one with...
>Or they could take that GPLed code out of the distribution.

They'd still have violated the copyright of the authors of the GPLed code
with the earlier versions (implying that money could be extracted); and
they'd have quite the problem if they suddenly had to stop distributing
all existing versions of Windows, wouldn't they?
-- 
damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk T000B320O500T000N230O500T000L000D510G653I500
T000V430H600T000T000V453S530A530T000D625T000B453T000E200T300S500A530T000V220
A530T000S525A530T000L500O500L500T200I200T000F462T000C415H532A554F400F650T000
A554G453I500T000V430H600T000T000V453S530G520R530A530A653A530A653A530A653A530

In article <slrn8eii76.29b.philh@vision25.demon.co.uk>,
	philh@vision25.demon.co.uk (phil hunt) writes:

> Microsoft is guilty, Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!!!!!!!

Bad timing.

The same verdict three years ago might have done good.  Now?  It will
serve to distort history, and be blamed for the inevitable decline of
Windoze (though whether said decline is accompanied by a serious
decline of M$ itself remains to be seen).

The appeal(s) will last well beyond windoze's natural lifespan
"at the top".

-- 
Nick Kew

We're so advanced here ... our nearest main road is A 386

David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:

> Tim Haynes <piglet@glutinous.custard.org> wrote:
> >But who is there to fight for the open-source model when its licenses
> >are violated?
> 
> Let us imagine that there is some GPLed code in Windoze. That would
> require all of Windoze to be made available under the GPL, which would be
> very amusing for IBM, Sun, Corel, DEC/Compaq, Apple, the FSF,
> AOL/Netscape/Time Warner/Genom Corporation, etc. I suspect there would be
> no shortage of lawyer money to fight that one with...

Cool idea :)

(Would all those companies' lawyers be remotely interested in a mere
license violation when the money involved is nil, and how would many folks
go about bringing a case to court anyway? (More to the point, as long as
it's possible I can sleep easy :) )

~Tim
-- 
| Geek Code: GCS dpu s-:+ a-- C++++ UBLUAVHSC++++ P+++ L++ E--- W+++(--) N++ 
| w--- O- M-- V-- PS PGP++ t--- X+(-) b D+ G e++(*) h++(*) r--- y-	     
| The sun is melting over the hills,         | http://piglet.is.dreaming.org/
| All our roads are waiting / To be revealed | piglet@glutinous.custard.org

David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:

> Craig Brozefsky  <craig@red-bean.com> wrote:
> >David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> >>Let us imagine that there is some GPLed code in Windoze. That would
> >>require all of Windoze to be made available under the GPL, which would be
> >>very amusing for IBM, Sun, Corel, DEC/Compaq, Apple, the FSF,
> >>AOL/Netscape/Time Warner/Genom Corporation, etc. I suspect there
> >>would be no shortage of lawyer money to fight that one with...
> >Or they could take that GPLed code out of the distribution.
> 
> They'd still have violated the copyright of the authors of the GPLed code
> with the earlier versions (implying that money could be extracted); and
> they'd have quite the problem if they suddenly had to stop distributing
> all existing versions of Windows, wouldn't they?

Your original assertion is that it would require all of Windoze to be
made available under the GPL.  I was only pointing out that that is
not necesarry and not likely.  I was not implying that there would be
no damages granted at all.

-- 
Craig Brozefsky                      <craig@red-bean.com>
Free Scheme/Lisp Software  http://www.red-bean.com/~craig
"Hiding like thieves in the night from life, illusions of 
oasis making you look twice.   -- Mos Def and Talib Kweli

On Wed, 05 Apr 2000 11:23:00 GMT, 
amorgado@my-deja.com <amorgado@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >First, which applications are you referring to? MS makes a lot more
>> >than just Office. Must they port them all? Surely MS Works need not
>> >be
>> >ported to Solaris?
>>
>> 	If it's portable: why not?
>>
>
>I was asking which applications you want the law to require them to
>port to which platforms. Not that there's anything more horrible about
>Solaris than any other proprietary UNIX.

The problem with this is that it would be very difficult to police.
If MS didn't particularly want to do a Solaris port, they could just
release one that was buggy and thus didn't work very well. 

Perhaps the regulators would tell them to make it less buggy; MS could
respond by numerous service packs and bug fixes... all of which would
fix some bugs, but perhaps introduce others. 

MS would have a great deal of "plausible deniability" that they weren't
deliberately sabotaging Word-for-Solaris. (After all, buggy software
is their SOP).


-- 
***** Phil Hunt ***** send email to phil@comuno.com *****
Moore's Law: hardware speed doubles every 18 months
Gates' Law: software speed halves every 18 months 

On Wed, 05 Apr 2000 01:34:40 GMT, Shell <sheldon+usenet@yuck.net> wrote:
>
>Rex Ballard has been going around for at least 5 years spreading tales about
>Microsoft signing agreements with SCO to prevent them from getting into the
>Unix market.  And because everybody *WANTS* to believe it's true, they just
>accept it as fact without verification.

That's interesting.

Do you (or anyone else) have any factual information either way on whether
MS agreed with SCO not to re-enter the Unix market?

-- 
***** Phil Hunt ***** send email to phil@comuno.com *****
Moore's Law: hardware speed doubles every 18 months
Gates' Law: software speed halves every 18 months 

phil hunt wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 05 Apr 2000 01:34:40 GMT, Shell <sheldon+usenet@yuck.net> wrote:
> >
> >Rex Ballard has been going around for at least 5 years spreading tales about
> >Microsoft signing agreements with SCO to prevent them from getting into the
> >Unix market.  And because everybody *WANTS* to believe it's true, they just
> >accept it as fact without verification.
> 
> That's interesting.
> 
> Do you (or anyone else) have any factual information either way on whether
> MS agreed with SCO not to re-enter the Unix market?
> 
I just read the other day on the Net that M$ just concluded a
suit involving SCO.  It was concluded that they engaged in
anti-competitive behavior and they had to pay like $180
million.  Pocket change to them.  I think the case was brought
in Britain for some reason.  I couldn't understand the article.
> -- 
Bob
"There are no significant bugs in our released software that any
significant number of users want fixed," Bill Gates, in an
interview with Focus magazine, Oct 23, 1995.
Remove ".diespammersdie" to reply.

Craig Brozefsky <craig@red-bean.com> writes:

> David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> 
> > Craig Brozefsky  <craig@red-bean.com> wrote:
> > >David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> > >>Let us imagine that there is some GPLed code in Windoze. That would
> > >>require all of Windoze to be made available under the GPL, which would be
> > >>very amusing for IBM, Sun, Corel, DEC/Compaq, Apple, the FSF,
> > >>AOL/Netscape/Time Warner/Genom Corporation, etc. I suspect there
> > >>would be no shortage of lawyer money to fight that one with...
> > >Or they could take that GPLed code out of the distribution.
> > 
> > They'd still have violated the copyright of the authors of the GPLed code
> > with the earlier versions (implying that money could be extracted); and
> > they'd have quite the problem if they suddenly had to stop distributing
> > all existing versions of Windows, wouldn't they?
> 
> Your original assertion is that it would require all of Windoze to be
> made available under the GPL.  I was only pointing out that that is not
> necesarry and not likely.  I was not implying that there would be no
> damages granted at all.

I trust you're aware of section 2 of the GPL and the subsequent paragraph?
It depends very much on which bits of Windoze are hypothetically in
violation of the GPL - you can surely say that notepad.exe would be one
'work' and write.exe another, for example, in which case one would need to
be GPL'd in entirety but not the other. OTOH if it's something fundamental
like a bit of kernel32.dll... maybe it *is* all screwy.
(Not as though I've seen any GPL'd programs as bad as either "editor" above
;)

~Tim
-- 
| Geek Code: GCS dpu s-:+ a-- C++++ UBLUAVHSC++++ P+++ L++ E--- W+++(--) N++ 
| w--- O- M-- V-- PS PGP++ t--- X+(-) b D+ G e++(*) h++(*) r--- y-	     
| The sun is melting over the hills,         | http://piglet.is.dreaming.org/
| All our roads are waiting / To be revealed | piglet@glutinous.custard.org

Phillip Lord <plord@hgmp.mrc.ac.uk> writes:

> >>>>> "Tim" == Tim Haynes <piglet@glutinous.custard.org> writes:
[]
>   >> Some of us prefer to put the emphasis on Open, and feel that the
>   >> GPL is way too restrictive.  Something to do with not having a
>   >> dog-in-a- -manger attitude?
> 
>   Tim> Well thanks for answering the question. Er, not. Obviously you
>   Tim> don't know what 'Open' as applied to 'Open Source' means in the
>   Tim> first place, as the GPL doesn't seem particularly restrictive
>   Tim> to me.
> 
>         Im sure that he does know what "open" means. Its quite 
> simple.

(You are? How so?)  More to the point, '"open" as applied to "open source"'
is *defined* quite clearly and brooks no argument nor talk of "attitude",
merely discussion.

>         There has been a long running argument in the free software
> community, about whether software should be free for all to use (which is
> akin to public domain, even if it is not actually public domain). Or
> whether something more restrictive like GPL is correct, which restricts
> modifications and release under anything other than GPL.
> 
>         There are arguments to be had for both side. My own believe is
> that GPL unfortunate but necessary. It uses copyright and licensing to
> fight fire, with fire as it were, and helps to ensure that software
> remains free in the future. The other argument goes that if we want to
> make software free, it should be for others to modify as they choose, and
> to do with as they choose.

As I hope to have noted elsewhere in this thread, I've been wondering about
this sort of thing a fair bit, particularly whether "having a License" is
actually stooping to playing the same ball-game as the other side -
companies have horrendous licenses, so "free software" (whatever that
means) should have none? Pity, because it wouldn't survive as any form of
"organization" for very long as everyone'd exploit it. So yes, the open-
source definition plus several examples approach is necessary, I
think. 
Let's not lose sight of the fact that the GPL is only one such license - it
happens to enforce "once GPL'd, forever GPL'd" rather than "one opened,
forever opened but variable", which also has its pros and cons. But then if
you didn't want GPL, you have a plurality of alternatives.

~Tim
-- 
| Geek Code: GCS dpu s-:+ a-- C++++ UBLUAVHSC++++ P+++ L++ E--- W+++(--) N++ 
| w--- O- M-- V-- PS PGP++ t--- X+(-) b D+ G e++(*) h++(*) r--- y-	     
| The sun is melting over the hills,         | http://piglet.is.dreaming.org/
| All our roads are waiting / To be revealed | piglet@glutinous.custard.org

In gnu.misc.discuss, David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:

> Their increasing support for the MacOS (even though this directly impacts
> sales of Windows) says they disagree.

Weren't some of the MS applications, eg excel, originally written for
the Mac then later ported to Windows? Also, IIRC, MS have been a major
supplier of MAC software right from the start.

"Bob Lyday" <lydayfamily@diespammersdie.sierratel.com> wrote in message
news:38EBA8F4.D26EEEC5@diespammersdie.sierratel.com...
> phil hunt wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 05 Apr 2000 01:34:40 GMT, Shell <sheldon+usenet@yuck.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >Rex Ballard has been going around for at least 5 years spreading tales
about
> > >Microsoft signing agreements with SCO to prevent them from getting into
the
> > >Unix market.  And because everybody *WANTS* to believe it's true, they
just
> > >accept it as fact without verification.
> >
> > That's interesting.
> >
> > Do you (or anyone else) have any factual information either way on
whether
> > MS agreed with SCO not to re-enter the Unix market?
> >
> I just read the other day on the Net that M$ just concluded a
> suit involving SCO.  It was concluded that they engaged in
> anti-competitive behavior and they had to pay like $180
> million.  Pocket change to them.  I think the case was brought
> in Britain for some reason.  I couldn't understand the article.
> > --

Isn't "I read the other day on the Net" the modern version of "It happened
to my brother's cousin's aunt's friend's uncle"

URL please.

Robert Moir wrote:
> 
> "Bob Lyday" <lydayfamily@diespammersdie.sierratel.com> wrote in message
> news:38EBA8F4.D26EEEC5@diespammersdie.sierratel.com...
> > phil hunt wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 05 Apr 2000 01:34:40 GMT, Shell <sheldon+usenet@yuck.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >Rex Ballard has been going around for at least 5 years spreading tales
> about
> > > >Microsoft signing agreements with SCO to prevent them from getting into
> the
> > > >Unix market.  And because everybody *WANTS* to believe it's true, they
> just
> > > >accept it as fact without verification.
> > >
> > > That's interesting.
> > >
> > > Do you (or anyone else) have any factual information either way on
> whether
> > > MS agreed with SCO not to re-enter the Unix market?
> > >
> > I just read the other day on the Net that M$ just concluded a
> > suit involving SCO.  It was concluded that they engaged in
> > anti-competitive behavior and they had to pay like $180
> > million.  Pocket change to them.  I think the case was brought
> > in Britain for some reason.  I couldn't understand the article.
> > > --
> 
> Isn't "I read the other day on the Net" the modern version of "It happened
> to my brother's cousin's aunt's friend's uncle"
> 
> URL please.

Sorry Robert can't remember it.  Perhaps you can do a search on
it.  I read the article all right and there was some kind of
suit over M$ and SCO.  M$ settled out of court as always.  It
involved accusations of restraint of trade.
-- 
Bob
"There are no significant bugs in our released software that any
significant number of users want fixed," Bill Gates, in an
interview with Focus magazine, Oct 23, 1995.
Remove ".diespammersdie" to reply.

In article <ubA*f4Noo@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
  damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote:
> If their applications division is separate from their OS division,
> they no longer have the same interest in having their applications
> only run on Windows; they can maximise their profit by porting them
> everywhere.

David,

You are assuming that it is possible to make more money by selling and
supporting MS's Application software on multiple platforms than by
selling and supporting it only on Windows. I believe this to be a false
assumption.

First, which applications are you referring to? MS makes a lot more
than just Office. Must they port them all? Surely MS Works need not be
ported to Solaris?

Second, do you have any idea how much money it costs to support
multiple platforms? They have to train staff in multiple platforms,
purchase enough machines of the other platforms, double their QA for
those platforms. Worse, they'll now have to test their products not
just based on the schedule for Windows 98, NT and CE, but also for the
release schedule of the other platform.

How many users of those other platforms are there? Are you sure the
market is big enough to compensate for the expense of entering it?

By the way, which platforms will they have to support? How few is too
few customers for them to support? They don't have to port to CP/M 86,
do they?

I hope you see there's a lot more to this question than meets the eye.

Finally, what's this got to do with the case that's up before the
court? This case is about the OS, IE, and maybe Visual J++.


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

In article <m34s9i43ew.fsf@thyme.td.micromuse.co.uk>,
  "Tim Haynes" <piglet@glutinous.custard.org> wrote:
> Would the open-source community be interested in hacking Windoze code,
> should (for example) IE5 be open-sourced?

I think the open-source community would be V_E_R_Y interested in seeing
how much of their GPL code is in the MSWindows products.  Could explain
why Mr. Gates promised to publish the Windows source last month followed
by the immeditate retraction by the MSFT marketing machine claiming he
said no such thing.


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

I> Perhaps you've misunderstood me; it's not that I think Orifice for
> Linux would be a useful tool for the likes of us; just that, once the
> apps are widely ported, there won't be the same pressure to use
> Windows; and once other software vendors can write just as
> effectively for Windows, there won't be the same pressure to use the
> Microsoft apps; if that happens, they've lost the stranglehold on the
> market, and that's good.

I'm afraid this makes no sense. It's as though you think Microsoft is
the only company that writes Windows software. They're not. MS could
port its entire portfolio of software, and it _still_ wouldn't make the
other software vendors port their software to the other platforms. They
just won't invest unless they think they can make more money porting
than not porting.

This phenomenon also is not unique to Windows. Way back in the day,
there were machines running MS-DOS which were not 100% IBM compatible.
The DEC Rainbow 100 is a good example. It ran MS-DOS or CP/M 86, or a
terminal emulator. It ran MS-DOS as well as popular DOS applications
like Lotus 1-2-3 v2 and dBase II.

But it never ran Lotus 1-2-3 v3 or dBase III because the vendors
weren't interested in supporting the platform. Even though it ran the
exact same operating system as the IBM PC.

I don't know why it would be different today.


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

On Wed, 05 Apr 2000 02:28:49 GMT, amorgado@my-deja.com <amorgado@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <ubA*f4Noo@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
>  damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote:
>> If their applications division is separate from their OS division,
>> they no longer have the same interest in having their applications
>> only run on Windows; they can maximise their profit by porting them
>> everywhere.
>
>David,
>
>You are assuming that it is possible to make more money by selling and
>supporting MS's Application software on multiple platforms than by

	Assuming that they coded their applications with portability
	in mind then deploying X other versions won't be that much
	more expensive. Plus, breaking it on a wider variety of systems
	will help expose problems with the reference codebase.

>selling and supporting it only on Windows. I believe this to be a false
>assumption.
>
>First, which applications are you referring to? MS makes a lot more
>than just Office. Must they port them all? Surely MS Works need not be
>ported to Solaris?

	If it's portable: why not?

>
>Second, do you have any idea how much money it costs to support
>multiple platforms? They have to train staff in multiple platforms,

	Some of us even have working experience in such things...

[deletia]

-- 

	It is not the advocates of free love and software
	that are the communists here , but rather those that        |||
	advocate or perpetuate the necessity of only using         / | \
	one option among many, like in some regime where
	product choice is a thing only seen in museums.
	
			              Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.

In article <slrn8elfi4.g18.jedidiah@localhost.localdomain>,
JEDIDIAH <jedidiah@dementia.mishnet> wrote:
> amorgado@my-deja.com <amorgado@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote:
>>> If their applications division is separate from their OS division,
>>> they no longer have the same interest in having their applications
>>> only run on Windows; they can maximise their profit by porting them
>>> everywhere.
>>
>> You are assuming that it is possible to make more money by selling and
>> supporting MS's Application software on multiple platforms than by
> 
> Assuming that they coded their applications with portability in mind
> then deploying X other versions won't be that much more expensive.
> Plus, breaking it on a wider variety of systems will help expose
> problems with the reference codebase.

It really depends on how much support they expect to get from the "OS"
(strictly the OS and several layers of libraries on top of that.)  If
they are very tightly tied to *COM* and the Windows GDI, then porting
will be a minor nightmare, though possible, and much easier if they
get in someone else's portability layer.  There are quite a few of
those knocking about.

It'd be even better (for them) if they were required to write some
decent documentation on the multitude of interfaces about.  The
existance of books on undocumented ways of doing things indicates a
serious problem in there...

Not that it's worth doing anything much except spouting on USENET
about it right now.  This story still has a long way to run.

Donal.
-- 
Donal K. Fellows    http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/    fellowsd@cs.man.ac.uk
-- The small advantage of not having California being part of my country would
   be overweighed by having California as a heavily-armed rabid weasel on our
   borders.  -- David Parsons  <o r c @ p e l l . p o r t l a n d . o r . u s>

In article <slrn8elfi4.g18.jedidiah@localhost.localdomain>,
  jedidiah@dementia.mishnet (JEDIDIAH) wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Apr 2000 02:28:49 GMT, amorgado@my-deja.com <amorgado@my-
deja.com> wrote:
> >In article <ubA*f4Noo@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
> >  damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote:
> >> If their applications division is separate from their OS division,
> >> they no longer have the same interest in having their applications
> >> only run on Windows; they can maximise their profit by porting them
> >> everywhere.
> >
> >David,
> >
> >You are assuming that it is possible to make more money by selling
> and supporting MS's Application software on multiple platforms than by
>
> 	Assuming that they coded their applications with portability
> 	in mind then deploying X other versions won't be that much
> 	more expensive. Plus, breaking it on a wider variety of systems
> 	will help expose problems with the reference codebase.
>

But that's a bad assumption. Their applications are not currently coded
with portability in mind. And you haven't addressed the expense of
ramping up to the number of ports the law would require. What about
support?

> >selling and supporting it only on Windows. I believe this to be a
false
> >assumption.
> >
> >First, which applications are you referring to? MS makes a lot more
> >than just Office. Must they port them all? Surely MS Works need not
be
> >ported to Solaris?
>
> 	If it's portable: why not?
>

I was asking which applications you want the law to require them to
port to which platforms. Not that there's anything more horrible about
Solaris than any other proprietary UNIX.

> >
> >Second, do you have any idea how much money it costs to support
> >multiple platforms? They have to train staff in multiple platforms,
>
> 	Some of us even have working experience in such things...

How many customers do you have? Millions? Different game. Do your
customers pay money or are you talking about Open Source?


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Shell <sheldon+usenet@yuck.net> wrote:
> Oh good god!  Why do people keep listening to Rex Ballard?
>I guess it's the fascinating thing about the Internet, how some old crack
>pot can buy a $500 computer and then proclaim himself as an expert by
>writing a lot of random words.

If he's Jon Katz, he even gets a movie license out of it.

[To be fair, I did find an old article by Katz in which he was not full of
shit; it could, however, be summarised as 'newspapers are not liek the
Web']
-- 
David/Kirsty Damerell.                       damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk
|   |I hear the fan of a big machine, Two days, I'm in between, break; |   |
|---|lost, code fall through, Loop forever then process kill. Hermes is|---|
| | |broken and lyra's down, lyra's down.     "Chimaera, my Nameserver"| | |

<amorgado@my-deja.com> wrote:
>port its entire portfolio of software, and it _still_ wouldn't make the
>other software vendors port their software to the other platforms. They

What, you mean like Corel's Word Perfect?
-- 
David/Kirsty Damerell.                       damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk
|   |I hear the fan of a big machine, Two days, I'm in between, break; |   |
|---|lost, code fall through, Loop forever then process kill. Hermes is|---|
| | |broken and lyra's down, lyra's down.     "Chimaera, my Nameserver"| | |

<amorgado@my-deja.com> wrote:
>damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote:
>>If their applications division is separate from their OS division,
>>they no longer have the same interest in having their applications
>>only run on Windows; they can maximise their profit by porting them
>>everywhere.
>You are assuming that it is possible to make more money by selling and
>supporting MS's Application software on multiple platforms than by
>selling and supporting it only on Windows. I believe this to be a false
>assumption.

Their increasing support for the MacOS (even though this directly impacts
sales of Windows) says they disagree.
-- 
David/Kirsty Damerell.                       damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk
|   |I hear the fan of a big machine, Two days, I'm in between, break; |   |
|---|lost, code fall through, Loop forever then process kill. Hermes is|---|
| | |broken and lyra's down, lyra's down.     "Chimaera, my Nameserver"| | |

<pac4854@my-deja.com> wrote:
>I think the open-source community would be V_E_R_Y interested in seeing
>how much of their GPL code is in the MSWindows products.  Could explain

Not to mention how much of the BSD networking stack - although that won't
be a reason to call the lawyers...
-- 
David/Kirsty Damerell.                       damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk
|   |I hear the fan of a big machine, Two days, I'm in between, break; |   |
|---|lost, code fall through, Loop forever then process kill. Hermes is|---|
| | |broken and lyra's down, lyra's down.     "Chimaera, my Nameserver"| | |

David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:

> <pac4854@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >I think the open-source community would be V_E_R_Y interested in seeing
> >how much of their GPL code is in the MSWindows products.  Could explain
> 
> Not to mention how much of the BSD networking stack - although that won't
> be a reason to call the lawyers...

This is something I've also been wondering a bit about - if source is truly
Open, then I think the author is operating on the principle that it's more
important that they and their code are doing the rounds, than that it's
making them a quick buck. 
Of course, if it's Freeware then any ol' company can snatch it up and use
it with no probs.
If there's GPL'd stuff in there, then credit has to be given... and I guess
that's where worries about M$loth's closets come to bear ;)

The Debian philosophical pages seem to address this a bit - as an
O.S. developer, do you want commercial s/ware to steal your code? - so a
browse around <http://www.uk.debian.org/intro/free> might be amusing. 
But who is there to fight for the open-source model when its licenses are
violated? 

~Tim
-- 
| Geek Code: GCS dpu s-:+ a-- C++++ UBLUAVHSC++++ P+++ L++ E--- W+++(--) N++ 
| w--- O- M-- V-- PS PGP++ t--- X+(-) b D+ G e++(*) h++(*) r--- y-	     
| The sun is melting over the hills,         | http://piglet.is.dreaming.org/
| All our roads are waiting / To be revealed | piglet@glutinous.custard.org

In article <m3aej8vjf3.fsf@thyme.td.micromuse.co.uk>,
Tim Haynes <piglet@glutinous.custard.org> wrote:
> The Debian philosophical pages seem to address this a bit - as an
> O.S. developer, do you want commercial s/ware to steal your code? -
> so a browse around <http://www.uk.debian.org/intro/free> might be
> amusing.  But who is there to fight for the open-source model when
> its licenses are violated?

Some of us prefer to put the emphasis on Open, and feel that the GPL
is way too restrictive.  Something to do with not having a dog-in-a-
-manger attitude?

Donal.
-- 
Donal K. Fellows    http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/    fellowsd@cs.man.ac.uk
-- The small advantage of not having California being part of my country would
   be overweighed by having California as a heavily-armed rabid weasel on our
   borders.  -- David Parsons  <o r c @ p e l l . p o r t l a n d . o r . u s>

fellowsd@cs.man.ac.uk (Donal K. Fellows) writes:

	[I note your pathetic attempt to misdirect this to alt.flame...
	pity it failed.]

> In article <m3aej8vjf3.fsf@thyme.td.micromuse.co.uk>,
> Tim Haynes <piglet@glutinous.custard.org> wrote:
> > The Debian philosophical pages seem to address this a bit - as an
> > O.S. developer, do you want commercial s/ware to steal your code? -
> > so a browse around <http://www.uk.debian.org/intro/free> might be
> > amusing.  But who is there to fight for the open-source model when
> > its licenses are violated?
> 
> Some of us prefer to put the emphasis on Open, and feel that the GPL is
> way too restrictive.  Something to do with not having a dog-in-a- -manger
> attitude?

Well thanks for answering the question. Er, not. Obviously you don't know
what 'Open' as applied to 'Open Source' means in the first place, as the
GPL doesn't seem particularly restrictive to me.

~Tim
-- 
| Geek Code: GCS dpu s-:+ a-- C++++ UBLUAVHSC++++ P+++ L++ E--- W+++(--) N++ 
| w--- O- M-- V-- PS PGP++ t--- X+(-) b D+ G e++(*) h++(*) r--- y-	     
| The sun is melting over the hills,         | http://piglet.is.dreaming.org/
| All our roads are waiting / To be revealed | piglet@glutinous.custard.org

fellowsd@cs.man.ac.uk (Donal K. Fellows) writes:

> Some of us prefer to put the emphasis on Open, and feel that the GPL
> is way too restrictive.  Something to do with not having a dog-in-a-
> -manger attitude?

To answer your question, no.  Nothing to do with a dog-in-a-manger
attitude.  Quite the opposite.

Only those with a dog-in-a-manger attitude have problems with the GPL.

-- 
Bruce R. Lewis			<URL:http://web.mit.edu/brlewis/www/>

On 05 Apr 2000 09:29:49 -0700, 
Craig Brozefsky <craig@red-bean.com> wrote:
>David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
>
>> Let us imagine that there is some GPLed code in Windoze. That would
>> require all of Windoze to be made available under the GPL, which would be
>> very amusing for IBM, Sun, Corel, DEC/Compaq, Apple, the FSF,
>> AOL/Netscape/Time Warner/Genom Corporation, etc. I suspect there
>> would be no shortage of lawyer money to fight that one with...
>
>Or they could take that GPLed code out of the distribution.

Would that work, legally?

I have a legal copy of Windows 98. If that contains GPL'ed code, can I
force MS to give me the source?

Or, would only the copyrightholder of the GPL'ed code be allowed to
do that? (MS has infringed on his copryright, not mine). From the
GPL:

----------------->>> GPL
 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

    a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
    source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
    1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

    b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
    years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
    cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
    machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
    distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
    customarily used for software interchange; or,

    c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
    to distribute corresponding source code.  (This alternative is
    allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
    received the program in object code or executable form with such
    an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

[...]

 5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
signed it.  However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
distribute the Program or its derivative works.  These actions are
prohibited by law if you do not accept this License.  Therefore, by
modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the
Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and
all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying
the Program or works based on it.
-----------------<<< 

So by using GPL'ed code, MS have accepted the GPL (not sure if 
unsigned contracts are valid in US law), and are therefore contractually
obliged to distribute the source.

Do any lawyers know if this is right?

-- 
***** Phil Hunt ***** send email to phil@comuno.com *****
Moore's Law: hardware speed doubles every 18 months
Gates' Law: software speed halves every 18 months 

On 05 Apr 2000 18:12:14 +0100, Tim Haynes <piglet@glutinous.custard.org> wrote:
>David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
>
>> Tim Haynes <piglet@glutinous.custard.org> wrote:
>> >But who is there to fight for the open-source model when its licenses
>> >are violated?
>> 
>> Let us imagine that there is some GPLed code in Windoze. That would
>> require all of Windoze to be made available under the GPL, which would be
>> very amusing for IBM, Sun, Corel, DEC/Compaq, Apple, the FSF,
>> AOL/Netscape/Time Warner/Genom Corporation, etc. I suspect there would be
>> no shortage of lawyer money to fight that one with...
>
>Cool idea :)
>
>(Would all those companies' lawyers be remotely interested in a mere
>license violation when the money involved is nil, and how would many folks
>go about bringing a case to court anyway? (More to the point, as long as
>it's possible I can sleep easy :) )

I think they would. Sun paid large amounts of money for StarOffice, 
mostly to annoy/discomfort MS.

AOL also has huge interests in making sure MS doesn't get overdominant,
as then MS could ruin AOL's business. Ditto Apple and Corel. IBM less
so, but I bet a few IBM'ers would like revenge for how MS shafted
them with Windows over OS/2.

The FSF would of course be interested.

I'm sure thousands of programmers and other computer users would be willing
to donate to help a court case.

-- 
***** Phil Hunt ***** send email to phil@comuno.com *****
Moore's Law: hardware speed doubles every 18 months
Gates' Law: software speed halves every 18 months 

On 05 Apr 2000 17:44:02 +0100 (BST), 
David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>Craig Brozefsky  <craig@red-bean.com> wrote:
>>David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
>>>Let us imagine that there is some GPLed code in Windoze. That would
>>>require all of Windoze to be made available under the GPL, which would be
>>>very amusing for IBM, Sun, Corel, DEC/Compaq, Apple, the FSF,
>>>AOL/Netscape/Time Warner/Genom Corporation, etc. I suspect there
>>>would be no shortage of lawyer money to fight that one with...
>>Or they could take that GPLed code out of the distribution.
>
>They'd still have violated the copyright of the authors of the GPLed code
>with the earlier versions (implying that money could be extracted); and
>they'd have quite the problem if they suddenly had to stop distributing
>all existing versions of Windows, wouldn't they?

They wouldn't have to stop distributing them; they'd just have to
open their source.

I doubt if stopping distributing violating versions of Windows would
allow them to evade that requirement.

-- 
***** Phil Hunt ***** send email to phil@comuno.com *****
Moore's Law: hardware speed doubles every 18 months
Gates' Law: software speed halves every 18 months 

On 05 Apr 2000 17:14:48 +0100 (BST), 
David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>Tim Haynes <piglet@glutinous.custard.org> wrote:
>>But who is there to fight for the open-source model when its licenses are
>>violated? 
>
>Let us imagine that there is some GPLed code in Windoze. That would
>require all of Windoze to be made available under the GPL, which would be
>very amusing for IBM, Sun, Corel, DEC/Compaq, Apple, the FSF,
>AOL/Netscape/Time Warner/Genom Corporation, etc. I suspect there
>would be no shortage of lawyer money to fight that one with...

I suspect that there is little or no GPL'ed code in Windows or 
MS Office, because of this potential threat.

If MS did have such GPL'ed code, some of their employees would know 
about it. Employees from time to time leave and get new employers. What
would stop a former MS employee blowing the whistle?


-- 
***** Phil Hunt ***** send email to phil@comuno.com *****
Moore's Law: hardware speed doubles every 18 months
Gates' Law: software speed halves every 18 months 

"Graham Murray" <graham@barnowl.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:m2vh1wmh2m.fsf@barnowl.demon.co.uk...
> In gnu.misc.discuss, David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
writes:
>
> > Their increasing support for the MacOS (even though this directly
impacts
> > sales of Windows) says they disagree.
>
> Weren't some of the MS applications, eg excel, originally written for
> the Mac then later ported to Windows? Also, IIRC, MS have been a major
> supplier of MAC software right from the start.

Do you mean major in the sense that they were the _only_ other software
supplier on the Mac... ;-P

--
.oO Paul  Smith Oo.
.o ICQ 67660294 o.

In article <Rtj*GLSoo@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
  damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote:
> <amorgado@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >port its entire portfolio of software, and it _still_ wouldn't make
the
> >other software vendors port their software to the other platforms.
They
>
> What, you mean like Corel's Word Perfect?

Please read what I wrote. I said it wouldn't _make_ the other software
vendors port their software. In other words, the other vendors will not
be forced to port their software. They will port it if they want to. I
contend that most will not want to. I guess we'll see who's right.

And please tell me what you meant in bringing up Wordperfect. Are you
giving it as an example of portable software?


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

In article <EBj*3LSoo@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
  damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote:
> Their increasing support for the MacOS (even though this directly
> impacts sales of Windows) says they disagree.

Way bad analogy. Microsoft was one of the first vendors to ship product
for Macintosh. They've been in that market since there was a market.

And have you noticed what subset of MS apps are available for MacOS?
Office, IE and what else?


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

In article <87n1n8i8eg.fsf@spodzone.pigsty.org.uk>,
Tim Haynes <piglet@glutinous.custard.org> wrote:
> Phillip Lord <plord@hgmp.mrc.ac.uk> writes:
>> Tim Haynes <piglet@glutinous.custard.org> wrote:
>>> Well thanks for answering the question. Er, not. Obviously you
>>> don't know what 'Open' as applied to 'Open Source' means in the
>>> first place, as the GPL doesn't seem particularly restrictive
>>> to me.
>> 
>> Im sure that he does know what "open" means. Its quite 
>> simple.
> 
> (You are? How so?)

He can be sure now, since I assert it to be the case.  :^)

> More to the point, '"open" as applied to "open source"' is *defined*
> quite clearly and brooks no argument nor talk of "attitude", merely
> discussion.

I find this flamewar^Wdiscussion to be exceedingly tedious, since it
has been done to death in many groups for years.  Nobody's going to
change their position now, and it doesn't even have the TIC-value of
the emacs vs. vi holy war.  It just makes a lot of people very angry
at each other when they should just let go.  Me included.

However, as a final word on the matter, it seems to me that the two
sides of this debate both feel that the other is simply not living in
the real world.  I tend towards the non-GPL side of the debate due to
not feeling that the concealment of code is necessarily a bad thing.

Donal (stopping now before I get worked up...)
-- 
Donal K. Fellows    http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/    fellowsd@cs.man.ac.uk
-- The small advantage of not having California being part of my country would
   be overweighed by having California as a heavily-armed rabid weasel on our
   borders.  -- David Parsons  <o r c @ p e l l . p o r t l a n d . o r . u s>

fellowsd@cs.man.ac.uk (Donal K. Fellows) writes:

[]
> > More to the point, '"open" as applied to "open source"' is *defined*
> > quite clearly and brooks no argument nor talk of "attitude", merely
> > discussion.
> 
> I find this flamewar^Wdiscussion to be exceedingly tedious, since it
> has been done to death in many groups for years.  Nobody's going to
> change their position now, and it doesn't even have the TIC-value of
> the emacs vs. vi holy war.  It just makes a lot of people very angry
> at each other when they should just let go.  Me included.

Anyone see a flamewar around here? *Blink* did I miss something
interesting?

You'll never get your views to sustain if you can't present them to folks
new to them coherently. Or maybe they're just not worth it, of course.

> However, as a final word on the matter, it seems to me that the two sides
> of this debate both feel that the other is simply not living in the real
> world.  I tend towards the non-GPL side of the debate due to not feeling
> that the concealment of code is necessarily a bad thing.

*Shrug*, each to their own. I can't see what there is to get het up about,
myself. GPL is one open-source license, there are others, and open-source
is cool. Next?

~Tim
-- 
| Geek Code: GCS dpu s-:+ a-- C++++ UBLUAVHSC++++ P+++ L++ E--- W+++(--) N++ 
| w--- O- M-- V-- PS PGP++ t--- X+(-) b D+ G e++(*) h++(*) r--- y-	     
| The sun is melting over the hills,         | http://piglet.is.dreaming.org/
| All our roads are waiting / To be revealed | piglet@glutinous.custard.org

In article <nm9itxwir5h.fsf@all-night-tool.mit.edu>,
 <brlspam@sperience.com> wrote:
> fellowsd@cs.man.ac.uk (Donal K. Fellows) writes:
>> Some of us prefer to put the emphasis on Open, and feel that the GPL
>> is way too restrictive.  Something to do with not having a dog-in-a-
>> -manger attitude?
> 
> To answer your question, no.  Nothing to do with a dog-in-a-manger
> attitude.  Quite the opposite.
> 
> Only those with a dog-in-a-manger attitude have problems with the GPL.

Obviously I disagree.  I don't want to say to someone "You must share"
but instead "Here are some things I think are interesting.  Do you
have anything interesting?"  The online community I participate in is
probably friendlier than yours.  :^P

Donal (dratted newsfeed)
-- 
Donal K. Fellows    http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/    fellowsd@cs.man.ac.uk
-- The small advantage of not having California being part of my country would
   be overweighed by having California as a heavily-armed rabid weasel on our
   borders.  -- David Parsons  <o r c @ p e l l . p o r t l a n d . o r . u s>