Slashdot Mirror

Probably it is no surprise that Dan Gillmor is trashing the settlement, but his column is pretty good today. Note also his comment on the DVD case.

Gawd, I can't believe I'm even replying to you, but I can't help it.

link...

link...

link...

Yep, looks like $1 billion spent only on Linux to me. Just go to google.com and search for "ibm billion linux" and you'll find literally dozens more articles discussing it. Seems that, since you're a Slashdot regular, you'd have your facts straight on this particular issue.

LNUX (linux) stock tells the story right there.

Yeah, right, the stock price of one company sure tells the whole story, doesn't it? Yes, Mr. Canada, I know, several Linux-based companies have seen their stocks go in the tank. Everyone know that people are still trying to find the right business plan. It's no piece of cake trying to sell free software. (although IBM seems to be doing all right. They're selling TONS of server hardware with Linux on it)

People should do what a friend of mine is doing: put together complete, custom solutions that specifically fit their customers' needs. With the thousands/millions saved using OSS (you saw the Amazon.com article, right?) they can pretty much charge what they want.

Ahhhh, I'm probably just talking to a wall, here...

``Let me ask you. There are two different airlines. Airline A says before you board that airplane you prove you are who you say you are. Airline B, no problem. Anyone who wants the price of a ticket, they can go on that airline. Which airplane do you get on?''

I think this is a great, free-markety solution, no? Ellison, McNealy, and all the paranoids who want to be tagged, identified, background-checked, searched, folded, spindled, and/or mutilated can sign up for a authoritative ID card and go on airline A (and preferably pay for said security with their tickets); those of us who think the convenience of a (hopefully cheaper) no questions-asked cash ticket is worth sacrificing the illusion of security can fly airline B, arrive 15 minutes before takeoff and hop on a plane to wherever we're going like the daring free risk-takers we are.

One day he got an iPaQ to replace his Palm Pilot. "Oh, are you going to run Linux on it?" I asked him. "No," he said, "I am running Windows CE."

When I asked him why, he said it was simply easier to develop software for Windows CE handhelds. Palm forces you to buy a developer kit, but you can use standard Microsoft tools to develop for Windows CE. Windows CE 3.0 even has the source code available.

Palm has a large legacy base, but they've missed the boat both with development tools and with color screens and MP3 playback. Why should I buy a Palm when I can buy a handheld PC that I can use as an MP3 player, voice recorder, and have wireless Internet access in full color to boot?

Dataquest thinks so too.

They're farther along than you think. According to this article, there's a $235 model that plugs into a laptop for data-only use (no phone calls). It doesn't say, but it's probably a normal PC card interface.

and the thing overheats in 15 min. Sounds pretty experimental to me...

BTW, SJ Mercury has a good story on this too.

Things they lack, free press , free speech, free beer... Hardly any Linux developers there! Seems to be a few years behind the US, no PHP people, few Perl developers. They are still on the MSCE wagon train and taking VB classes.

I am impressed with Putrajaya though, 10 gigabit fiber to the home and wireless access points all over town ! Too bad there is no place to eat there though.. Too far from KL also, hard to get people to work in the MSC .

I am moving there in a few months & getting married to a girl I met on CU-SeeMe :) Wish me luck.

I don't know what's scarier the fact that someone who has made some intelligent posts in the past succumbs to a silly error like this or the fact that three moderators fell for it also. And people wonder why VC firms have to parachute people in to claim the CEO posistions within startups.

Losses written down on accquisitions are not monetary losses that come out of your bank account. In the end all that really matters is how much you put in your bank account stays higher than what comes out. Otherwise you had better have some good partners to help you out. When JDS announced a 51 billion loss this past summer do you really think 51 billion came out of their bank account that quarter?? No company would survive that. The loss was mostly due to share devaluations due to their stock aquistion of SDL.

I also see a reply here which explains it.

Please moderate the post I have just replyed to accordingly. While it might be interesting, just not in the sense you might think at first, It is definately not insightful.

The folks at SiliconValley.com have assembled a very thorough Web log covering today's ugly events. Lot's of first hand accounts, pointers to an assortment of media coverage, even a refer to Jon Katz's piece.

• Cnet reports Akamai's co-founder and CTO Danier Lewin was on American 11.
• SiliconValley.Com suggests damage to USA economy.
• ComputerWorld says Comdisco has gotten 60 business disaster declarations.
• Radio reports that a Red Cross blood donation facility in one city has shut down -- they have a huge amount of donations today but can't fly the blood anywhere. This suggests a particular need for donations near the East Coast

HP-Compaq merger should set off antitrust alarms

By Mike Langberg, Mercury News

Hewlett-Packard should not be allowed to acquire Compaq Computer, not if the concept of antitrust law still has any meaning.

There will be much talk this week about the declining health of the personal computer industry, global strategy in the information services business and the clout of such rivals as IBM and Dell.

None of that matters.

Antitrust law exists to protect ordinary consumers -- you and me -- from actions that would damage competition in the marketplace.

Many of us ordinary consumers buy PCs in retail stores. Compaq and HP together control about two-thirds of PCs sold at retail in the United States.

There is no powerful third competitor, just a few also-rans that include eMachines and Sony.

Dell and Gateway, the other major providers of desktop PCs to consumers, don't offer their products for sale in stores.

To prove my point, I grabbed Sunday's Mercury News from the recycling bin and pulled out the advertising inserts for five national retail chains that are major PC vendors: Best Buy, Circuit City, CompUSA, Office Depot and Staples.

The five inserts carried ads for 25 different desktop PC systems: 11 from HP, eight from Compaq, four from eMachines and two from Sony.

In other words, 76 percent of the advertised desktop PCs came from the company that will perhaps be called Hewlett-ComPaqkard.

There is no amount of public-relations spin that will overcome my gut-level reaction here: Such an extreme level of market concentration can't be good for PC buyers....

Full text at:

http://www.siliconvalley.com/docs/hottopics/hp/ml0 90401.htm

The register, including a letter from Compaq Chairman & CEO - Michael D. Capellas
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/7/21444.html

The new york times story
http://archives.nytimes.com/2001/09/04/business/04 DEAL.html

The press release from Compaq
http://www.compaq.com/newsroom/pr/2001/pr200109040 2.html

The press release from HP
http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/newsroom/press/04sep01a.h tm

The deals not done yet, mergers and monopolies dicussed at siliconvalley.com
http://www.siliconvalley.com/docs/opinion/techtest /ml090401.htm

MSNBC
http://www.msnbc.com/news/623619.asp

Wonder what Bruce Perens comments on all this are, come on speak up Bruce! Is this good for Linux?

--
Modrators: i may be karma whoring but that is no reason to moderate this below Score:1. Mod up not down! If only i had meta mod ...

In all of this, it pays to bear in mind that the GPL was originally created by Richard Stallman as a way of destroying companies such as Symbolics and Lisp Machines, Inc. -- two companies which tried to build specialized hardware that was differentiated by uniquely powerful software. Just like VA. By embracing the GPL, VA Linux unwittingly clasped the serpent that was designed to hurt these two companies to its own breast. By backing away from the GPL and moving toward a win-win strategy that combines the advantages of open source and commercial software, VA can embark upon a sustainable business model.

--Brett Glass

"We are firmly committed to Open Source development as a methodology for creating better software, faster." [valinux.com] -- Dr. Larry M. Augustin, president and CEO of VA Linux Systems, as quoted in a September 2000 press release.

He stated an even more extreme pro-open source position recently, in the SiliconValley.com Open Source Roundtable. On June 26, he wrote that Microsoft should place all its software under the GPL: "Frankly, I'm surprised Microsoft doesn't adopt the GPL for all of the software it releases to the public."

Now, less than two months later, his company has decided that it's not going to use the GPL for all of its own software. In June, even Microsoft Office should have been GPLed; in August, not even developer tools should be GPLed. It is quite a turnaround.

Tim

``The complaint is hopelessly redundant, argumentative and has much irrelevancy and inflammatory material.''

Dan Gillmor wrote a good article about how ms is using xp to foist windows media player & msn messanger on us while killing java and further limiting consumer choice.

"Windows XP isn't just an upgrade of the operating system. It's the linchpin of Microsoft's scarily plausible strategy to control the Internet just as it now controls desktop computing -- and to put itself at the center of all manner of future commerce and communications. It's wrong to allow this unrepentant monopolist to ignore the law and keep on its predatory path."

The roundtable participants don't hate Apple any more than they hate Microsoft... I could have phrased that better. Regardless, anyone who reads it will find an excellent roundtable; not so much whether Apple matters, but more why and how, and growing opportunities (which I expect Apple to mostly ignore, as it most always does).

About the facts:

Amelio, far from killing clones, initiated and championed Apple clones - for the first time in Apple's history - contrary to Steve Jobs stupid, gutless, counterproductive, anticustomer, antideveloper, anticompetitive, long established and soon reinstated whine, shout, hunt, & kill clones policy.

You only need to use BeOS briefly, or just watch a demo, to find many of Gassee's statements justified.

Raskin's criticisms of OSX and its rejected opportunities have received ample support from every independent authority on UI design; for one example, you can drop these in your browser.
http://asktog.com/columns/034OSX-FirstLook.html
http://asktog.com/columns/035SquanAdv.html
http://asktog.com/columns/044top10docksucks.html

Jef Fortt has his work at http://www.siliconvalley.com/hottopics/apple/ for anyone who wants to read a fair sample of it.

Why doesn't mr100percent name, or even mention, the other 3 or 4 panelists? Did he or the moderators not even click on the link?
Finally, would Dvorak "hate Apple" just because Apple ignored priceless consulting that he (and nearly every analyst in the industry) repeatedly gave them for free?

Incidentally, at the end of the introduction of participants
it states, "Note: Despite our best efforts, Apple has declined to participate in this conversation. [Care to guess why?] MacNN publisher Monish Bhatia, while originally scheduled to participate in this event, is unable to do so."

Apple matters. (USB ports anyone?) You can't read the roundtable without thinking that Apple would matter far more if its management would let it. That has rarely changed since 1986.

Another article at SiliconValley.com.

It's also ,here , no account required.

Here is another link http://www.siliconvalley.com/docs/news/svfront/007 139.htm

What I read in the media was that Ledbed was posting as tons of different people, while the story from Lewis who actually talked to him, was that was not the case at all. Some one was misrepresenting the facts if that's true.
My honest opinion is that the industry has pushed to smear the kid in hopes of slowing down the large sucking sound they hear from people dumping their brokers because they're worthless now that they don't have any more information than is readily available to the rest of us.

steve snyder

Dan Gilmore writes that now is the time to stop WinXP. Darn good points - every one.

In this article, Dan Gillmor says:

Is this correct? As I understand the terms of the GPL, the programmer of concern is not obligated to publish software based upon GPL'ed code free of charge, but only to provide the source code free of charge to anyone who does buy his derived work.

I'm not sure if Bruce Perens was talking about Ximian here, but he seemed to imply that someone was a way down the path to an open implementation.

Heh. And AI still "between five and 500 years".

it could easily be a case of narcissim with a little naivete thrown in.

Good point. Rabid optimism seems very common among scientists. Too much SF, no doubt.

Say, for all the talk about atomic holography, I can find absolutely nothing specific about it on Meystre's site. When he talks about copying objects, he's not talking about molecular synthesis, is he? He's probably only discussing something like what the current generation of three-D copiers can already do, with a special material that can be formed into any shape. People here seem to be jumping to the conclusion that it means the instant synthesis of organic molecules. Too much Star Trek, no doubt.

Tim

Defending the BSD license --

quote: ... You would only be a "dupe" if you did not understand the terms of the BSD license --
which is unlikely, since it is a very short, simple and clear license. (The GPL, on the other hand,
goes on for pages and contains much legalese.) The BSD license, and the MIT X license, say that
anyone can use the code in any way he or she wants -- so long as they release the author from
liability for bugs. Simple, clear, and to the point. There's not much room to be "duped" here!

GPL: The Great Wall
Avoiding GPL "infection"
Un-"GNUing" software

quote: In fact, if you understand the history of the GPL (which is documented in Steven Levy's book
Hackers, you know that one of Richard Stallman's goals in creating the GPL was exactly this:
to prevent the reuse of the products of government-sponsored research in commercial products.

Richard Stallman, who did government-sponsored research at the MIT AI Lab, was traumatized when his co-workers left the Lab to convert its research into "real" products that people could use. As Levy wrote:

This was RMS's opportunity for revenge.... Stallman
had no illusions that his act would significantly improve
the world at large. He had come to accept that the domain
around the AI Lab had been permanently polluted. He was
out to cause as much damage to the culprit as he could.

A recent story in Forbes corroborates Levy's account. It says:

[Stallman] retaliated [against the computer scientists
who left the MIT AI Lab to form Symbolics] by sabotaging his
former colleagues' sophisticated commercial programs for powerful
computers, singlehandedly hacking up his own versions
and giving them away. "They accused me of costing them millions
of dollars," he says. "I hope it's true."

Defending the BSD license --

quote: ... You would only be a "dupe" if you did not understand the terms of the BSD license --
which is unlikely, since it is a very short, simple and clear license. (The GPL, on the other hand,
goes on for pages and contains much legalese.) The BSD license, and the MIT X license, say that
anyone can use the code in any way he or she wants -- so long as they release the author from
liability for bugs. Simple, clear, and to the point. There's not much room to be "duped" here!

GPL: The Great Wall
Avoiding GPL "infection"
Un-"GNUing" software

quote: In fact, if you understand the history of the GPL (which is documented in Steven Levy's book
Hackers, you know that one of Richard Stallman's goals in creating the GPL was exactly this:
to prevent the reuse of the products of government-sponsored research in commercial products.

Richard Stallman, who did government-sponsored research at the MIT AI Lab, was traumatized when his co-workers left the Lab to convert its research into "real" products that people could use. As Levy wrote:

This was RMS's opportunity for revenge.... Stallman
had no illusions that his act would significantly improve
the world at large. He had come to accept that the domain
around the AI Lab had been permanently polluted. He was
out to cause as much damage to the culprit as he could.

A recent story in Forbes corroborates Levy's account. It says:

[Stallman] retaliated [against the computer scientists
who left the MIT AI Lab to form Symbolics] by sabotaging his
former colleagues' sophisticated commercial programs for powerful
computers, singlehandedly hacking up his own versions
and giving them away. "They accused me of costing them millions
of dollars," he says. "I hope it's true."

Defending the BSD license --

quote: ... You would only be a "dupe" if you did not understand the terms of the BSD license --
which is unlikely, since it is a very short, simple and clear license. (The GPL, on the other hand,
goes on for pages and contains much legalese.) The BSD license, and the MIT X license, say that
anyone can use the code in any way he or she wants -- so long as they release the author from
liability for bugs. Simple, clear, and to the point. There's not much room to be "duped" here!

GPL: The Great Wall
Avoiding GPL "infection"
Un-"GNUing" software

quote: In fact, if you understand the history of the GPL (which is documented in Steven Levy's book
Hackers, you know that one of Richard Stallman's goals in creating the GPL was exactly this:
to prevent the reuse of the products of government-sponsored research in commercial products.

Richard Stallman, who did government-sponsored research at the MIT AI Lab, was traumatized when his co-workers left the Lab to convert its research into "real" products that people could use. As Levy wrote:

This was RMS's opportunity for revenge.... Stallman
had no illusions that his act would significantly improve
the world at large. He had come to accept that the domain
around the AI Lab had been permanently polluted. He was
out to cause as much damage to the culprit as he could.

A recent story in Forbes corroborates Levy's account. It says:

[Stallman] retaliated [against the computer scientists
who left the MIT AI Lab to form Symbolics] by sabotaging his
former colleagues' sophisticated commercial programs for powerful
computers, singlehandedly hacking up his own versions
and giving them away. "They accused me of costing them millions
of dollars," he says. "I hope it's true."

http://www.siliconvalley.com/roundtable/

Lando

There is a really interesting round-table discussion between Craig Mundie, Dan Gilmore, Bruce Perens and others going on at SiliconValley.com where this topic is touched as well.

There is a really interesting round-table discussion between Craig Mundie, Dan Gilmore, Bruce Perens and others going on at SiliconValley.com where this topic is touched as well.

Microsoft Breakup Decision Overturned by the Court of Appeals

Judge Jackson had compared Microsoft to "drug traffickers".

by Michael Jennings

(Thursday, June 28, 2001) Today the Court of Appeals handling the Microsoft anti-trust case overturned the lower court's decision to split Microsoft into two or more companies. The breakup would have placed the Microsoft Windows operating system in one company and created a second business for everything else.

This decision of the Court of Appeals has been widely recognized as fair because of the behaviour of the judge of the lower court, in which he had not given the required appearance of impartiality. Judge Jackson had, for example, compared Microsoft to "drug traffickers", and Bill Gates to Napoleon. (See page 111 of the Court's decision [PDF format]).

The Court of Appeals found that Judge Jackson's 206-page Findings of Fact, in which Microsoft was found to have engaged in illegal conduct, was entirely acceptable. It was his conduct outside the courtroom that was a violation of the code of conduct for United States judges. (For more about this, see pages 111 to 115 of the decision.)

Earlier, many people had praised Judge Jackson's skill in handling the case inside the courtroom. Technically oriented observers considered the Findings of Fact to be very well informed.

However, the penalty that Judge Jackson recommended for Microsoft was voided because of his public misconduct. The Court of Appeals directed that a new district judge examine the case, using the Findings of Fact as a starting point.

The story is very widely reported. For examples, see: ABC, AP, BBC, Washington Post, Seattle Times, CNet, The Industry Standard, Reuters, Guardian, Motley Fool, and MSNBC. The NY Times article requires that you register. Registration is free.

Silicon Valley.com said "[Microsoft] can continue its brutal practices for a while longer..."

There were two parts to the anti-trust case, 1) the Findings of Fact, in which Microsoft was found to have engaged in illegal activity, and 2) the remedy, which is what would happen as a result of the court finding illegal activity. Judge Jackson had ordered that Microsoft be broken into two companies. It is only this second part, the remedy, that has been voided (vacated) by the Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals wrote, "We vacate the judgment on remedies, because the trial judge engaged in impermissible ex parte [outside the court] contacts by holding secret interviews with members of the media and made numerous offensive comments about Microsoft officials in public statements outside of the courtroom, giving rise to an appearance of partiality."

The Court of Appeals added, "Although we find no evidence of actual bias, we hold that the actions of the trial judge seriously tainted the proceedings before the District Court and called into question the integrity of the judicial process."

The ruling of the Court of Appeals was unanimous, by a 7-0 vote.

More links:

Open Secrets.org report on Microsoft soft money donations

Common Cause report on Microsoft political contributions

Antitrust Law and Economics Review

Older Articles:

Microsoft Unfazed by Threat of New Antitrust Suits (Thursday, June 21, 2001)

What, me worry? Microsoft's Ballmer stays cool, confident, composed. (PC World, June 17, 1998)

Michael Jennings
Futurepower®
P.O. Box 14491
Portland, OR 97293-0491
U.S.A.

Tel: (503) 233-7820
Fax: (419) 781-4606
E-Mail: jennings_michael @ hotmail.com (remove spaces)

Futurepower is a registered trademark.
Copyright 2001

"Both panelists and non-panelists laid out some concerns. Brett Glass pointed out that this is only one of many Microsoft licenses, but that doesn't close the topic. I have been thinking through the comments and have gone back and talked with the team that is managing the Mobile Internet Toolkit. We recognize that the license can be reworked to make it clearer. The license right now pertains to beta code - we will revise the license terms, based on your feedback, prior to RTM."

Thought this was interesting enough for comment. Still doesn't indicate how the license will be revised, but is it a step in the right direction?

"Both panelists and non-panelists laid out some concerns. Brett Glass pointed out that this is only one of many Microsoft licenses, but that doesn't close the topic. I have been thinking through the comments and have gone back and talked with the team that is managing the Mobile Internet Toolkit. We recognize that the license can be reworked to make it clearer. The license right now pertains to beta code - we will revise the license terms, based on your feedback, prior to RTM."

Thought this was interesting enough for comment. Still doesn't indicate how the license will be revised, but is it a step in the right direction?

Check out http://forums.siliconvalley.com/msgshow.cfm/msgboa rd=5968009897410465&msg=2968245722915407&page=1&id DispSub=5145094516046185 where Bruce Perens says something quite interesting and disturbing....

This is because when the GPL was written, dynamic linking, object brokers, and operating systems kernels that were split into separate processes were not as common. In my opinion these gaps should be addressed in the next version of the GPL.

I guess the GPL just isn't viral enough? This is hilarious because so many GPL crusaders stood up for the GPL in recent arguments relating to how GPLd and non-GPLd code can coexist...not for long. BTW: Doesn't the GPL state that the current GPL license is the legal force, so that they could change it all they want and retroactively affect every GPL license toting application?

I suppose the major argument is that free code begets proprietary extensions to the code which begets profits which begets university endowments and R&D which begets more free code, and the GPL's elimination of the corporate middleman is somehow disrupting the ecosystem. How inconsiderate -- not to mention environmentally unfriendly and terribly Politically Incorrect -- of us.

Oh well, maybe when we're through with that and then with nuking the gay whales, we'll have enough left to put the crybabies at MS out of their misery. Until then, realize that you can undo pretty much all the damage these FUD attempts cause in a good face-to-face discussion. Just don't miss your chance at throwing a little good advocacy out there when you get the chance.

(And don't forget to remind people which company originally made popular the marriage of "virus" and "computer" in the first place).

Actually, if you read the profiles on the front page of the roundtable and the comments posted by the various members of the panel, you will notice many more than two viewpoints. This issue extends beyond GPL vs. Microsoft.

Here is my take on the members' stances:

• Larry Augustin: Silent so far.
• James V. DeLong: Seems to be bringing a legal and philosophical angle to the discussion. He believes in IP rights to software, and sees open source and proprietary software as competing business models.
• Dan Gilmoor: One comment of substance so far, in which he makes an attempt to get Mundie to take a stand on open source licenses other than GPL.
• Brett Glass: Fairly prolific up to now. Falls very cleanly into the BSD camp here at Slashdot, and makes it clear that he believes in a developer's right to control how his software is used and reused. Makes some salient points about Microsoft licensing, but paints GPL as commercially unviable and as a "poison pill" to commercial software vendors.
• David McGowan: Comes in as a legal mind placed fairly clearly against Microsoft and pro-GPL, if a little conservatively. Also fairly active.
• Craig Mundie: Pretty active in the discussion. Makes some interesting points concerning innovation and the benefactors of publicly funded research. Pro-MS, of course.
• Bruce Perens: Active participant, and arguably the most Pro-GPL, anti-MS panel member. Asks some inflammatory questions, and makes some good points about corporations who use software vs corporations who sell software.
• David Winer: One of the less vocal members. Gives a good background on his decision to use the MIT license, and believes that commercial software is just as moral as open source software.

So I think the panel is fairly balanced, when you consider that the roundtable is not about MS vs. GPL anymore (despite the stated topic on the introductory page.) The real meat of the discussion is intellectual property, the ins and outs of licensing, and the relative merits of many different licensing models.

I regret Stallman's withdrawal from the panel, as his presence would have steered the discussion towards ethical issues as well as legal ones.

Actually, if you read the profiles on the front page of the roundtable and the comments posted by the various members of the panel, you will notice many more than two viewpoints. This issue extends beyond GPL vs. Microsoft.

Here is my take on the members' stances:

• Larry Augustin: Silent so far.
• James V. DeLong: Seems to be bringing a legal and philosophical angle to the discussion. He believes in IP rights to software, and sees open source and proprietary software as competing business models.
• Dan Gilmoor: One comment of substance so far, in which he makes an attempt to get Mundie to take a stand on open source licenses other than GPL.
• Brett Glass: Fairly prolific up to now. Falls very cleanly into the BSD camp here at Slashdot, and makes it clear that he believes in a developer's right to control how his software is used and reused. Makes some salient points about Microsoft licensing, but paints GPL as commercially unviable and as a "poison pill" to commercial software vendors.
• David McGowan: Comes in as a legal mind placed fairly clearly against Microsoft and pro-GPL, if a little conservatively. Also fairly active.
• Craig Mundie: Pretty active in the discussion. Makes some interesting points concerning innovation and the benefactors of publicly funded research. Pro-MS, of course.
• Bruce Perens: Active participant, and arguably the most Pro-GPL, anti-MS panel member. Asks some inflammatory questions, and makes some good points about corporations who use software vs corporations who sell software.
• David Winer: One of the less vocal members. Gives a good background on his decision to use the MIT license, and believes that commercial software is just as moral as open source software.

So I think the panel is fairly balanced, when you consider that the roundtable is not about MS vs. GPL anymore (despite the stated topic on the introductory page.) The real meat of the discussion is intellectual property, the ins and outs of licensing, and the relative merits of many different licensing models.

I regret Stallman's withdrawal from the panel, as his presence would have steered the discussion towards ethical issues as well as legal ones.

Actually, Brett IS savage. Check out that crazy crazy hair!

only one man defending a policy against a whole bunch of others is a little short-sighted.

Craig is not the only one on MS' side, look at Brett Glass' posts.(i'm surprise, though)

But I don't see why you said the others are short-sighted...can you explain?

Too bad RMS quit, BTW

He's busy dating! :D
&nbsp_
/. / &nbsp&nbsp |\/| |\/| |\/| / Run, Bill!

only one man defending a policy against a whole bunch of others is a little short-sighted.

Craig is not the only one on MS' side, look at Brett Glass' posts.(i'm surprise, though)

But I don't see why you said the others are short-sighted...can you explain?

Too bad RMS quit, BTW

He's busy dating! :D
&nbsp_
/. / &nbsp&nbsp |\/| |\/| |\/| / Run, Bill!

• (ii) Recipient shall not distribute the Device Adapter Code, or any portion thereof, on a stand-alone basis or otherwise permit further distribution of the Device Adapter Code and/or derivatives thereof by third parties.

If this is Microsoft's desire (and it has the right to require this; it owns the code!), it is clear already -- without going farther -- that the code cannot legally be incorporated into software for which source is made available to everyone, since it would violate these requirements. There are sensible reasons for such requirements. If Microsoft intends to support developers who use the code, releasing it to anyone could potentially increase its developer support costs without bound. (And developer support can't be done with minimum-wage employees; those who support developers usually have to be skilled programmers themselves.)

There are two issues here. First, a lot of people in the world community want to stop a major abuser. Who wants to be a dog on a leash, and change direction every time Microsoft yanks his chain?

Second, many people feel that open source software is just better. Who wants to use sausage software? If you knew what was in it, you probably wouldn't want it.

For me, the most important issue is not between open and proprietary software, it is between living peacefully in the world and abusiveness.

People say bad things about Microsoft on Slashdot, but the full truth is much worse. Microsoft is so abusive that I have never known or heard about anyone who understood the complete scope of Microsoft abusiveness.

Everyone who is knowledgeable about this seems to have a different set of Microsoft abuses to mention. Bruce Perens says in the SV.com Roundtable, "... you [Microsoft] have used your dominant position in the marketplace to force out competition through the ... use of incompatibility. For example, you changed the file and printer sharing protocol, and then you patented the changes so that anyone who makes a system that is compatible with yours becomes a patent infringer."

If Microsoft's main intention seemed to be to create good software, I think that most people would be less opposed to closed source. But Microsoft's intentions seem to me to be extremely hostile. If you follow the effect of their actions carefully, the company's main purpose seems to be to abuse its users. A case might be logically made that, for Microsoft, making a profit is secondary.

http://www.siliconvalley.com/docs/opinion/dgillmor /dg042501.htm
and here:
http://www.cnn.com/2001/LAW/05/columns/fl.hilden.g wtw.05.04/

The upshot of all this is that Margaret Mitchell's estate has successfully managed to have the book pulled from bookstores.

Anyway, slightly offtopic, and maybe you were aware of this (could be how you got your example), but I thought it might be an item of interest.

peace...

I don't know what paper that was. of course. It was conspicuously not being picked up by the San Jose Mercury News however.

Probably because it would have looked odd against their local feature story and this attached story presenting tech workers as privileged and doing well - in contrast to more standard poor downtrodden nontechies which better fit as traditional liberal sympathy generators.

Not that I mean to imply tech workers somehow deserve to be handed jobs more, or paid more that the market traffic would bear (but not less based on increasing desperation of imported tech workers either) - in both the cases described in the SJMN and this article, it boils down to normal supply/demand.

I don't know what paper that was. of course. It was conspicuously not being picked up by the San Jose Mercury News however.

Probably because it would have looked odd against their local feature story and this attached story presenting tech workers as privileged and doing well - in contrast to more standard poor downtrodden nontechies which better fit as traditional liberal sympathy generators.

Not that I mean to imply tech workers somehow deserve to be handed jobs more, or paid more that the market traffic would bear (but not less based on increasing desperation of imported tech workers either) - in both the cases described in the SJMN and this article, it boils down to normal supply/demand.

Do you think the fact that Covad previously sued Verizon in an antitrust suit in 1999 could have something to do with this? For the sake of balance, here's some excerpts from a SiliconValley.com article about the new Verizon lawsuit, which was filed in U.S. District Court in Northern Califorinia.

Covad denied the allegations.

``We consider this suit a harassment suit that thinly veils the fact that Verizon has a very poor service record and is inventing complaints to cover up its own ineptitude,'' said Covad co-founder and general counsel Dhruv Khanna in a statement Tuesday.

Some industry observers were skeptical of Verizon's claims. Why would Covad need to make up false reports of trouble with Verizon's lines? ``It seems bizarre to have to invent more of them when there's so many floating around,'' said Justin Beech, editor of the industry newsletter DSL Reports.

Covad has argued in antitrust suits against Verizon and BellSouth that the Baby Bells are unfairly crimping competition by dragging their feet in order fulfillment and by installing phone lines that malfunction.

Dan Gillmore made a similar point in his article "Microsoft's dominance may just be beginning".

According to this recent AP story he's "only" in debt for $100m, with the action for a claimed "phony investment scam" worth $35m. I guess that's what you're talking about...