So, for someone who has no clue what the hell this article is talking about, even though I tried to read it, can someone please explain it? How would a 'GNU GPL law' (or 'codified GNU GPL I guess I should say?) work? Require all software to be GPL?
Yes, that would be one approach, and is (apparantly ) the one discussed in the article. For example, it might say that, henceforth, all provisions, express and implied, of licenses on software released after such-and-such a date that contradict a certain list of provisions (basically the GPL's requirements for derivative works) would be null and void. (Implied provisions would be things like whether source code is distriuted, whether changes are marked, etc.)
Another possibility, though, and one I thought at several points the article was going to address, was giving legal status to the GPL, as is. Basically, ammend copyright law, as before, but this time say that a work's copyright holder or originator is allowed to `copyleft' his work. The law would require that copylefted software be distributed under the terms the GPL gives for derivative works, and all derivative works would have to be copylefted. However---and here's the difference with the GPL as it stands---the concept of `copyleft holder' would not exist. Instead, if you receive a piece of software you can prove, legally, is a derivative work of copylefted software, you can sue for the source code. Then, if the FSF wants to shut down a pirated version of copylefted code, all they have to do is buy a copy and sue for the source. *poof* - no more copyright assignment forms!
Of course, that would make things way too easy to ever be implemented!
But there is a major difference between the FSF and RMS : they acknowledge the importance of the business world, even if they don't often shout it out loud, and they strive to work with them *and* keep the spirit of the GPL intact, which is why they drafted the GPL 3.0 that Stallman hates so much, and why they try to distance themselves from Stallman.
Just like you cannot say 'you have freedom of speech, but don't talk bad about the government'
No, the GPL is more like saying ``you have freedom of speech, but don't libel anyone''. You cannot use your ``freedom'' to contradict the freedoms of others. Thomas Jefferson said something like ``Rightful liberty is unrestricted action within the circle drawn by the equal rights of others''. Note the last phrase: ``equal rights of others''. Yes, other people have rights, and Thomas Jefferson, Richard Stallman, and other radical fanatics expect you to respect those rights!
His vision of freedom is not freedom for all, but rather control for the developer.
No, if we had ``freedom for all'', in the
sense of ``Free Software for all'', then every one would have Free Software. If ``freedom for all'' is a right, then everyone has a right to free software. So, the ``right'' of developers to produce proprietary software would be in violation of the rights of users, and so no true right.
So, if developers have a ``right'' to BSD-style licenses, then they have a right to produce proprietary software. (Otherwise a BSD-style license would be meaningless.) Other developers, however, would also have a ``right'' to produce proprietary software, hence conflicting with the ``right'' to BSD-style licenses. So, your ``freedom for all'' is:
Contradictory
``Control for the Developer''
Maybe Stallman's model isn't freedom, but neither is yours.
If he really believed that Free Software was better than closed source, then it wouldn't matter who used Free code for any project, commercial or not, because Free software would win out.
Yeah, and if Roosevelt had really believed that Free Countries are better than tyrannies, he wouldn't have fought the Japs, since freedom would win out. I'm not saying that what software hoarders do is as bad as what the Japs did at a Pearl Harbor, or elsewhere, but in both cases the point is: sometimes you gotta fight. George Orwell said, ``Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist.'' I say ``BSD-pushers are objectively pro-proprietary software.''
<snip>
My idea of freedom is that anyone can do with my code what they wish, if they give credit.
News flash: ``freedom'' is something you've got a right to; something you can fight for if you don't get it. However, you don't want me to have any legal recourse if anyone tries to take this ``freedom'' away from me. Sorry, but your idea of ``freedom'' is not even consistent, much less freedom.
<snip>
Sadly, I cannot agree with you that his model is freedom.
Sadly, I cannot agree with you that your model is self-consistent.
``Embrace and extend'' is simply a short-hand for ``Embrace, Extend, Extinguish''. It's the ``extinguish'' part that's evil, because it locks you into a single vendor's proprietary implementation. Embracing standards is good; extending them is also good. That's how standards evolve. Extinguishing standards is evil. Stop spreading FUD.
the University of Oklahoma teaches all intro to CS classes in
Fortran 77
Um, that class is in Java. See http://www.cs.ou.edu/academics/1323.shtml for the course description. Not that Java is my favorite programming language (it's not); I just won't have OU slandered like that.
Re:You might want to do the same
on
Review: K-PAX
·
· Score: 1
Or we could just stick to parsecs.
From dictionary.com:
parsec (pärsek) n.
A unit of astronomical length based on the distance from Earth at which stellar parallax is one second of arc and equal to 3.258 light-years, 3.086 × 1013 kilometers, or 1.918 × 1013 miles.
So, even a parsec is arbitrary (why a second? why the distance from Earth?)
Come to think of it, all units of distance are ``completely artificial''--and completely necessary.
I think that should settle this discussion. Then again, I think the solution to this discussion was obvious from the beginning, so what I think obviously has no bearing on reality:)
Re:You might want to do the same
on
Review: K-PAX
·
· Score: 1
...who still can't believe he got drawn into such a pedantic argument on/.
It isn't a pedantic argument--it's a basic philosophical disagreement. One side takes a very modernist approach, arguing that exactness trumps understanding. This is the attitude that brought us the spellings ``Sioux'', and ``through'' and ``slough''. This is the side that insists on transliterating ``narr'' and ``theqq'' into English, rather than translating them.
The other side takes a Medievalist approach. This approach favors understanding over exactness. This attitude brought us King Arthur and his court (Arthur lived, if at all, several hundred years before the social institutions associated with him evolved). This side insists on translating ``narr'' and ``theqq'' as ``light'' and ``year'', distinguishing ``our'' and ``their'' light-years.
I leave which attitude is more generally useful as an excersize for the reader (it is a philosophical conflict, after all.)
That's what I meant by ``at least originally''--I lost track of what ``Cairo'' meant a long time ago. My point, though, was that ``Chicago'' was barely 32-bit, and was certainly not the first 32-bit Windows. That honor (?) goes either to WinNT 3.1, or, if you want to insist that NT isn't really ``Windows'', to Win32s (apparantly the design inspiration for Chicago/Win95, btw:).
FYI, Win95 was not really 32 bit, nor was it the first 32 bit Windows--that was WinNT 3.1. Cairo was supposed to be the first decent 32 bit Windows (for sufficiently small (but non-zero) values of decent).
GNU = GNU's Not Unix, i.e., GNU != Unix. Now, emacs < GNU, for values of < = strict subset. (Sorrie, I don't have a real strict subset key on my keyboard). If Unix = emacs, we have, as you point out, Unix < GNU. However, this in and of itself implies Unix != GNU, hence GNU != Unix. This simply re-affirms the truth of GNU, and also points out another (actually rather obvious) fact: GNU is more than Unix.
(Fyi, this is because ``strict subset of'' means ``subset of and not-equal to''.)
Re:I don't understand
on
GNU Emacs 21
·
· Score: 1
That's not the point of my sig; I was simply replying to the claims you sometimes hear that ``RMS is a communist'' or ``free software is a form of socialism''.
Please bear in mind during the following that the ``Communism'' most people are thinking of is actually socialism. This socialism, and all other forms, involve government (i.e., centralized) control of the means of production. Well, the primary means of production (in practical terms, at least) in Software is source code. Proprietary software development, by definition, involves centralized control of this! So, proprietary software shares the central component of socialism (or ``communism''). Thus, it makes just as much sense to say that software hoarding is socialism as it does to say that free software is socialism.
(The poster who claimed socialism means community control of the means of production needs to consider that, in order for ``community control'' to be meaningful, it needs to be centrally administered. So, his socialism is more like software with the source available but the right to fork stripped off. This is still far different from what RMS has in mind when he speaks of ``free software''.)
Your opinion--others differ. GNU, which gets to give GNU/Hurd its ``official name'' (right?), disagrees. I was giving my best understanding of the official GNU rational behind the GNU/Hurd name. Perhaps I could have been clearer about this.
For the record, I don't consider GNU/Linux the ``official'' name; however, it is the name used by GNU; thus, it is the one relevant to this discussion.
<rant>Furthermore, I consider the powers-that-be's choice to use ``Linux'' alone as the official name morally reprehensible. RMS started GNU to demonstrate the practicality of his beliefs, and the ``Linux'' operating system rides on that demonstration. Why, then, do so many people not want to let RMS point that out?</rant>
Actually, if you say that, people won't know which GNU system you mean--there are two, GNU/Linux and GNU/Hurd (or Linux-based GNU systems and Hurd-based GNU systems).
OK, let me explain this: There are two (major) variants of the GNU Operating System: GNU/Linux and GNU/Hurd. Linux and Hurd are both kernels; GNU/Linux and GNU/Hurd are operating systems. See http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/, which contans a couple of references to GNU/Hurd, as the operating system.
They don't complain about ``TELNET, SMTP, POP or HTTP''. BUT, remember a nice little INTERNET service called NAPSTER the RIAA shut down? Napster couldn't have happened if the Internet had had ``proper'' (i.e. SSSCA-compliant) copyright controls. No, I'm not going to go dig you up a statement from the RIAA complaining about Napster.
First look at what the Government does NOT want to do:
* Break MS up
Actually, I think this is probably the best solution, from all of: the market's POV, competitor's POV, Bill Gate's POV, and Bush's POV. However, don't break M$ up into systems and apps! Instead, force M$ to donate all existing code to the public domain (they don't have to publish it, it's just that, if you get a copy of it, you can re-distriute that.) Split M$ up into two companies, with the following restrictions:
M$ Patents are evenly divided between the two companies; however, each company must license the patents it receives from M$ royalty-free to the other.
Neither company is allowed to sue the other for use of trademarks held by M$ at the time of the breakup.
For the period of 5 years after the breakup, no-one is allowed to own more than, say, 80% combined of both companies. E.g., if Bill Gates owns 50% of Micros~1, he can only own 30% of Micros~2. This still allows him to own 80% of Micros~1 + Micros~2, which is almost certainly more than what he owns currently. (Other restrictions should prevent abuse if Bill Gates holds a controlling interest in both companies).
For the period of 5 years after the breakup, neither company is allowed more than 50% market share in any given market. However, products already marketed by M$ at the time of the breakup do not count toward this quota, for either company. Note that this restriction allows the two companies together to gain 100% market share; other restrictions will prevent abuse
For the period of 5 years, any IP (defined as Copyright, Patent, or Trademark) rights licensed by one company to the other, or by any heir of one company to any heir of the other, except as provided for in these terms, must be licensed royalty-free for all purposes to all third parties. This is to prevent collaboration; note, however, that each company may still inovate, and may still keep it's innovations private. Furthermore, anyone can hedge his bets by buying stock in both companies.
At the end of 5 years, the court will review the situation. If the court finds that there is a strong probability that, if these restrictions are relaxed, Micros~1 and Micros~2 will successfully return to predatory, monopolistic practices, the court will extend these sanctions for another 5 years. Repeat as needed.
-- End of Conditions --
These conditions are, in fact, best for M$'s customers. Since the total of the two companies' market shares will be ~ 90%, and the maximum of either will be set at 50%, both companies will have market shares varying between 40% and 50%. Both companies, of course, will have strong incentives to be the 50% company. This is the solution to the M$ monopoly--force M$ to compete against itself.
Note that, if one company withdraws from the desktop market, that leaves 40% of that market open to completely non-M$ solutions. So, if Micros~2 stays in the desktop OS market, it provides Micros~1 with a powerful foe to compete with; if Micros~2 leaves, it creates a vacuum for non-M$ companies to fill. So, either way, the mechanism is set up for M$ to permanently (more or less) lose its monopoly. This, of course, forces Micros~1 and/or Micros~2 to compete, which is good for competitors.
This solution is also, for the same reasons, good for M$'s competitors. If both Micros~1 and Micros~2 stay in a market, the competitors merely have to compete with a weakened version of M$ with no more than 50% market share; if one or both companies leave a market, competitors merely have to fill a vacuum.
This solution is better for Bill Gates than any other serious solution, because it allows Bill Gates's combined possetions in the two companies to equal 100% market share (a real monopoly), if his companies prove they are realy worth 50% market share apiece. In other words, if all that M$ has been saying about innovation is true, Bill Gates will win under this situation. If not, he'll just have to find some programmers to match his marketers.
Finally, this is the best solution for Bush. Bush can accurately claim that with this solution that he has: eliminated the possibility of monopoly abuses by M$, and at the same time protected and encouraged innovation, even proprietary innovation! Surely this is a position that he cannot gain any other way; however, it is also a most admirable position.
You haven't given any motivation for the government to do such an insane and indefensible thing.
Since when does the government need motivations to do ``insane and indefensible'' things (such as all but dropping the antitrust case against M$)? Remember, we've had a presidential election (and change of administration) since the government put M$ on trial. That can, and does, make a huge difference.
More importantly, the ``problem'' this act is addressing is precisely that ``the Internet standards which the government developed'' make infringement of the RIAA's members' copyrights far to easy for the RIAA's taste. So, this act is proposed to, in one way or another, cripple those standards. Redhat's position is obviously not going to comply with the purpose of this act; Sun's position likely will not. So, M$'s solution, even if the government did find it unpalatable on ordinary grounds, would still be the only one compliant with the act.
I'm scared of death, but not so terrified to make me cling to faith to feel better.
It's not about ``cling[ing] to faith to feel better''. It's about recognizing the importance of an afterlife existing or not. Try to separate the emotional aspect from the factual aspect.
Slashdot Mirror
Overheard at LinuxWorld:
``The name of the OS is called GNU/Linux''
``Oh, that's its name, is it?''
``No, the name is Linux''
``Oh, so I should have said, `that's what the OS is called'?''
``No, the OS is called FooBar Linux''
``Then what is the OS?''
``Linux+GNU+X+BSD+EveryOtherFreeUnixOutThere, and the packaging format's my own invention.''
Yes, that would be one approach, and is (apparantly ) the one discussed in the article. For example, it might say that, henceforth, all provisions, express and implied, of licenses on software released after such-and-such a date that contradict a certain list of provisions (basically the GPL's requirements for derivative works) would be null and void. (Implied provisions would be things like whether source code is distriuted, whether changes are marked, etc.)
Another possibility, though, and one I thought at several points the article was going to address, was giving legal status to the GPL, as is. Basically, ammend copyright law, as before, but this time say that a work's copyright holder or originator is allowed to `copyleft' his work. The law would require that copylefted software be distributed under the terms the GPL gives for derivative works, and all derivative works would have to be copylefted. However---and here's the difference with the GPL as it stands---the concept of `copyleft holder' would not exist. Instead, if you receive a piece of software you can prove, legally, is a derivative work of copylefted software, you can sue for the source code. Then, if the FSF wants to shut down a pirated version of copylefted code, all they have to do is buy a copy and sue for the source. *poof* - no more copyright assignment forms!
Of course, that would make things way too easy to ever be implemented!
Got documentation on any of this?
No, the GPL is more like saying ``you have freedom of speech, but don't libel anyone''. You cannot use your ``freedom'' to contradict the freedoms of others. Thomas Jefferson said something like ``Rightful liberty is unrestricted action within the circle drawn by the equal rights of others''. Note the last phrase: ``equal rights of others''. Yes, other people have rights, and Thomas Jefferson, Richard Stallman, and other radical fanatics expect you to respect those rights!
No, if we had ``freedom for all'', in the
sense of ``Free Software for all'', then every one would have Free Software. If ``freedom for all'' is a right, then everyone has a right to free software. So, the ``right'' of developers to produce proprietary software would be in violation of the rights of users, and so no true right.
So, if developers have a ``right'' to BSD-style licenses, then they have a right to produce proprietary software. (Otherwise a BSD-style license would be meaningless.) Other developers, however, would also have a ``right'' to produce proprietary software, hence conflicting with the ``right'' to BSD-style licenses. So, your ``freedom for all'' is:
Maybe Stallman's model isn't freedom, but neither is yours.
Yeah, and if Roosevelt had really believed that Free Countries are better than tyrannies, he wouldn't have fought the Japs, since freedom would win out. I'm not saying that what software hoarders do is as bad as what the Japs did at a Pearl Harbor, or elsewhere, but in both cases the point is: sometimes you gotta fight. George Orwell said, ``Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist.'' I say ``BSD-pushers are objectively pro-proprietary software.''
<snip>
News flash: ``freedom'' is something you've got a right to; something you can fight for if you don't get it. However, you don't want me to have any legal recourse if anyone tries to take this ``freedom'' away from me. Sorry, but your idea of ``freedom'' is not even consistent, much less freedom.
<snip>
Sadly, I cannot agree with you that your model is self-consistent.
But he'd sure as hell better not extend it! Otherwise he'd be as bad as Microsoft!
Bzzzt! Wrong!
``Embrace and extend'' is simply a short-hand for ``Embrace, Extend, Extinguish''. It's the ``extinguish'' part that's evil, because it locks you into a single vendor's proprietary implementation. Embracing standards is good; extending them is also good. That's how standards evolve. Extinguishing standards is evil. Stop spreading FUD.
Um, that class is in Java. See http://www.cs.ou.edu/academics/1323.shtml for the course description. Not that Java is my favorite programming language (it's not); I just won't have OU slandered like that.
From dictionary.com:
So, even a parsec is arbitrary (why a second? why the distance from Earth?)
Come to think of it, all units of distance are ``completely artificial''--and completely necessary.
I think that should settle this discussion. Then again, I think the solution to this discussion was obvious from the beginning, so what I think obviously has no bearing on reality
...who still can't believe he got drawn into such a pedantic argument on /.
It isn't a pedantic argument--it's a basic philosophical disagreement. One side takes a very modernist approach, arguing that exactness trumps understanding. This is the attitude that brought us the spellings ``Sioux'', and ``through'' and ``slough''. This is the side that insists on transliterating ``narr'' and ``theqq'' into English, rather than translating them.
The other side takes a Medievalist approach. This approach favors understanding over exactness. This attitude brought us King Arthur and his court (Arthur lived, if at all, several hundred years before the social institutions associated with him evolved). This side insists on translating ``narr'' and ``theqq'' as ``light'' and ``year'', distinguishing ``our'' and ``their'' light-years.
I leave which attitude is more generally useful as an excersize for the reader (it is a philosophical conflict, after all.)
How about:
#define TEST(case, correction) if (!case){assert (case); correction;}
?
You call it like this:
TEST(((piA != NULL) && (ppiB != NULL) &&
(*ppiB != NULL)),
)
Yeah, C's macros suck. Better would be to come up with some kind of fancy macro to get rid of assert () entirely. But, you get the idea.
That's what I meant by ``at least originally''--I lost track of what ``Cairo'' meant a long time ago. My point, though, was that ``Chicago'' was barely 32-bit, and was certainly not the first 32-bit Windows. That honor (?) goes either to WinNT 3.1, or, if you want to insist that NT isn't really ``Windows'', to Win32s (apparantly the design inspiration for Chicago/Win95, btw :).
Having a single registry, stored without wasting space, is revolutionary.
.NET is its reign of terror.
Yeah--Being able to blow away a whole system by corrupting a single file is really revolutionary. Robespierre would be proud.
There is no revolution but Windows, and
Chicago=Win95
Cairo=WinNT 4 (at least originally)
FYI, Win95 was not really 32 bit, nor was it the first 32 bit Windows--that was WinNT 3.1. Cairo was supposed to be the first decent 32 bit Windows (for sufficiently small (but non-zero) values of decent).
I have no idea why I'm posting this, though.
GNU = GNU's Not Unix, i.e., GNU != Unix. Now, emacs < GNU, for values of < = strict subset. (Sorrie, I don't have a real strict subset key on my keyboard). If Unix = emacs, we have, as you point out, Unix < GNU. However, this in and of itself implies Unix != GNU, hence GNU != Unix. This simply re-affirms the truth of GNU, and also points out another (actually rather obvious) fact: GNU is more than Unix.
(Fyi, this is because ``strict subset of'' means ``subset of and not-equal to''.)
M-H--Otherwise, it looks like it's hard to type :)
That's not the point of my sig; I was simply replying to the claims you sometimes hear that ``RMS is a communist'' or ``free software is a form of socialism''.
Please bear in mind during the following that the ``Communism'' most people are thinking of is actually socialism. This socialism, and all other forms, involve government (i.e., centralized) control of the means of production. Well, the primary means of production (in practical terms, at least) in Software is source code. Proprietary software development, by definition, involves centralized control of this! So, proprietary software shares the central component of socialism (or ``communism''). Thus, it makes just as much sense to say that software hoarding is socialism as it does to say that free software is socialism.
(The poster who claimed socialism means community control of the means of production needs to consider that, in order for ``community control'' to be meaningful, it needs to be centrally administered. So, his socialism is more like software with the source available but the right to fork stripped off. This is still far different from what RMS has in mind when he speaks of ``free software''.)
Your opinion--others differ. GNU, which gets to give GNU/Hurd its ``official name'' (right?), disagrees. I was giving my best understanding of the official GNU rational behind the GNU/Hurd name. Perhaps I could have been clearer about this.
For the record, I don't consider GNU/Linux the ``official'' name; however, it is the name used by GNU; thus, it is the one relevant to this discussion.
<rant>Furthermore, I consider the powers-that-be's choice to use ``Linux'' alone as the official name morally reprehensible. RMS started GNU to demonstrate the practicality of his beliefs, and the ``Linux'' operating system rides on that demonstration. Why, then, do so many people not want to let RMS point that out?</rant>
Actually, if you say that, people won't know which GNU system you mean--there are two, GNU/Linux and GNU/Hurd (or Linux-based GNU systems and Hurd-based GNU systems).
OK, let me explain this: There are two (major) variants of the GNU Operating System: GNU/Linux and GNU/Hurd. Linux and Hurd are both kernels; GNU/Linux and GNU/Hurd are operating systems. See http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/, which contans a couple of references to GNU/Hurd, as the operating system.
HTH.
It wasn't ``quick'', but here's the difference: the second `m' on the second line of the first program was changed to `z'.
Bye, bye, karma.
An entity calling itself ``krokodil'' wrote:
So if you have your popular open source software title running on
Linux or BSD,
Perhaps krokodil would like to share with us the identity of some ``popular open source software title[s]''?
They don't complain about ``TELNET, SMTP, POP or HTTP''. BUT, remember a nice little INTERNET service called NAPSTER the RIAA shut down? Napster couldn't have happened if the Internet had had ``proper'' (i.e. SSSCA-compliant) copyright controls. No, I'm not going to go dig you up a statement from the RIAA complaining about Napster.
Actually, I think this is probably the best solution, from all of: the market's POV, competitor's POV, Bill Gate's POV, and Bush's POV. However, don't break M$ up into systems and apps! Instead, force M$ to donate all existing code to the public domain (they don't have to publish it, it's just that, if you get a copy of it, you can re-distriute that.) Split M$ up into two companies, with the following restrictions:
At the end of 5 years, the court will review the situation. If the court finds that there is a strong probability that, if these restrictions are relaxed, Micros~1 and Micros~2 will successfully return to predatory, monopolistic practices, the court will extend these sanctions for another 5 years. Repeat as needed.
-- End of Conditions --
These conditions are, in fact, best for M$'s customers. Since the total of the two companies' market shares will be ~ 90%, and the maximum of either will be set at 50%, both companies will have market shares varying between 40% and 50%. Both companies, of course, will have strong incentives to be the 50% company. This is the solution to the M$ monopoly--force M$ to compete against itself.
Note that, if one company withdraws from the desktop market, that leaves 40% of that market open to completely non-M$ solutions. So, if Micros~2 stays in the desktop OS market, it provides Micros~1 with a powerful foe to compete with; if Micros~2 leaves, it creates a vacuum for non-M$ companies to fill. So, either way, the mechanism is set up for M$ to permanently (more or less) lose its monopoly. This, of course, forces Micros~1 and/or Micros~2 to compete, which is good for competitors.
This solution is also, for the same reasons, good for M$'s competitors. If both Micros~1 and Micros~2 stay in a market, the competitors merely have to compete with a weakened version of M$ with no more than 50% market share; if one or both companies leave a market, competitors merely have to fill a vacuum.
This solution is better for Bill Gates than any other serious solution, because it allows Bill Gates's combined possetions in the two companies to equal 100% market share (a real monopoly), if his companies prove they are realy worth 50% market share apiece. In other words, if all that M$ has been saying about innovation is true, Bill Gates will win under this situation. If not, he'll just have to find some programmers to match his marketers.
Finally, this is the best solution for Bush. Bush can accurately claim that with this solution that he has: eliminated the possibility of monopoly abuses by M$, and at the same time protected and encouraged innovation, even proprietary innovation! Surely this is a position that he cannot gain any other way; however, it is also a most admirable position.
That's why I'm in favor of a breakup.
You haven't given any motivation for the government to do such an insane and indefensible thing.
Since when does the government need motivations to do ``insane and indefensible'' things (such as all but dropping the antitrust case against M$)? Remember, we've had a presidential election (and change of administration) since the government put M$ on trial. That can, and does, make a huge difference.
More importantly, the ``problem'' this act is addressing is precisely that ``the Internet standards which the government developed'' make infringement of the RIAA's members' copyrights far to easy for the RIAA's taste. So, this act is proposed to, in one way or another, cripple those standards. Redhat's position is obviously not going to comply with the purpose of this act; Sun's position likely will not. So, M$'s solution, even if the government did find it unpalatable on ordinary grounds, would still be the only one compliant with the act.
I'm scared of death, but not so terrified to make me cling to faith to feel better.
It's not about ``cling[ing] to faith to feel better''. It's about recognizing the importance of an afterlife existing or not. Try to separate the emotional aspect from the factual aspect.