On Thursday 11 September 2003 19:09, Clive Menzies wrote: > On (11/09/03 18:31), David Palmer wrote: > > On Thursday 11 September 2003 17:50, Clive Menzies wrote: > > > Thought this may be of interest to the list - worth a read, if you > > > haven't seen it: > > > > > > http://linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2003091001926OSCDCY > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > Clive > > > > Hello Clive. > > Yes it was a powerful answer, but now I believe two days old. > > SCOs' latest shot across the bows is this one which was in the earlier > > post:- http://www.pcpro.co.uk/?news/news_story.php?id=47107 > > Seems like more noise and no substance to me, as well as demonstrating > a misunderstanding of what open source is all about. Rather like MS > accusing the latest open source initiative by governments in Asia of being > "anti-competitive" > > > What concerns me are things like url addressing, and most of the other > > protocols that define the internet, being linux, must stay within the > > public domain., otherwise they own that too. > > If they own your freedom they possess your independent individuality. > > If you are interested in this situation, Ralph Glanz has it fairly well > > covered over at Promote-Open Source. > > http://promote_opensource.org/modules/news/ > > Couldn't open this link? > > Regards > > Clive
I'll try again:- http://promote-opensource.org/modules/news/ That should be better. Sorry. Regards, David. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
