I would like to pass on from another list, what is (IMHO) a very valuable
insight...
M
--------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 00:38:16 -0500
From: Russell McOrmond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Universal Access Canada <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: the Halloween Document (fwd)
On Mon, 2 Nov 1998, Michael Gurstein wrote:
> This is to software what MAI/MAInot is to international trade and
> depending on which you consider to be more important...international trade
> or the future of software (or the lil blu dress)...this may be the most
> important "story" of 1998.
By the way: When you consider convergence (Television, Telephone,
Computer communication, etc all merging), and the fact we are moving into
(IMO already in) an information economy, it is impossible to differentiate
monopolistic control over information technology (de-commoditize protocols
& applications) and monopolistic control over economies (MAI).
My own comments to this paper are at:
http://news.flora.org/flora.comnet-www/1341
Here is a quote (Well, the ending of my posting) to entice people to check
it out:
....
In essence, GPL is very similar to the Microsoft license where users of
the license and program cannot 'fork' their own license that is different
than the Microsoft one. It seems that Microsoft wants to consider
modifying their restrictive license as "piracy" (And the negative
connotations that go with it), while seeing the "restrictions" (If you can
call them that) of adhering to the GPL as a negative thing.
I also do not understand why people allow them to equate "make
commercial" with "make secret source". I consider RedHat, Caldera and SuSE
to be distributing *COMMERCIAL* UNIX products, even though their products
are OSS. Language is a very important and fundamental aspect of this
battle - For Microsoft to claim that "FUD tactics can not be used to
combat it" and then abuse language as to create FUD(fear, uncertainty, and
doubt) lacks credibility (Not that they had much to begin with).
(FUD Defined <http://earthspace.net/jargon/jargon_21.html#TAG712> )
In my writings on ethical computing I have always put process over
technology. It is interesting to note that Microsoft is realizing that it
is this process that is at odds with the Microsoft chosen funding-formula,
and not some specific targetable technology or vender: "In other words, to
understand how to compete against OSS, we must target a process rather
than a company". This also needs to be remembered by other ethical
technologists, and can be used to understand why people like me have a
"freedom or nothing" attitude towards technology (IE: That I would reject
the use of a technology on its licensing alone, regardless of the
perceived short-term utility).
---
Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.org/russell/work/>
http://www.flora.org/russell/work/closed-ms1.html Is MS a Monopoly?
CKCU Funding drive, FLORA, Y2K http://www.flora.org/?ckcu
<http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,28215,00.html?st.ne.ni.lh> MS Halloween
