Particularly the third item - restrict Microsoft's ability to endorse
\\ non-free hardware?! The second - patent restrictions - is a bit
implausible too.
Such requirements have been imposed in antitrust cases before. There
may be specific reasons I do not know about why it would be hard to
do here, but it is a mistake to assume that this is "implausible"
a priori.
What interests me, though, is why people keep suggesting that forcing MS
to go open source would be the ideal punishment. Since when was releasing
your OS source code a punishment? :-)
I am surprised too. I never suggest anyone should "go open source",
neither as a punishment or for any other reason.
IMO, the proposed solution (the govt's, not RMS's!) is a pretty good one.
It could do with a little refinement, and a few more restrictions in
places, but it could be quite effective.
Splitting up Microsoft could be effective for stimulating competing
proprietary software companies that would work more effectively to
crush free software. I don't think that is a desirable result, but
perhaps you do. I don't know what else is in the proposed sentence.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun May 07 2000 - 21:00:13 EST