Re: [DotGNU]DotGNU and business

[Timothy Rue]

On 29-Jul-02 13:12:00 Norbert Bollow <address@hidden> wrote:
 NB> Matthew Tedder <address@hidden> replied to a posting from me:

>> > The _strategy_ of DotGNU is to compete with a certain proprietary
>> > software company in a certain area.
>>
>> A certain area like the groin--when hurt, it immobilizes everything
>> else..   And when put to proper use, it creates a whole new
>> generation.  I wouldn't  under estimate this "certain area".

 NB> Agreed.

>> > But the main thing to understand is what motivates
>> > decision-makers everywhere to choose .NET, and how we can
>> > motivate them to choose DotGNU instead.
>>
>> I don't personally see that anything needs to motivate them to
>> *choose* .Net since .Net will choose them.  It's a rediculous
>> argument as to whether or not .Net will succeed, because
>> Microsoft will put it on every desktop and anyone wanting to
>> do business with users behind those desktops will have to do
>> business with .Net.   It has nothing to do with choices in any
>> practical sense.

 NB> Well, Microsoft's Hailstorm strategy has failed even in spite of
 NB> their effective monopoly on the desktop.

 NB> Of course Microsoft has been quick to redefine .NET and also
 NB> launch Palladium, a new serious threat to freedom which again
 NB> goes into the area of parsonal freedoms, far beyond the issues
 NB> of proprietary vs free software.

 NB> See http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html for details.

"At least two companies have started work on a TCPA-enhanced version of
GNU/linux. This will involve tidying up the code and removing a number
of features. To get a certificate from the TCPA corsortium, the sponsor
will then have to submit the pruned code to an evaluation lab, together
with a mass of documentation showing why various known attacks on the
code don't work. (The evaluation is at level E3 - expensive enough to
keep out the free software community, yet lax enough for most commercial
software vendors to have a chance to get their lousy code through.)
Although the modified program will be covered by the GPL, and the source
code will be free to everyone, it will not make full use of the TCPA
features unless you have a certificate for it that is specific to the
Fritz chip on your own machine. That is what will cost you money (if not
at first, then eventually)."


Sound rather self defeating.


"People believed that the GPL made it impossible for a company to come
along and steal code that was the result of community effort. This helped
make people willing to give up their spare time to write free software
for the communal benefit. But TCPA changes that. Once the majority of PCs
on the market are TCPA-enabled, the GPL won't work as intended. The
benefit for Microsoft is not that this will destroy free software
directly. The point is this: once people realise that even GPL'led
software can be hijacked for commercial purposes, idealistic young
programmers will be much less motivated to write free software."



Sounds like double standards to me. A way to break the intent of the GPL.

Perhaps it's time to modify the GPL in such a manner as to address such
deception.


The point is simple. thru the mechanics of human directed actions
constraints are being set in motion. And by the same human directed
actions, a counter to such constraints can be put into motion.

Where are the laws to protect human right to be innovative and creative as
well has having the ability to share such work with others freely, without
tax or charge by some technology controller?

Where are the laws?

---
Timothy Rue
Email @ mailto:address@hidden
Web @ http://www.mindspring.com/~timrue/