Re: If you could design a $300 homecomputer today, what would you choose?

[David Ogg <davidogg@nc.rr.com>]

In article <67r0k9.qga.ln@ridcully.freenet.co.uk>, spike1@freenet.co.uk 
says...
> David Ogg <davidogg@nc.rr.com> did eloquently scribble:
> > Ok, not a good example, I'll pick another one, what if Linux integrated a 
> > free web browser into it's interface? What if (hypothetically) this put
> > someone out on the street. What could the government do? Should they do 
> > anything?
> 
> Linux doesn't need to "incorporate it into its interface" in the way you
> mean... There are several free web browsers included with every linux
> distro. And yes, depending on which windowmanager/desktop environment you
> choose, there are integrated ones. But not of them are forced on the user.
> 
> And as the source code is free... It would be easily UNintegratable if
> someone DID want to reassert their choices.

Easily, maybe, I can also easily unintegrate IE from Win98 too, there is 
a way to do it ;) (Was quite an embarassment too, after MS said they 
couldn't!)
 
> >> Kerberos is the perfect example.
> >> They took the code from the FreeBSD codebase. As FreeBSD license allows
> >> anyone to do anything with the source code they want as long as there's an
> >> acknowledgement, they extended it and then, when someone found out what the
> >> extensions were and posted source code, M$ forced them to remove it from the
> >> web.
> 
> >  This is where that double edged sword could hurt Linux. If the 
> > government is empowered to bitchslap developers who change protocols
> > to extend them, could not this empowerment also be used to bitchslap
> > developers who reverse engineer protocols to be compatible?
> 
> Think of it this way. Someone working on FreeBSD wrote that kerberos
> protocol. OK, he released it under the FreeBSD license, but when M$ extended
> it, did he get anything for it? Did he even get to see the changes?

In my personal opinion, I really hate the BSD license, for this very 
reason. I mean, it's fine if you don't WANT to see your code when it's 
reused, but I wouldn't choose it.

> That's why I prefer the GPL over FreeBSD. Microsoft CAN'T use that code
> legally without releasing any changes they make back into the community.

Agreed.
 
> >  I think the safest ground we could stand on would be that protocols
> > be considered speech, and be given the same standing constitutionally. 
> > (Posting the source code is a different story.) Let Microsoft extend 
> > whatever they feel like, we'll be right behind them developing tools
> > that integrate nicely with those changes. Both these practices should
> > be protected, as attacking one hurts the other.
> 
> fine... let them keep the source, but they DON'T publicise the actual
> protocols... Hell, even their own protocols (word document format anyone?)
> aren't fully compatible with each other in an attempt to force people to
> needlessly upgrade their software.

That's why I save everything in Word 6 format ;)

In the case of kerberos, they did publicise it, in fact, they publicised 
the source code. While the NDA keeps you from using that source code, it 
doesn't keep you from implementing the protocol.