On Sun, Nov 08, 1998 at 10:59:45PM +0000, Jiri Baum wrote: > > Also, if we stick it into open source, > > as we should, M$ *still* has access to it to do as they please.
> Well, theoretically they don't. If they use GPL code, they have to
> keep it GPL.
In theory. In practice it is hard to prove that what is compiled came
from GPL'd code or from proprietary code. Regardless, I had intended that
statement to apply more on the level of the protocols themselves. With each
new extension to the protocol that we, as an Open Source community
impliment, Microsoft, by the very nature of Open Source, has access to the
very specifications of those protocols. Conversely, any extensions they
make we are forced to hobble through and decode.
The whole point was that taking on Microsoft's own tactics, "extending"
for the sake of denying Microsoft compatibility is an impossibility in the
Open Source model as the whole notion behind Open Source is to not deny
anyone compatibility.
--
Steve C. Lamb | Opinions expressed by me are not my
http://www.calweb.com/~morpheus | employer's. They hired me for my
ICQ: 5107343 | skills and labor, not my opinions!
---------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
pgpoFsTqhh2sP.pgp
Description: PGP signature
