From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Jun 7 8:19:13 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from sharmas.dhs.org (c62443-a.frmt1.sfba.home.com [24.0.69.165]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9CB637B8F0 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 08:19:09 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from adsharma@sharmas.dhs.org) Received: (from adsharma@localhost) by sharmas.dhs.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA02379; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 08:18:59 -0700 Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 08:18:59 -0700 From: Arun Sharma Message-Id: <200006071518.IAA02379@sharmas.dhs.org> To: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Anti-BSD FUD In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20000606184736.04b0f2f0@localhost> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20000606184736.04b0f2f0@localhost> Reply-To: adsharma@sharmas.dhs.org Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Tue, 06 Jun 2000 18:47:56 -0600, Brett Glass wrote: > See > > http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/comment/0,5859,2582875,00.html Here is the stuff I submitted using the talkback button. Hasn't showed up yet. I think Mr Leibovitch's argument is flawed: 1. He doesn't furnish any proof that Microsoft used Kerberos code. 2. GPL "protects" code, not the open standard. Even though Kereberos code was GPL'ed, Microsoft could write a proprietary version of it. Sure, it would have been a little more difficult for MS to do it, but given the resources they have, it's peanuts for them. One living example of this is their Java VM. They rewrote it from scratch, wrote a better one than Sun's (technically) and then wrote proprietary extensions to it. And GPL can't do anything to prevent that. In that sense, Microsoft *can* write a Linux emulation layer for NT, write a gcc compliant frontend to their compiler and have MS Linux. GPL can't stop them. -Arun To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message