Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 7 Jun 2000 20:53:22 +0530
From:      Rahul Siddharthan <rsidd@physics.iisc.ernet.in>
To:        Arun Sharma <adsharma@sharmas.dhs.org>
Cc:        chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: Anti-BSD FUD
Message-ID:  <20000607205321.B2465@physics.iisc.ernet.in>
In-Reply-To: <200006071518.IAA02379@sharmas.dhs.org>; from adsharma@sharmas.dhs.org on Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 08:18:59AM -0700
References:  <4.3.2.7.2.20000606184736.04b0f2f0@localhost> <200006071518.IAA02379@sharmas.dhs.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
True enough.

Also, I guess one could call the thing FUD after all.  I'd
read the article and remembered only that it expressed his
opinion of the license (misguided though it may be); but
I'd forgotten what the title was.

Arun Sharma said on Jun  7, 2000 at 08:18:59:
> On Tue, 06 Jun 2000 18:47:56 -0600, Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> 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


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000607205321.B2465>