From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Jun 7 8:23:45 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from theory1.physics.iisc.ernet.in (theory1.physics.iisc.ernet.in [144.16.71.20]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2F36B37B5B3 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 08:23:35 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rsidd@physics.iisc.ernet.in) Received: (qmail 61784 invoked from network); 7 Jun 2000 15:23:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO theory3.physics.iisc.ernet.in) (qmailr@144.16.71.158) by theory1.physics.iisc.ernet.in with SMTP; 7 Jun 2000 15:23:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 2572 invoked by uid 211); 7 Jun 2000 15:23:22 -0000 Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 20:53:22 +0530 From: Rahul Siddharthan To: Arun Sharma Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Anti-BSD FUD Message-ID: <20000607205321.B2465@physics.iisc.ernet.in> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20000606184736.04b0f2f0@localhost> <200006071518.IAA02379@sharmas.dhs.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i In-Reply-To: <200006071518.IAA02379@sharmas.dhs.org>; from adsharma@sharmas.dhs.org on Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 08:18:59AM -0700 X-Operating-System: Linux 2.0.36 i686 X-Question: Do you enjoy reading pointless headers? Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org 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 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