From: Petro <petro@playboy.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 14:29:47 +0800
To: <cypherpunks@cyberpass.net>
Subject: RE: GPL & commercial software, the critical distinction (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <33CCFE438B9DD01192E800A024C84A19284704@mossbay.chaffeyhomes.com>
Message-ID: <v04011702b23833445730@[206.189.103.244]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



At 8:41 PM -0500 9/29/98, Matthew James Gering wrote:
>Jim Choate wrote:

>> Had Microsoft, for example, been required to publish their
>> API's by the market we wouldn't be spending all this effort
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>You state free-market and then you are *requiring* someone to do
>something? How do you resolve that contradiction? Require = Force !=
>Free[dom]

	Required as in purchasers large and small saying "You don't include
your source code, we won't buy it".

	Sort of like how restraunts are forced (usually) to provide
dinnerware, sure, they could MAKE you bring your own fork & plate, but they
wouldn't be too popular.

>As far as *commercial* software vendors go, Microsoft is one of the
>better companies for publishing APIs and creating useful APIs and tools
>for Rapid Application Development. Do you subscribe to MSDN? Please do
>before you crucify Microsoft for lack of APIs, if anything they have too
>many.

	"BETTER"?

	Remember "Undocumented Dos"?

	Wasn't there a (couple) windows versions?

	Microsoft sells/gives away it's API so that it can find competent
programmers to hire and lock away in tiny rooms.

--
petro@playboy.com----for work related issues. I don't speak for Playboy.
petro@bounty.org-----for everthing else.      They wouldn't like that.
                                              They REALLY
Economic speech IS political speech.          wouldn't like that.