From: Petro <petro@playboy.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1998 14:18:56 +0800
To: Matthew James Gering <cypherpunks@cyberpass.net>
Subject: RE: GPL & commercial software, the critical distinction (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <33CCFE438B9DD01192E800A024C84A19284710@mossbay.chaffeyhomes.com>
Message-ID: <v04011701b239821d8135@[206.189.103.244]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



At 5:25 PM -0500 9/30/98, Matthew James Gering wrote:
>Petro 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".
>
>*Require* per say is a bad term for the use of economic power. But the
>market didn't "require" Microsoft to do so (see Microsoft's financial
>statements), so why should the government step in and force something
>that is contrary to the market?

	I never said they should, however in this case I will make the
arguement that the Feds DID have something to do with creating the
Jaggernaut called M$, and that they could also fix Billys little redmond
wagon without a court case shoud they wish.

	Again, for those on the list who can't read clearly, I DON'T THINK
THE DOJ SUIT IS PROPER, I am against it.

	Of course that is true of most government "actions".

>The rest of Jim's sentence read "we wouldn't be spending all this effort
>and money on the current [Department of Justice] proceedings."
>
>Which tells me that require means certain segments of the market telling
>Microsoft you will do this or we will fuck you over with the borrowcrats
>we own, which is exactly what has happened. The elements lacked
>sufficient economic power to sway Microsoft, and they lacked sufficient
>political power until they ganged up together. A loose coalition to gain
>via use of DOJ antitrust force what they good not gain in a free market.
>That is political power, not economic.
>What is rather ironic is that the same Antitrust laws they are trying to
>bash Microsoft with are what prevented them from forming an economic
>(instead of under-the-table political) coalition that could have made
>Microsoft change its practices without resorting to non-free-market
>forces.

	Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't almost all Federally owned
desktop computers PCs?

	Aren't there certain departments/divisions in the governement that
only accept electronic files if they are in "word" format? (i.e. the DoD,
but I don't have a site for that, so I could be mistaken).

	I know that I've never seen a Military Computer (desktop kind) that
wasn't a Wintel/Dos machjne (talking general purpose computer here, not a
targeting machine etc.)

	Sell a couple hundered thousand units to the Feds, and that is a
considerable dent in the "level playing field" of the free market.
--
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.