[governance] something to think about for Rio

[Taran Rampersad]

I've been following this for a bit. Microsoft has to maintain
interoperability for many reasons. The reasons outlined by Norbert are
true to the future of communications - and, therefore, for humanity as a
whole (if humanity ever figures out how to communicate properly).

There is another reason: Microsoft needs interoperability with GNU/Linux
so that it stays a market force. 11 years ago, GNU/Linux began
negotiating marketshare from a position of weakness.Today, that position
of weakness exists only in the minds of people who mistake advertising
for information. GNU/Linux licenses cannot be counted as Microsoft
licenses are; one does not have to register each machine when installing
GNU/Linux or any other distribution of Linux.

Where this connects to what Norbert has written: A position of weakness
should not be artificially recreated by policy for *any* operating
system, just as a position of weakness should not be artificially
created for any race, culture, creed or gender (and everything in
between) of humanity.

Principle should guide policy, and that policy should be consistent with
the principle across all topics.

Norbert Bollow wrote:
> Veni Markovski <veni at veni.com> wrote:
>
>   
>> Everyone considers this a victory also for the free and open source
>> community.
>>     
>
> IMO anyone who considers this settlement to be "a victory" for the
> free and open source community is severely mistaken.
>
> At issue was the question whether Microsoft may continue trying to
> non-"Microsoft Windows" computers including in particular GNU/Linux
> based computers from working together with "Microsoft Windows"
> computers in workgroup environments for purposes like sharing a
> printer, shared document storage etc.
>
> In principle, the law is clear that such an abuse of a dominant
> market position is illegal.
>
> After much foot-dragging Microsoft has now finally agreed to stop
> trying to implement this illegal strategy by means of keeping the
> relevant protocol specifications secret (getting them to agree to
> that might have been a significant victory if it had happened
> before the protocols in questions were successfully reverse-
> enginieered), BUT in those settlement negotiations they got the
> Commissioner to implicitly agree to tolerating that Microsoft is
> now trying to implement their illegal strategy by means of patents.
>
>   
>> When I put the subject line, I also meant that this is changing the
>> way important things are happening around the (post)WSIS environment.
>> Only four years ago Microsoft was tryin to buy good press coverage.
>> Today they had to pay more than half a billion Euro to the EU and to
>> comply with the court decision. With regards to affordability of
>> internet access that's quite an important step.
>>     
>
> What matters with regard to the affordability of internet access is
> whether or not Microsoft will succeed in killing the ability of
> GNU/Linux to seriously compete.
>
> Getting the Commissioner to agree that Microsoft may insist on
> licensing relevant patents in ways which are fundamentally
> incompatible with the whole socioeconomic system which forms the
> basis of the free and open source community, that was certainly
> a major victory for Microsoft.
>
> :-(
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert.
>
>
>   


-- 
Taran Rampersad

http://www.knowprose.com
http://www.your2ndplace.com

'Making Your Mark in Second Life: Business, Land, and Money'
http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/9780596514174/

Pictures: http://www.flickr.com/photos/knowprose/

"Criticize by creating." — Michelangelo
"The present is theirs; the future, for which I really worked, is mine." - Nikola Tesla

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance