[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [DotGNU]Open Source's Dot-Net Less Open

From: Seth Johnson
Subject: Re: [DotGNU]Open Source's Dot-Net Less Open
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 10:48:00 -0500

This analysis also applies to Bill's recent message about
Microsoft's P2P project, FarSite.  Bill puts out the very
credible analysis that Microsoft is planning to drub out P2P
stuff with a patent portfolio.  I  point out that Microsoft
can also rationally choose to do this sort of thing not to
kill P2P, but to establish precedent for content control in
the P2P context -- which translates into a steady toll
stream to sell to the content control interests.  This
dovetails very nicely with their patent on a DRM OS.  I see
their work with the W3C as geared towards trying to build
content control in the standards.

Seth Johnson wrote:
> It's an "anticipatory intimation."  LOL
> The corporate interests that leaned on Miguel, didn't have
> to be explicit about any aspirations they have to build a
> content control infrastructure -- only to appeal to a
> certain "open source pragmatism" to get the GPL out of that
> picture.
> The GPL emphasis on transparency goes against the aspiration
> to offer a toll stream, via content control, to the
> "content" industries.  I'm not speaking strictly
> technically, about whether you can link to a library or
> conform with an open standard -- the point has more to do
> with establishing market power and rationalizing "IP" law,
> after which consumer pragmatism takes over, buttressed by
> certain illusory moral imperatives having to do with
> authorship.
> I won't call this just intuition -- I have a lot of
> confidence in the idea -- but describing it is difficult.
> How did I do?  LOL
> Seth Johnson
> Norbert Bollow wrote:
> >
> > Seth,
> >   I totally agree that issues related to content control are of
> > key strategic importance, and that Microsoft is fully aware
> > of this, perhaps more than others.  However I don't see how
> > this would have anything to do with the license change of those
> > C# class libs.
> >
> > Greetings, Norbert.


[CC] Counter-copyright:

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]