[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] Indexes: Main | Date | Thread | Author

Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Tunney Act and the Microsoft case

I guess a related part of the reasoning is that Microsoft-formatted 
documents are pervasive enough so that they could be considered part of 
the infrastructure of communication. So you make the protocols for those 
public and available, so that tools can always be built to read such 
documents.    (01)

The flip-side approach is to consider that documents, to be pervasively 
and enduringly communicatable, must be build on open protocols. I think 
XML provides open syntax for this: the move of the museum and library 
worlds to XML echoes this, as does adoption of open XML formats by 
OpenOffice, etc.    (02)

More interesting are the following two assertions:    (03)

- Fundamental infrastructure _must_ be open source. We cannot trust core 
infrastructure to the private intentions, however accidentally good they 
might be, of private 'owners'.  Is DNA an example of infrastructure 
that's open-source in this sense?    (04)

- Tax deductions and other public benefits granted to donated software 
should _only_ be granted if the donated software is open-source. This 
both rewards open-source software and encourages its augmentation 
(positive feedback for further open source development).  Software 
offered without source is held back in a closed fist; it is essentially 
removed from public evolution, and so when donated is an incomplete gift.    (05)

Mark    (06)

On Wednesday, January 23, 2002, at 11:31 AM, Jack Park wrote:    (07)

> I plan to take enough time to suggest that the file specifications for 
> all MS products be made public domain and always updated.  It's my 
> thought that the ability to duplicate files made by MS products is the 
> proper way to to break the stranglehold, given that this would allow 
> competitive products to safely claim MS compatibility.    (08)