[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:
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/cc/cc.html