[linux-elitists] Reformism versus radicalism and UCITA (was: Re: [linux-elitists] death knell for shrinkwrap...)
Thu Feb 17 16:44:18 PST 2000
On Thu, 17 Feb 2000, Seth David Schoen wrote:
> Seth David Schoen writes:
> > Heather writes:
> > > Jim Dennis predicted that UCITA (if passed and actually attempted to be
> > > enforced) would be the death knell of commercial software...
> > >
> > > * because -some- businesses can't afford risky things like agreeing
> > > to b.s. written on page 23 of a 25 page document of which only
> > > 12 lines are shown to you at a time with an OK button. (So far,
> > > they've been relying on the clause waaaay near the bottom that says
> > > um, and if this is illegal in your state, whatever that was we didn't
> > > say it, but the rest is in full force.)
> > >
> > > * because if we can't reverse engineer to make interoperable, why
> > > then, we'll just stop buying the one we can't modify.
> Richard Stallman gave his view of these and related arguments at
> He suggests that proprietary software vendors will not use UCITA in a way
> which would provoke a severe backlash, because they are "greedy and ruthless,
> but they are not stupid".
> Seth David Schoen <firstname.lastname@example.org> | And do not say, I will study when I
> Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will
> down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5
They are very stupid. Bill Gates could have bought FreeBSD, two LispOSes,
QNX, revived MULTICS, then ported O9* and we'd have had a much harder time
than we've had so far.
I have not yet read rms's piece.
More information about the linux-elitists