[clug] Your Best arguments please

Damien Elmes clug at repose.cx
Tue Aug 12 12:25:30 EST 2003


Kim Holburn <kim.holburn at anu.edu.au> writes:

>>Requiring 3 separate tools to do the same thing is
>>overkill, but by simple]y saying things must be "open", it leaves a lot
>>of scope for companies to win contracts while still keeping things
>>closed - out of date documentation, techniques designed to lock out
>>unauthorised clients, etc.
>
> Examples?

Things like "open" standards which use patented methods, "data escrow"
like .net/.gnu where it's possible for proprietory vendors to stay
within the legal requirements of the GPL, but fail to comply with its
intended spirit - like the dynamic binding problem. I'm just saying
without careful wording, businesses will always find a way to work
around the restrictions.

Regarding future lock-out, the legislation would need to ensure the
requirement held for product updates and not just the product or
proposal at the time of consideration, for example.

Cheers,
-- 
Damien Elmes



More information about the linux mailing list