[ I welcome everyone to come discuss this on an off-topic list -- LEAPBS. FYI, Mr. Litt, author of Samba Unleashed, is a subscriber there (and co-founder of the local LUG). You don't have to be a list member to post either -- although be sure to CC yourself if you want to get copied on a response. ]
Quoting "Christopher R. Hertel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I have been communicating with a lawyer friend who had some involvement > with the Microsoft case. Looking at the decision from the judge, we > noted that it seems as though the prosecution failed to clearly explain > Open Source and its importance in the marketplace to the judge. As a result, > the Judge did not recognize the importance of full and open disclosure > of the APIs. And when was Open Source _ever_ represented in the case? That's been my "problem" with it all along. You've got a mis-mesh of "screwed over" 'competitors' and "we thought there was a free lunch" 'partners.' _Never_ was Open Source _ever_ represented. I have long advocated the government could do far more as Microsoft's largest _customer_ than the nation's _regulator_. I was surprised to see Mr. Ralph Nader, who I really don't think much of, agree with me on this recently. -- Bryan J. Smith, E.I. Contact Info: http://thebs.org A+/i-Net+/Linux+/Network+/Server+ CCNA CIWA CNA SCSA/SCWSE/SCNA --------------------------------------------------------------- Every year a "robin" points a gun at you and forces you to give your property to the "needy." After a couple years, the "robin" starts pocketing half of the property. After a few more years the "robin" requires you to bring twice as much, since he now needs three times as much as he passes on.