Re: A 'Statement of Assurance' on SELinux patents

[James Griffin <agriffin@cpcug.org>]

Ben McGinnes wrote:
> 
> Russell Coker(russell@coker.com.au)@Tue, Aug 06, 2002 at 04:18:41PM +0200:
> >
> > Who would want to do that?  The NSA appear to believe that they have already
> > paid for all necessary rights, so naturally they will not want to pay twice
> > (also such a payment would be regarded as an admission of guilt).
> >
> > I won't give SCC a cent, will you?
> 
> Ah, pride, it's a wonderful thing ... I guess, that leaves the only
> other alternative (on the buying assets front) as
> someone/something/some group buying SCC in its entirety.  Though this, of course, begs the question, "why would anyone *want* to?"  ;)
> 
> Regards,
> Ben
> 

Principle or pride?  I'm not sure, but am inclined to opt for
"principle" in Mr. Coker's case.

All in all, it seems to me that what we have here is a failure of
imagination coupled with a lack of historical perspective.

To answer the question "why would any one *want* to?", let me suggest
that it is to further "poison the well" and increase the FUD associated
with this issue.  As for the unasked question "who would want to?", I
would suggest a convicted abusive monopolist that might not like having
a well vetted, low cost, highly securable competitive alternative to
their latest marketing program concerning trusted computing.

I'll leave the historical perspective as an exercise for the interested
reader, but offer a hint, graphic rendering patents.

Regards,
Jim

--
You have received this message because you are subscribed to the selinux list.
If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@tycho.nsa.gov with
the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.