From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261957AbTD2Fqg (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Apr 2003 01:46:36 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261959AbTD2Fqg (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Apr 2003 01:46:36 -0400 Received: from [140.239.227.29] ([140.239.227.29]:41398 "EHLO thunker.thunk.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261957AbTD2Fqf (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Apr 2003 01:46:35 -0400 Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 01:59:30 -0400 From: "Theodore Ts'o" To: Larry McVoy , Alan Cox , Larry McVoy , Matthias Schniedermeyer , Ross Vandegrift , Chris Adams , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] Message-ID: <20030429055930.GA2645@think> Mail-Followup-To: Theodore Ts'o , Larry McVoy , Alan Cox , Larry McVoy , Matthias Schniedermeyer , Ross Vandegrift , Chris Adams , Linux Kernel Mailing List References: <20030427183553.GA955879@hiwaay.net> <20030427185037.GA23581@work.bitmover.com> <20030427220717.GA24991@willow.seitz.com> <20030427223255.GH23068@work.bitmover.com> <20030428200424.GA9252@citd.de> <20030428201816.GB23581@work.bitmover.com> <1051568160.17370.3.camel@dhcp22.swansea.linux.org.uk> <20030429000904.GA9653@work.bitmover.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030429000904.GA9653@work.bitmover.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 05:09:04PM -0700, Larry McVoy wrote: > This constant "I know how the law works and you don't" is no match for > "Microsoft has enough money to change the law". There was this little > anti-trust case, maybe you heard of it, it was obvious that they should > have lost and they didn't. How does your opinion, which would clearly > have been that they should have lost, reconcile with the fact that they > didn't lose? I don't get it, you apparently see something I don't. Well, there is the question about whether Microsoft would really want a law which made it illegal to duplicate the (unpatented) design of a competitor's product, given that Microsoft does that *all* the time. (Think Lotus 1-2-3 and Excel, just to name one example.) In the business world, engineers purchase competitors' products and rip them apart to see what makes them tick *all* *the* *time*. Ford does it GM cars, and Crystler does it to Toyota cars, etc., etc. Anything important where they don't want that to happen is patented. So I would find it very hard to believe that Microsoft or any other corporate lobbiest would try to convince their national legislature to pass laws that would prohibit some open source developer from cloning and/or reverse-engineering BitKeeper. After all, that would also outlaw a good part of what goes on all the time in the corporate world... - Ted