Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 18th Aug 2007 20:13 UTC
GNU, GPL, Open Source The OSI License-Discuss mailing list has been ablaze for the past few days since Microsoft submitted its Permissive License to the OSI for official open source license approval. Jon Rosenberg, source program director for Microsoft, posted, "Microsoft believes that this license provides unique value to the open source community by delivering simplicity, brevity, and permissive terms combined with intellectual property protection."
Thread beginning with comment 264410
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: To be honest...
by MollyC on Sun 19th Aug 2007 04:50 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: To be honest..."
MollyC
Member since:
2006-07-04

"Convicted of being a Monopoly is an admission the company is criminal."

You might want to research the difference between "criminal" law and "civil" law before speaking on this topic again, lest you continue to look uneducated.

Oh, and "convicted of being a monopoly" is a meaningless phrase.

Edited 2007-08-19 04:54

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[4]: To be honest...
by ma_d on Sun 19th Aug 2007 15:16 in reply to "RE[3]: To be honest..."
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

The "informal" definition (New Oxford) of the adjective criminal:
"informal (of an action or situation) deplorable and shocking : he may never fulfill his potential, and that would be a criminal waste."

He's plenty close enough, regardless of the legalese.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: To be honest...
by MollyC on Sun 19th Aug 2007 16:07 in reply to "RE[4]: To be honest..."
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

"The "informal" definition (New Oxford) of the adjective criminal:
"informal (of an action or situation) deplorable and shocking : he may never fulfill his potential, and that would be a criminal waste."

He's plenty close enough, regardless of the legalese."


I wouldn't call bundling a browser with an OS "deplorable" or "shocking".

Anyway, he's not anywhere near close. He wasn't speaking "informally". He talked of "criminal conviction".
Here's one huge difference:
In order to be convicted of a criminal matter, one must be found unanimously guilty by a jury "beyond a reasonable doubt".
In order to be found liable of civil infraction, one must only be found liable based on "preponderance of evidence" (i.e. 50% of the evidence plus one), a much lower burden of proof than "beyond reasonable doubt". And such can be declared by a single judge, rather than a jury, who may or may not be a moron.

Here's another difference. Microsoft was found liable for actions taken *before* it was ruled that they had a monopoly in a particular market. And then they were punished for those actions in a retroactive fashion. Such is not possible under criminal law. (This is one of the flaws I find in antitrust law; due to its retroactive nature, you have to second-guess every action you take at a given time for fear that some judge *might* declare at some point in the future that you had a monopoly at some time in the past. It's BS.)

And no, this isn't simply an academic debate.
The reason that antitrust law is civil law and not criminal law is that antitrust law has nothing to do with good or evil. It's not inherently evil to do anything that Microsoft did. It was only that since they had a dominant position in a particular market, that those actions were deemed harmful for the marketplace. Not "evil", just harmful. Using words like "criminal" carries the "evil/deplorable" baggage, which is inappropriate for this case.

Anyway, it's not relevant to the OSI submission process, despite DiBona's wishes to the contrary.

Edited 2007-08-19 16:10

Reply Parent Score: 4