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."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-07-04
"I'm sorry you believe criminal law has to do with good and evil. It doesn't. Personally, I consider greed and monopoly action to be immoral (evil for me), but that wouldn't make it criminal even if everyone agreed with me. "
Maybe my comment was too general. I don't believe that criminal violations are the only evil acts. But nor do I believe that all illegalities are immoral.
In particular, antitrust law is not about morality, it's about trying to maintain a vibrant marketplace, for the purpose of benefiting consumers (not competitors), period. That's it. Nobody is going to "hell" for bundling a browser with an OS. (Nobody is going to jail for it either, for that matter.) I can't think of any of the 10 Commandments that such an action violates (and I can list them, unlike those that want them taught in schools and displayed in court houses 
). It *might* harm the marketplace, but it's not a "sin".
Now, I don't know what you mean by "monopoly action", but "greed" is indeed one of the seven deadly sins. But name me a corporation that isn't greedy. I hate to quote Gorden Gecko, but "greed is good". The entire economy is based on it. It's why capitalism succeeds and communism fails. Charity and philanthropy are clearly virtues worth having, but greed is required to survive. Everyone has both greed and charity in him. And Microsoft is no more "greedy" than any of its competitors are (though they may be more charitable).
When I think of an "evil" corporation, I think of the likes of Enron, IG Farben, WorldCom, polluters, child labor exploiters, etc. Those are examples of truly "evil" corporations, not Microsoft.
Now, I could raise questions as to whether a company making billions on the backs of a free labor force is "evil" or not, but I won't go there (right now, anyway).
Edited 2007-08-21 06:42
Member since:
2005-06-29
I'm sorry you believe criminal law has to do with good and evil. It doesn't. Personally, I consider greed and monopoly action to be immoral (evil for me), but that wouldn't make it criminal even if everyone agreed with me.
.
That said, he was speaking informally; welcome to an Internet bulletin board. I suppose there was some formal context in the point, and in order to consider it as a real reason for the OSI to do something it would need to be formal. But I don't think he was trying to be formal, and neither way I (not about that at least).
We were simply trying to show just how dangerous this situation may be. But you're right, this is hardly an academic discussion. It's really an argument between those who respect Microsoft as a dangerous entity (fear) and those who value objectivity above that. It's unlikely to reach a compromise the parties can agree on as well, but then again what bulletin board argument ever has