Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on May 13, 2004 02:48 AM
I agree. Some people, like Moglen and the FSF, believe free software is a constitutional right. For others like Young and Red Hat, it's just a method for making cheap, good products. For others like Leibovitch, it's a weapon designed to level the playing field against software monopolies.
I also felt that that Matsuow (of Microsoft) was ambiguous - his general sentiment was, "The open source folk are just as capitalistic as we are." I was hoping for more of a discussion on why MS believes proprietary business models are better than open source ones, instead of just vaguely marginalizing Stallman's various free software philosophies.
Most embarassing was when an attendee asked Matsuow about why Office 2003 will only export in a Microsoft-patented proprietary XML format instead of adhering to the open XML standard used by OpenOffice and others. Matsuow basically danced around the question, only saying that there were too many standards floating around in the software industry.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Dancing around the questions
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 13, 2004 02:48 AMI also felt that that Matsuow (of Microsoft) was ambiguous - his general sentiment was, "The open source folk are just as capitalistic as we are." I was hoping for more of a discussion on why MS believes proprietary business models are better than open source ones, instead of just vaguely marginalizing Stallman's various free software philosophies.
Most embarassing was when an attendee asked Matsuow about why Office 2003 will only export in a Microsoft-patented proprietary XML format instead of adhering to the open XML standard used by OpenOffice and others. Matsuow basically danced around the question, only saying that there were too many standards floating around in the software industry.
- <A HREF="http://www.silentblue.net/" TITLE="silentblue.net">quanta</a silentblue.net>
#