[BadVista Advocate] [Bulk] Re: Gpl3 and Linspire

[member greenarrow1]

On 6/18/07, Matthew Flaschen <matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu> wrote:
> Michael Fötsch wrote:
> > xaos wrote:
> >> I understand people change... money has a grand influence in a
> >> capitalist society.
> >
> > I can't see a change. Linspire never valued freedom. As far as I know,
> > they always were the prototypical "open-source company" that RMS
> > describes in his essays.
>
> It's not fair to tar the whole open source community with ESR's views.
> Linspire isn't an open source company any more than they are a free
> software one.  A significant amount of their software is proprietary,
> and that isn't open source or free.

When I became involved with Freespire ( the OpenSource choice over
Linspire) I almost immediately seen that this was a big farce.  They
tried to open it to a community but did not allow the community to
input.  When there was very good input they hid it from others view
unless one happened to receive the original list input.  It was a
Linspire developer dominated community which did not allow anything
that was said against any Linspire programs.  I tried to get them to
place some open source programs in lieu of the proprietary ones and
was immediately shot down even if I proved the open source program was
better secured plus usability was as good.

>
> Matt Flaschen
>
> _______________________________________________
> Advocate mailing list
> Advocate at badvista.org
> http://badvista.fsf.org/mailman/listinfo/advocate
>
I am still working on the anti trust violations in Vista.  The one
area I do not fully understand is if a program violated the EU anti
trust why it is not a violation in the US because under our laws they
are the same type violations.  No wonder why some of the US states are
in a uproar over what the feds found and seem to just pass by them.
In looking at past cases against Microsoft it looks like one would
have to choose the right area to file in and not the actual case proof
to win.  The mid-west is ideal as MS loses most cases presented in
that area and even lose their appeals.  Federal is bad as MS wins most
cases against them.  The way to go is individual state cases or
enjoining multiple states together.  I know this is a tedious but
getting the state Attorney Generals together would be the best way to
go against Microsoft.  This way they do not have the federal help in
only getting a slap on the wrist.  I have experience from the AT&T
anti-trust back in the late 1960's to 1970's and to take them down
took a vast amount of time.  One would have to be blind not to see the
areas Vista violate but proving it is another thing, especially to a
US Federal Judge.  Proving that Microsoft is trying to monopolize the
internet with Vista and their other programs is the reality.  Do not
even think that if I do prove my case against them they will not use
the recent deals in any court actions to try and prove they have Linux
partners.  But, just maybe I can use the deals against Microsoft.

George
greenarrow1
InNetInvestigations-Forensic
SuSe 10.2/TriStar/Apache
GoBoLinux