Re: Will Open Source be forced to go Proprietary

In an attempt to throw the authorities off his trail, pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us (Bruce Momjian) transmitted:
> Alex Satrapa wrote:
>> Rod Taylor wrote:
>> > Discussion about OpenSource projects moving to support Windows.
>> [link]
>>
>> This article was WOFTAM (Waste of Time And Money).
>>
>> The article asks if open source projects will be "forced to go
>> proprietary" without describing what "proprietary" means. I'm not sure
>> the author really understands the software "industry".
>>
>> One of the telling comments is that the author confuses "published" with
>> "open" - Microsoft has indeed "published" the XML schema for it's new
>> range of Microsoft Office products, but the patent it has applied for
>> implies that the schema is not "open". Software can be "proprietary"
>> without being "closed".
>
> As is MySQL. They say you can't produce a non-GPL client that talks to
> their server via the protocol. They say they will enforce this via
> patents.

_VIA PATENTS_!?!??!? [Chris says, with an incredulous look...]

Are they _totally_ suicidal?

That's doubtless a wonderful route if their plan is to get MySQL
removed from "open source" collections, and to get a bunch of Slashdot
"script kiddies" to start pulling SCO-like DOS attacks on their web
sites.

If they decide to define that as "success," they can doubtless attain
'success' beyond their wildest dreams...
--
let name="aa454" and tld="freenet.carleton.ca" in name ^ "@" ^ tld;;
http://cbbrowne.com/info/linux.html
No lusers were harmed in the creation of this usenet article. AND I
WANT TO KNOW WHY NOT!
-- glmar0(at)twirl(dot)mcc(dot)ac(dot)uk in alt.sysadmin.recovery