Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Tunney Act and the Microsoft case
I guess a related part of the reasoning is that Microsoft-formatted
documents are pervasive enough so that they could be considered part of
the infrastructure of communication. So you make the protocols for those
public and available, so that tools can always be built to read such
documents. (01)
The flip-side approach is to consider that documents, to be pervasively
and enduringly communicatable, must be build on open protocols. I think
XML provides open syntax for this: the move of the museum and library
worlds to XML echoes this, as does adoption of open XML formats by
OpenOffice, etc. (02)
More interesting are the following two assertions: (03)
- Fundamental infrastructure _must_ be open source. We cannot trust core
infrastructure to the private intentions, however accidentally good they
might be, of private 'owners'. Is DNA an example of infrastructure
that's open-source in this sense? (04)
- Tax deductions and other public benefits granted to donated software
should _only_ be granted if the donated software is open-source. This
both rewards open-source software and encourages its augmentation
(positive feedback for further open source development). Software
offered without source is held back in a closed fist; it is essentially
removed from public evolution, and so when donated is an incomplete gift. (05)
Cheers,
Mark (06)
On Wednesday, January 23, 2002, at 11:31 AM, Jack Park wrote: (07)
> I plan to take enough time to suggest that the file specifications for
> all MS products be made public domain and always updated. It's my
> thought that the ability to duplicate files made by MS products is the
> proper way to to break the stranglehold, given that this would allow
> competitive products to safely claim MS compatibility. (08)