Re: bzip2 (Was Re: Re: Bigotry ?? [was --> Re: What is Linux ?])

[Arun Sharma <adsharma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 04:30:18PM +0530, Atul Chitnis wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Jun 2000, Arun Sharma wrote:
> 
> > Oh BTW, you should completely avoid using bzip like plague, because it's
> > BSD licensed ;-)
> 
> 
> All I can say is
> 
> http://www.zdnet.com/enterprise/stories/main/0,10228,2582875,00.html
> 

We've gone over this before on this list and I think Mr Leibovitch's
argument is flawed:

1. He doesn't furnish any proof that Microsoft used Kerberos code.
2. GPL "protects" code, not the open standard. Even though Kereberos
   code was GPL'ed, Microsoft could write a proprietary version of it.
   Sure, it would have been a little more difficult for MS to do it,
   but given the resources they have, it's peanuts for them.

   One living example of this is their Java VM. They rewrote it from
   scratch, wrote a better one than Sun's (technically) and then wrote
   proprietary extensions to it. And GPL can't do anything to prevent 
   that.

   In that sense, Microsoft *can* write a Linux emulation layer for NT,
   write a gcc compliant frontend to their compiler and have MS Linux.
   GPL can't stop them.

For those of you who argue that MS is an incompetent software organization,
incapable of doing that, read:

http://www.cs.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/rob/utah2000.ps

I just interviewed a Stanford PhD, who worked at Microsoft on optimizing
compilers last week. And I must say he was brilliant.

	-Arun

PS: I just submitted this on zdnet talk back too.