- From: Krzysztof Żelechowski <giecrilj@stegny.2a.pl>
- Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 18:51:53 +0100
Dnia 14-12-2007, Pt o godzinie 06:58 -0800, Joseph Daniel Zukiger pisze: > Just wait 'til the behemoth in Redmond has a loosely > held independent subsidiary of something not visibly > connected start making noises about how open source > software "might" be encumbered. You can distribute source software that is encumbered, and sometimes you are required to open your source by the customer, in particular when the government is the customer. It is all right as long as you pay the licence fee. > > > I believe many of the points being made in the most > > recent e-mails on this > > subject are points that have already been made many > > times. > > > > As far as I can tell, there are no satisfactory > > codecs today. > > As several keep trying to point out, there can be no > satisfactory codecs, except satisfactory to certain > parties, because, we have to assume for lack of other > evidence, of backroom deals. As several keep trying to point out, you cannot push a codec of your liking down anyone's throat; in this sense, yes, there will be no a priori satisfactory codecs until the Congress starts preferring prudence to profit, which is not to expect soon IMHO. But there may be codecs that are satisfactory a posteriori.
Received on Friday, 14 December 2007 09:51:53 UTC