8:39:41 PM comments ==
8:34:23 PM comments ==
Slashdot has an article Perens Discredits Mundie's Attack On GPL, the Peren's article is here. There are a few things to state here. First, the GPL requirements on software running over GPL code is neatly exempted for operating systems kernels (Linux here), I don't think people would be as intrested in running Linux if it wasn't. Matter in fact, I believe the majority $1.9 billion he talks about isn't GPL at all, but a conbination of other noncommercial licences. Next, about passport. First try to make kerberos scale to world wide usage, that's going to be some intresting engineering, legal, and buissness work, regardless of the basic tech being developed by MIT. Second from what I've seen federation has always been part of the game plan for passport.
On a related note: the liberty allience did a good job of demonstrating the low trust and Anything But Microsoft (ABM) attitudes the market has build up for Microsoft; people jumpped on the bandwagon of the devil they didn't know in spite of the one they did. Since there is no technology or system present to see or evaluate, who knows how much "liberty" is really in there? Also unclear to me is if ABM is going to be enough for the other two big players to open up thier services to the rest of the market. I predicted before the LA came about that there would be three big initital players in the online identity buissness. Microsoft, Yahoo and AOL/TW. In the after LA world, I don't know if this has really changed, or that we now have yet another player. The rosiest view would be a system as interoperatable and decentrallized as email, the worst case scenario is the IM market all over again. Don't get me wrong, the split up and mostly incompatable system seems to work for credit cards, and it is likely that we will have multiple identities anyhow (work, personal, etc), so multiple systems aren't such a bad thing, they are just one more complexity in life.
11:35:37 AM comments ==
Experts: Sun lawsuit reaches too far. Legal experts describe Sun's lawsuit against Microsoft as very aggressive and expansive, going well beyond anything pursued by federal and state trustbusters. [CNET News.com]
I understood that from reading Sun's page explaining the scope of the lawsuit that they had some stuff to prove, but 10 years worth? I guess Sun isn't going for the quick buck, they are going for the longterm throw everything in and see what we can get out, strategy. Another thing that struck me was that I thought that Microsoft wasn't a monopoly in the server space, but it then hit me that the same trick used in the client space can be used in the server space, just define the relevent market as "Commercial operatings systems on the intel-compatible market" and voila, instant monopoly.
10:52:29 AM comments ==