In article <9pCdnYWle9KXM7XanZ2dnUVZ_q6mnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
rjack <danw6144@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>The GPL and Linux keeps Micro$oft out of hot water with the Antitrust
>Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. Empowering Micro$oft to
>maintain its hegemony in the U.S. software market without D.O.J.
>interference is certainly triumphant evidence that the GPL works.
>"The number of proprietary operating systems is growing, not shrinking,
>so competition in this market continues quite apart from the fact that
>the GPL ensures the future availability of Linux and other Unix
>offshoots." Wallace v. IBM et al. (No. 06-2454)(7th Cir. 2006)
So what's your theory? That we shouldn't have alternative operating
systems, so that we can better claim that Microsoft is a monopoly?
In other news: "rjack" cuts his nose of to spite his face.
"Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters
in some alphabets" - X3.4, 1963.
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list