I could certainly understand a company not choosing Linux because most of
their currently running software/applications
are not yet available on Linux. I though that was what the quote was
talking about.
|---------+---------------------------->
| | John Ford |
| | <[EMAIL PROTECTED]|
| | m> |
| | Sent by: Linux on|
| | 390 Port |
| | <[EMAIL PROTECTED]|
| | IST.EDU> |
| | |
| | |
| | 02/05/2003 09:51 |
| | Please respond to|
| | Linux on 390 Port|
| | |
|---------+---------------------------->
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|
|
| To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
| cc:
|
| Subject: Re: Power of Open Source - Microsoft Warns SEC of Open-Source
Threat |
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Maybe they think that if they use open source software as part of their
proprietary software that they would have to make their software open.
AFAIK, it doesn't matter unless you distribute your software with the OSS
stuff embedded (and thus no longer open). If I'm wrong... straighten me
out...
-jcf
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick Troth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 6:27 PM
Subject: Re: Power of Open Source - Microsoft Warns SEC of Open-Source
Threat
> > "The most oft-cited reason given by larger companies
> > with 2,000+ employees for not installing Linux is that
> > the proprietary nature of the software their companies depends upon
> > precludes them from open-source development."
> >
> > I don't understand the foregoing.
>
> I don't either.
>
> -- RMT
>
>
