In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, rjack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. -- Richard -- "Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters in some alphabets" - X3.4, 1963. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
