Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 18 Jul 1997 15:01:22 -0400 (EDT) | From | Juan Jose Casero <> | Subject | Re: The i2o Bus: A Conspiracy Against Free Software? (fwd) |
| |
This is probably the best idea. If no one makes a stink about something like this sooner or later those of us who like free software will be in trouble. What it amounts to is a reduction of the available options for consumers. There must be something wron with that.
Juan Casero ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Evanseck Research Group Department of Chemistry University of Miami Coral Gables, Florida email: casero@kali.cox.miami.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------------- __ _ / / (_)__ __ ____ __ / /__/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / . . . t h e c h o i c e o f a /____/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ G N U g e n e r a t i o n . . .
On Fri, 18 Jul 1997, Dan Hollis wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jul 1997, Tethys wrote: > > >The fact remains however that this new "standard" is a threat to the whole > > >idea of free software. They want control over who has access to the > > >hardware so they can keep thier grip on the market. > > Agreed. The web site claims the NDA is necessary so they can ensure strict > > comformance to the i2o standard, and control the i2o-{ready,compliant} > > marketing phrases. > > > > A free licence to anyone meeting publicly available comformance tests would > > achieve the same effect, though. As you say, the real reason is so they > > can keep their grip on the market. > > Someone should make a comprehensive web page about why I2O is wrong, why > the NDA is wrong, the real reason behind the NDA, why I2O is nothing new, > compare I2O to MCA (that should scare a lot of management types), etc. > > Then notify as many journalists as possible. > > There needs to be a public outcry _against_ I2O ASAP. Also, a public > education campaign would be good, hence the need for a page. > > -Dan > >
| |