Subject: Re: Sustainable Computing Consortium -- a policy railroading vehicle?
From: "Karsten M. Self" <kmself@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 10:17:27 -0700
Fri, 24 May 2002 10:17:27 -0700
on Fri, May 24, 2002, Stephen J. Turnbull (stephen@xemacs.org) wrote:
> >>>>> "kms" == Karsten M Self <kmself@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> 
>     kms> Given the focus in SCC documents on policy, I strongly
>     kms> suspect an attempt to systematically freeze free software out
>     kms> of government contract opportunities.
> 
> Not free software.  That's paranoia, and will be justly perceived as
> such, even thought the effect on free software is basically that.
> 
> But the target is any software not developed by members, or even
> software developed by members but not vetted with the other members.
> 
> Ie, it's just a common garden variety conspiracy in restraint of trade.

If the plan is to implement a set of UFO licensed patents required by
regulation in (classes of) federal contracting, the effect is little
different.

Distinguishing direct and indirect effects isn't so significant as what
the impacts of this initiative would be.  As I lead my essay, I'd been
asked to comment on the consortium, and was gobstopped by its utter self
contradictions.  I'm digging for other motives, and think I've found
one that may be plausible.

If nothing else, we should demand a far clearer exposition of what this
project is about.  CMU and NASA have a lot to answer for.

Peace.

-- 
Karsten M. Self <kmself@ix.netcom.com>        http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
 What Part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
   We freed Dmitry!        Boycott Adobe!         Repeal the DMCA!
     http://www.freesklyarov.org


["application/pgp-signature" not shown]