"An attack on the software license behind the Linux operating system has stirred up a free software controversy in Washington."

This is getting a lot of coverage and I want to comment on it.

1. This is the right letter for the wrong reasons. The goverment SHOULDN'T release GPLed code. GPL is not public domain. BSD is public domain. GPL forces you to distribute your source code if you develop tools on top of GPLed code. Many organizations cannot distribute source code because they are trying to protect trade secrets. The BSD license makes code available for use by the broadest set of interests, with both open and closed source models. The government shouldn't be imposing a particular perspective on how software is supposed to work, especially when the matter is far from closed in the private sector. We can revisit this in the future if most organizations are releasing GPLed code.

2. "Why don't we also reject any software patents and copyrights that could discourage the adoption and use of software developed under federal funds?" Spafford asked. What is important is what is not being said. Federal funds should not be used to develop technology which is not placed in the public domain. This is just as important on the copyright side as it is on the copyleft side.

A more balanced statement about the need for government research to be placed in the public domain would have been much more effective. Its unlikely that Smith's constituency was not influential in the nature of this statement. Furthermore, a lot of the funding for major GPLed projects comes from the federal government, so attacking this funding serves an obvious interest. As a result the general outrage about the letter is not misplaced. However, I agree. Government research should not be GPLed.

But Smith's spokesperson, Katherine Lister, says the congressman was motivated by a desire to foster innovation. "In no way, shape or form does Microsoft ever drive our technology policy," she said.

...

I remember a time when Microsoft didn't play the political game. Those days are gone for good. All it took was a little anti-trust muscle to get the palm greasing going. Makes you wonder who the real victim ultimately is. Granted, they probably would have started playing on their own terms at sometime in the future, but I digress...

Between Microsoft and Intel, it looks like Washington state has been officially bought and sold. Thank you Rep. Adam Smith for proving to me that there is no difference between a Democrat and a Republican. You support this for *WHAT* reason?

I need to find a country that sucks less than the United States. Any suggestions?

[ The more paranoid might be asking themselves if the anti-trust effort might just have been geared toward this result. Or, at least, something similar like "Play nice with the gov like a normal corp or else...". Same result.

Regarding other countries, I'm on that boat. I have a feeling things will continue to get worse. "Thought control" of your average American has become so incredibly sophisticated that I despair of there ever being change created via political means.

Regardless, if you have not registered to vote then you should. . . --Rek ]

But Smith's spokesperson, Katherine Lister, says the congressman was motivated by a desire to foster innovation. "In no way, shape or form does Microsoft ever drive our technology policy," she said.

...

I remember a time when Microsoft didn't play the political game. Those days are gone for good. All it took was a little anti-trust muscle to get the palm greasing going. Makes you wonder who the real victim ultimately is. Granted, they probably would have started playing on their own terms at sometime in the future, but I digress...

Between Microsoft and Intel, it looks like Washington state has been officially bought and sold. Thank you Rep. Adam Smith for proving to me that there is no difference between a Democrat and a Republican. You support this for *WHAT* reason?

I need to find a country that sucks less than the United States. Any suggestions?