Comment Microsoft and GNU (Score 1) 194
Does anyone besides me find it ironic that Microsoft has chosen the home site of GNU and the FSF? It would seem to me that if Microsoft were truly interested in developing the best possible educational software and computer-based education, they would have gone to a university that specializes in such things, exactly as mentioned in the article.
Furthermore, I found Mr. Rashid's comment disturbingly vague. Hell, Microsoft Office is 'openly available'. You can get it practically anywhere, right? What does that mean, if anything?
But, as many have observed, the most disturbing part is how Microsoft can speak out of both sides of its mouth at once. How can something for which a patent is owned by Microsoft ALSO be 'openly available'? It would seem that if they *truly* wanted the results of this research to be 'openly available' they would have some third party own the patents, kind of like how X.org was created (and, if anyone recalls, there was a large attempt to suborn that as well. Anyone remember the OSF?).
Furthermore, I found Mr. Rashid's comment disturbingly vague. Hell, Microsoft Office is 'openly available'. You can get it practically anywhere, right? What does that mean, if anything?
But, as many have observed, the most disturbing part is how Microsoft can speak out of both sides of its mouth at once. How can something for which a patent is owned by Microsoft ALSO be 'openly available'? It would seem that if they *truly* wanted the results of this research to be 'openly available' they would have some third party own the patents, kind of like how X.org was created (and, if anyone recalls, there was a large attempt to suborn that as well. Anyone remember the OSF?).
