I love copy left thinking. I worry that I can't sign something so provocative, because it invokes regulatory overreach.

The letter is taking a totalitarian turn, asking government to go beyond choice. I thought we were reducing the power of the FCC Iintitution, but now it is a call for extreme control.

Instead of innovation it seeks control over innovators.

On Sep 30, 2015, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
>On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 16:11:38 -0400, Christopher Waid said:
>
>> > Apparently, they were of the opinion that the mere fact that I
>might
>> > die of a heart attack a year after distributing something doesn't
>> > excuse me from complying.)
>>
>> I don't know if it does excuse you from complying, but I say good
>luck
>> to the person trying to get it enforced.
>
>They could quite possibly hassle the executor of my estate if they were
>sufficiently determined.
>
>But given that abandonware (both software and hardware) is a big chunk
>of the problem, we really *do* need to address the problem of companies
>that can't provide patches because they've gone under.  Possibly a
>requirement that they open-source the hardware/software if possible?
>(That's another can-o-worms - consider that a big chunk of why NVidia
>doesn't open-source their proprietary graphics drivers is because
>there's
>a lot of OpenGL-related patents and trade secrets that Microsoft bought
>when
>there was the big fire sale when SGI got out of the graphics market -
>so
>it's quite possible that a vendor *can't* open-source it when they go
>under due to licensing issues...)

-- Sent with K-@ Mail - the evolution of emailing.