*countable infinities only
lists at colorremedies.com
Tue Jun 19 16:41:21 UTC 2012
On Jun 19, 2012, at 10:03 AM, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
> In the United States and Europe there is a large body of statute
> law, regulatory rulings, and court decisions which say that yes,
> a large powerful company cannot take certain actions to impede
Cite the law and case law that applies to these certain actions impeding Fedora (or other Linux). Or please stop repeating this claim.
> In particular entering into a compact to make
> Fedora harder to install on every single x86 home computer sold
> is not allowed. Or once was not allowed.
That's not how this works. It's harder to install relative to itself, but the same barrier to installing Fedora applies to installing Windows. That OEMs then find a way around that to pre-install is a function of the high demand for Windows pre-installed on hardware by end users. And harder to install does not mean anything like impossible (or effectively impossible) to install, an alternative.
> Recently neither
> regulatory bodies, nor courts, have enforced these old once
> settled laws and regulations.
This large body of law will see that Red Hat had the option to have its keys included with new UEFI hardware, making installations equally easy or difficult for all parties involved, thus the anti-competition claim is rendered moot. That Red Hat declined to have its keys included in on the basis of unfair advantage to other distributions is an unexpected non-competitive behavior from the view of competition law.
More information about the devel