On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 05:21:54PM -0700, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
The issue for this group is whether the license restrictions are
reasonable or not.
Compatibility with a specific license is not a requirement, still
less compatibility with fanciful interpretations thereof.
I do agree, although the focus has been on compatibility with any number
of open source licenses, this is not the main point. The point is: the
license restrictions are not reasonable. Asking implementors to sign a
contract with microsoft will scare implementors away. Perhaps this is
the whole point of the license.
The license might be perfectly reasonable for big companies. It is not
for smaller ones or people who write software on their personal title.
Are you just telling those (the small companies and individual
developers) to shut up and accept what is being shoved down their
throat?
That would be a waste, and I want to repeat this. By persisting on this
signed contract, microsoft scares away developers and splits the
potential resources, in fact doing more against than for a better use of
email worldwide.
Koen Martens
--
K.F.J. Martens, Sonologic, http://www.sonologic.nl/
Networking, embedded systems, unix expertise, artificial intelligence.
Public PGP key: http://www.metro.cx/pubkey-gmc.asc
Wondering about the funny attachment your mail program
can't read? Visit http://www.openpgp.org/