On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 15:51:40 -0700, James Couzens wrote
Indeed. Stallman is quite right. Microsoft should be making use of
a license such as the BSD or Apache licenses that simply state that you
give credit where credit is due in both binary and source code, and that
the licenser is void of any responsibility due to any legal or other
issues that could arise from resulting use of the technology the license
is covering.
Personally, I find it interesting that MS would not license their
useless technology (CallerID) under the GPL since it would literally
be perfect for them, and I'm certain that should someone violate it that
the GPL would wind up in court (finally?)...
I think the issue is patent licensing, not software licensing. The licenses
you bring up are all software licenses. I don't think anyone's talking about
using Microsoft's code; the issue is getting a license to use a technology
they've patented.