On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 09:51:47AM -0400, Holm, Mark wrote:
I am not saying the MS license should be accepted as part of an RFC package
without careful examination and consideration. I may well be missing a
critical aspect that causes trouble. But a lot of the things people have
been writing seem to me to be the result of sloppy reading or thinking about
the licenses. Take your time. Read it carefully. Read the GPL carefully.
OK, it's 2006. You download the Fedora Core 4 DVD images. On those DVD's are,
maybe 5, maybe 20 different packages that have to make use of Sender ID to
function on the Internet of 2006. These packages include source code.
You wish to burn copies of those DVD's for your fellow LUG members. But,
wait, now you have to sign a license agreement with Microsoft before you can
do so. RedHat had to sign a license agreement before distributing the
packages to you. Every Fedora mirror operator had to sign a license
agreement with Microsoft to host the packages. Every other distribution
has the same situation.
Now, fast-forward another few years. Since the IETF allowed this to happen
once, they will allow it again, and again. In 10 years you may have to sign
50 or 100 different license agreements in order to use the code
required to function on the Internet.
Can you not see the problem here? Do you really think the open source
community will allow this to come to pass?
--
"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from
oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that
will reach to himself." -- Thomas Paine