| Weekly edition | Kernel | Security | Distributions | Search |
| Archives | Calendar | Subscribe | Write for LWN | LWN.net FAQ |
Why doesn't MS use this tactic
Why doesn't MS use this tactic
Posted Nov 7, 2004 23:49 UTC (Sun) by LinuxLobbyist (guest, #6541)Parent article: Microsoft's protocol license agreement
Honesty.
I would like to propose to Microsoft that they offer a a license to all our base. After all, all our base are belong to Microsoft, so why don't they just be honest about it and offer to license it back to us? It would save us all this uncertainty.
Of course, the license would have to be sufficiently vague that it could be revoked at any time and possibly not cover *all* our base. And it's entirely possible that maybe, just maybe they *don't* all all our base. This is just a 'just-in-case' license (better known by a certain segment of the population as 'protection').
;-)
(Log in to post comments)
Why doesn't MS use this tactic
Posted Nov 7, 2004 23:55 UTC (Sun) by LinuxLobbyist (guest, #6541) [Link]
...they *don't* all all our base.That should read "they *don't* own all our base."
And I should add, that I expect Sun Microsystems to be the first to sign up.
Why doesn't MS use this tactic
Posted Nov 8, 2004 4:15 UTC (Mon) by huffd (guest, #10382) [Link]
Oooh...