| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
FSFE on the new "shared source" licensesFSFE on the new "shared source" licensesPosted Oct 19, 2005 22:39 UTC (Wed) by xtifr (subscriber, #143)Parent article: FSFE on the new "shared source" licenses
Well, on the one hand, I'm impressed that MS managed to come up with something even vaguely acceptable. On the other hand--yet another license? AAAGH! What the @%#& was wrong with the various licenses that are already available? Sheesh! :)
(Log in to post comments)
It's obvious what's wrong Posted Oct 19, 2005 23:31 UTC (Wed) by smurf (subscriber, #17840) [Link] these bad licenses have been written by Evil People.
Seriously: having decried the GPL as Evil, Communist, and Threatening Corporate America, releasing software under the GPL would be too much hypocrisy even for M$.
That being said, let's see what they actually release under these licenses, if anything. I'm not exactly holding my breath.
Too much hypocrisy? For Microsoft? Posted Oct 20, 2005 2:06 UTC (Thu) by leonbrooks (guest, #1494) [Link] Are you sure that's possible? (-:
It's obvious what's wrong Posted Oct 20, 2005 3:07 UTC (Thu) by hbo (guest, #13692) [Link] No, creating their own GPL-like license is the hypocritical act. It's hypocritical because they are doing one thing - creating a GPL-like license - and saying another - equating the GPL with communism. Adopting the GPL would be admitting rhetorical defeat and changing position, but their words and deeds would have to align in that case.
Wouldn't they? 8)
|
|
||||||||||||