[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Semi-free (was Re: [DotGNU]Microsoft Shared Source License)

From: Stephen Compall
Subject: Semi-free (was Re: [DotGNU]Microsoft Shared Source License)
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 22:57:34 -0600
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.3a) Gecko/20021112

Brandon Bremen wrote:
their EULAs ;) They should take a page from Apple's book and make a nearly-but-not-really-free public license. But, then they would have to

(more-rant If it's not free, how is it a public license? BTW, such things are somewhat dangerous. Like Bitkeeper. What with APSL being an "open source" license, this is encouraging contributors to software that is--let's face it--not free, whose donated time would be better spent on something that is actually available to the community. It's akin to people contributing to Rotor instead of Pnet.)

I am very happy Apple is giving so much code out.

? ^

And a final note (to Joe): Microsoft always goes after developers. And on the flip side, they never even attempt to be popular to their users.
What a backwards business practice.

Not to mention contradictory. Developers, users, what's the difference? :)

Stephen Compall
Also known as S11001001
DotGNU `Contributor' --

Imagine: no more used book stores; no more lending a book to your
friend; no more borrowing one from the public library--no more "leaks"
that might give someone a chance to read without paying. (And judging
from the ads for Microsoft Reader, no more anonymous purchasing of
books either.) This is the world publishers have in mind for us.
        -- RMS, "Freedom Or Copyright?"

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]