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

[Stephen Compall]

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' -- http://dotgnu.org

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?"