Microsoft "Bans" Use Of GPL Code
iceT sent us a link to an article about Microsoft banning the GPL from be used w/ their Mobile Internet Tools beta. It's kinda tricky, but the article is really interesting (except I still don't really know what code I would get w/ the mobile internet tools beta). They specifically ban several Open Source licenses from being used with the toolkit.
Update 1.5h later by J : Yes, we know we ran this
a little while back
but there are good quotes from NuSphere and Ximian in today's piece. C'mon, don't you want to read them?
People make a lot of fun of IOWA (Idiots Out Wandering/Wondering Around) (I don't live there myself) but I have been massively impressed by the legal stance their state gov has taken lately!
However, what if there's something useful in this new article? Does that make the story redundant? What if it's only a marginal increase in information? What delta is appropriate for a new headline story, and who decides that delta?
Could I suggest, for discussion (and if a consensus develops could someone plese bring it to Taco's attention?), two possible ways to provide timely follow-up information without starting a flamefest of "what, nothing new today?" messages?
Anyone else think this is a good idea? Or should I just crawl back under my rock?
david.
I'm sure people made this observation when this story was posted the other day, but which license is restrictive and viral? The one that says "you can put any software on the machine with me" or the one that says "if you use me, you can't use this entire class of software?"
Shouldn't this set off big red flashing lights at the DoJ?
It never ceases to amaze me that M$ proclaims that the GPL is "viral". Consider what kind of virus would attach to an open source developer, if he/she were ever to get a gander at some of M$'s "shared source" code?
That developer would effectively be forever forbidden from working on public project. The burden of proving that he didn't use any of M$'s code would fall on him/her. With M$'s history, if that developer's company had an license, even though he/she didn't look at the code, the developer would probably forever have to prove that he didn't look at the code!
IMHO, if I worked for a company that agreed to the shared source license, and I had an open source project going, I'd try and find a new job.
Now THAT is a viral license.
--
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
When you're in business to make money (and who isn't?)
Im not. I work to live - not live to work. Making money is *not* my biggest goal in life... you know, I kinda also like to hike and read and make-love-to-my-wife and garden and drink-cold-beer and lotsa other stuff that isnt very profitable at all. included in that is aid my community to the best of my ability... this is why I support the GPL. Why do people insist on making all arguments based on economics - there are *alot* of other worthwhile and valuable efforts other than the pursuit of profit. Pursuit of profit is not self-justifying.
while(user.karma<50&&user.karma>-10) {
int whoringType=rand();
switch(whoringType){
case 1:
toPost=copyOfArticle("They basically say that...");
break;
case 2:
toPost=obviousCommentThatWillBeModdedAs("Funny");
break;
case 3:
toPost=AYBParody("Funny");
break;
case 4:
toPost=geekHumor(pseudoCode);
break;
default:
toPost=antiMSRant();
break;
}
if(troll){
goatse.Post();
firstPost.Post();
} else {
toPost.Post();
}
}
void* OldStory = GetOldStory();
}Post(OldStory);