Err... Thinking of that 2.2.x went all the way to 2.2.19, what makes you think that it has to go from 2.8.0 to 3.0?
We could be stuck in 2. all the way to 2.734.0
So true, so true!
But as a matter of fact this goes even further. Microsoft isn't just exploiting BSD's dislike for the GPL, they are also trying to establish an image as open-source "lovers".
First Gates say that they like open source, but not GPL. Second they say that C#, shared source CLI will be available for BSD. By taking these steps, they tries to tie BSD and windows closer together, and therefore making BSD, whith it's BSD licence more attractive to programmers and system-mantainers than Linux, with it's GPL license.
Remember what Bill said about GPL vs. other open-source licences? He said that GPL = BAD, and BSD and other licences that allows them, and I use this word on purpose, to STEAL, the code and use it in their own closed-source products (much like the tcp-ip implementation in windows).
I agree... Clever, very clever..
--
CL
Slashdot Mirror
Err... Thinking of that 2.2.x went all the way to 2.2.19, what makes you think that it has to go from 2.8.0 to 3.0?
We could be stuck in 2. all the way to 2.734.0
So true, so true! But as a matter of fact this goes even further. Microsoft isn't just exploiting BSD's dislike for the GPL, they are also trying to establish an image as open-source "lovers". First Gates say that they like open source, but not GPL. Second they say that C#, shared source CLI will be available for BSD. By taking these steps, they tries to tie BSD and windows closer together, and therefore making BSD, whith it's BSD licence more attractive to programmers and system-mantainers than Linux, with it's GPL license. Remember what Bill said about GPL vs. other open-source licences? He said that GPL = BAD, and BSD and other licences that allows them, and I use this word on purpose, to STEAL, the code and use it in their own closed-source products (much like the tcp-ip implementation in windows). I agree... Clever, very clever.. -- CL