Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 22 Jun 2001 00:55:52 -0700
From:      "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com>
To:        <freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG>, "Andy" <andy@tecc.co.uk>
Cc:        "FreeBSD Advocacy" <freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG>
Subject:   RE: IEEE Journalist looking for facts about Microsoft use of BSD code
Message-ID:  <005801c0faf0$c291bd40$1401a8c0@tedm.placo.com>
In-Reply-To: <NDBBKOKIGKLFGGPFHCGBKEMHDDAA.andy@tecc.co.uk>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The problem with this license fragment (they didn't post the
whole license and the link to it doesen't work) is the sentence:

"Publicly Available Software" means each of (i) any software that contains,
or is derived in any manner (in whole or in part) from, any software that is
distributed as free software, open source software (e.g. Linux) or similar
licensing or distribution models"

The problem that I see is that there's no statement that "software" in
this context means "source and object code" or just "object" or just
"source.  Legally, I believe that case law has defined "software" as
either or both Source and Object files.  Also, there's no legal
definition or defined (in this document) definition of "free software"

I suspect that this could be interpreted to mean that if I compiled a
program that included components of the
Microsoft Mobile Internet Toolkit Beta 2 that if I created
a Windows application and just started handing the binary out for free,
that I would be in violation of the license.

Also, the fragment doesen't cover legal redistribution.  (I expect that
it's covered elsewhere in the License)  But, I'll assume that the
way it's written that this license has to follow all derived software
that contains components from the Toolkit.  Because, if it didn't, then
I could create a piece of software with this, then create a second piece of
software
incorporating my first created piece of software, then put the second piece
under GPL and get around the "Viral" restrictions.  Instead, I think the
license blocks this by mandating that it follows all derived works
containing parts of the Toolkit.  But, if it does, then the License itself
is viral.

In short, this license is so sloppily written that any developer would just
ignore the tool because it's just too difficult to figure out what they are
after
with the new License.  I mean, this kind of puts the developer into position
where they would need to get statements from all their tool manufacturers
that _those_ people didn't use any Open Source in their development.  Hardly
a way to increase sales of the Internet Toolkit I'd say.


Ted Mittelstaedt                      tedm@toybox.placo.com
Author of:          The FreeBSD Corporate Networker's Guide
Book website:         http://www.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com


>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG
>[mailto:owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG]On Behalf Of Andy
>Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 3:05 AM
>To: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG
>Subject: RE: IEEE Journalist looking for facts about Microsoft use of
>BSD code
>
>
>more fuel for the fire.....
>
>http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2001-06-20-018-20-NW-MS-SW
>
>
>
>To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
>with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
>


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?005801c0faf0$c291bd40$1401a8c0>