Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 13:17:23 -0400 From: Steve Tremblett <sjt@cisco.com> To: Matthew Hagerty <mhagerty@voyager.net> Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Anyone see todays Wall Street Journal article: Microsoft Using Free Software (or something to that effect) Message-ID: <20010618131723.J29529@sjt-u10.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.2.20010618123930.0398aba0@pop.voyager.net>; from mhagerty@voyager.net on Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 12:43:24PM -0400 References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0106181206250.43685-100000@localhost> <200106181614.f5IGEET14658@earth.backplane.com> <5.0.2.1.2.20010618123930.0398aba0@pop.voyager.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
+---- Matthew Hagerty wrote: | As I understand the BSD license anyone can use it, however, they must say | that they are using it, no? So if MS is using TCP/IP code (or any other | code from FreeBSD), are they not in violation of the license by not | including such a clause in their license or documentation? What am I | missing here? You are missing the fact that MS presents to the public the concept of open source licenses having a viral nature and open source projects being insecure. They use the term "open source", while actually implying GPL, while the "insecure" thing is outright false - based on the number of reported bugs (which is contradictory, since they are bugs being found and fixed by a HUGE userbase that has access to the code, while you have to rely on MS's relatively tiny test team to do the same thing on their products...). The general effect is that people who don't know any better (ie. corporate types) instruct their IT people to remove all open source OSes from their infrastructure and don't use any in future development projects. -- Steve Tremblett To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010618131723.J29529>