Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 11:34:08 -0700 From: David Johnson <djohnson@acuson.com> To: "Kenneth P. Stox" <stox@imagescape.com> Cc: freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD and Microsoft Message-ID: <3B3A2720.815A74C0@acuson.com> References: <XFMail.010627111801.stox@imagescape.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Kenneth P. Stox" wrote: > > http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/dotnet/2001/06/27/dotnet.html Quick summary: Microsoft is going to offer some .NET stuff for FreeBSD, including CLI, C# and an ECMAscript compiler. Throughout the interview the Microsoft guys, David Stutz, mumbles a lot and casts forth heaps of double speak. Some particular quotes: "We don't feel comfortable with Linux because of the GPL nature of the kernel ..." Now, I'm not a kernel hacker. I haven't written a compiler in twenty years. I don't know anything about .NET. But for the life of me I can't figure out why the licensing of a kernel stops them from making a Linux port as well. Are they planning to make C# a kernel module? Are they confused and think that glibc is under the GPL as well? "We have chosen FreeBSD because of licensing issues, yes." Didn't I predict this just one or two weeks ago? Nothing Microsoft is doing with a .NET port to Unix has anything at all to do with the GPL. They aren't writing any Linux kernel drivers, they aren't modifying any GPL sources, and they aren't linking to any GPL libraries. It's nice that they chose FreeBSD over Linux, but their motivation has nothing to do with viral licenses. The GPL is completely irrelevant in this case. I'm bracing for the backlash from the Linux guys, which will undoubtedly aimed at us... David 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?3B3A2720.815A74C0>