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>