In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Damian O'Leary
<damoleary@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote
on Thu, 25 Jan 2007 12:49:11 +1300
<ep8r9l$fds$1@xxxxxxxx>:
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>> MS on Copyleft and FOSS
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | [Pamela Jones: I found this paper doing some research just now, and I
>> | wanted to show you what Microsoft thinks about the GPL and other
>> | copyleft licenses and the open source development model, or at least
>> | what it says about it. Notice that it is inaccurate as to signing off
>> | on code, particularly with respect to the GNU project, which has
>> | always required that, and the Linux kernel, which has a specific
>> | process Microsoft seems not to know about. On the other hand, he
>> | does understand that the GPL doesn't eat your code, that the GPL
>> | is a conditional license, not a contract, so that's a step in the
>> | right direction:]
>> |
>> | Pedigree Issues: The second and more subtle OSS issue is related
>> | to the "pedigree" of OSS code. Even if the OSS code is not governed
>> | by Copyleft license terms, it was likely developed by a dispersed
>> | group of developers who ultimately give no representations as to
>> | ownership and non-infringement of the finished product. The Open
>> | Source "Community" development model involves potentially large
>> | numbers of developers who are subject to little if any legal
>> | oversight and who may be involved in a host of projects, each
>> | governed by a different and potentially conflicting license.
>> | More importantly, the typical Community contributor has a
>> | day job at a technology company and is likely to have signed
>> | a broad employment agreement with his employer vesting
>> | ownership of intellectual property (including possibly the
>> | contributions made to the OSS project) with the employer.
>> | Given what we know about the Community development process
>> | and given the lack of warranties on OSS code, we have
>> | significant reservations about distributing such code.
>> |
>> | -Jim Markwith, Esq., Microsoft, "OSS Issues in Acquisitions an
>> | Other Inbound Transactions"
>
> Which bit did you disagree with?
>
> I particularly like this bit,
>
>> | by Copyleft license terms, it was likely developed by a dispersed
>> | group of developers who ultimately give no representations as to
>> | ownership and non-infringement of the finished product. The Open
>> | Source "Community" development model involves potentially large
>> | numbers of developers who are subject to little if any legal
>> | oversight and who may be involved in a host of projects, each
>> | governed by a different and potentially conflicting license.
>
>
> So true. A nightmare.
>
Indeed. The world computer community should advocate
that Microsoft buy up all Linux desktops -- plus all
other Unix desktops for good measure, as a fair number
of them have been infected by these nasty eeeeeeeeeevil
FOSS viruses, and incorporate what code they can into the
Vista codebase (which probably isn't much, since Linux
code actually tends to function reliably -- an issue that
is anathemia to market-driven companies who need to trade
on the corpses of their own software in order to sell The
Next Perfect Version(tm)).
That way, there's no possible conflict of interest.
</sarcasm>
--
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Useless C++ Programming Idea #2239120:
void f(char *p) {char *q = p; strcpy(p,q); }
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
|
