On 2008-08-14, Homer <usenet@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Verily I say unto thee, that Linonut spake thusly:
>> * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:
>
>>> What's funny is that if MS released Silverlight for Linux, under a
>>> fully open source license, Schestowitz would be bitching about them
>>> trying to infiltrate open source, or something like that.
...depends.
This isn't just about freely derivable code anymore. There are
also patents to consider. If those aren't clearly dealt with
then any code release by Microsoft would have to be considered
in "RAMBUS" terms.
Would releasing as GPL2 or 3 cover this question?
>
> FSVO: "open source".
>
> You obviously lack any comprehension about why people reject Microsoft's
> software ("something like that"). Your obtuseness is shocking, indeed
> quite scary, because it suggests there are people in the world who
> either still don't understand or don't care about the problem. Such
> people are either stupid or malevolent. Which one are you?
>
>> I would buy that, completely. You can never trust Microsoft to /not/
>> change the terms of the license, once they've reeled you in.
>
> Smith is forgetting that all "open source" is not created equal
> (politically speaking), and that "open source" does not /necessarily/
> mean patent free, or even desirable, for any number of reasons.
>
> If Microsoft were to release Silverlight totally unencumbered by patents
> (not just some RAND nonsense), then it might be a viable option for the
> Free Software community, although I'd still be wary of the fact that
[deletia]
--
Apple: Because a large harddrive is for power users.
|||
/ | \
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
|
|
