Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] .NET on the Mac and BSD

[Mikhail Kovalenko <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

Mike Miller wrote:
> I think we should be happy for what we are seeing from Microsoft.  They
> are up to their necks in attorneys and a profit culture.  Yet they are
> still handing out their code for free distribution so that it can be
> modified and used in any non-profit way we please.  There must be a strong
> push for open source within the corporation or this wouldn't have
> happened.
> 
> I guess I can now see why Microsoft doesn't like GPL -- releasing their
> code under GPL would mean that a competing corporation could take the code
> and use it to gain an advantage over Microsoft (e.g., they could use the
> money they make from selling a Microsoft GPL product to sue Microsoft over
> some unrelated issue).  Microsoft doesn't want that to happen.  So they
> have a license that allows only *non-profit* uses of their code.  GPL
> would allow *for-profit* uses.

I don't know about any push from within, but there's definitely some pressure 
on them from the courts to release some of their code. I don't think Microsoft 
would release anything unless they have an agenda in mind. They have 
shareholders to feed.

> I think most of us should like the .NET license just fine.  It gives us
> the code.  We just can't use it to make money.  Is that so bad?
> 
> It would be a little ironic to hear proponents of a free and open system
> condemning Microsoft for blocking them from selling software for profit!
> 
> Mike

They grant you a license to use their software primarily for "research and 
home tinkering". Yet in the real world a lot of development happens with the 
ultimate purpose of making money from it directly or indirectly. Even in the 
OSS world many people get paid for their work. A lot of software I run at home 
could just as easily run a business of almost any size (and much of it does 
already). What is the point of using software to learn skills that you can't 
apply in production out of fear of being sued?

Note that I'm not disagreeing with you in principle, just providing a 
different opinion. Microsoft is doing what is best for them. I'd probably do 
the same if I were them. However, their "open" licenses may just turn out to 
be as restrictive as any commercial license out there (or GPL for that matter :)

Anyhow, whatever little of Microsoft's "free" code I've seen, it was so badly 
written that I'm not even interested.

Cheers,
-- 
MK

--
To unsubscribe, go to http://mlug.missouri.edu/members/edit.php

Archives are available at http://mlug.missouri.edu/list-archives/