Aaron Lehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > The problem? In a nutshell, any outgoing information, software > and/or services of your original copyright/license/IP are "dual > copyrighted/licensed" to Microsoft c/o this new agreement. This can > be _very_dangerous_ from the standpoint of free software > development.
Why is this "very dangerous"? How does it hurt a GPL software project if some part of it is dual licensed to Microsoft? Do you also believe that it is very dangerous for part of a GPL software project to be licensed under the X11 licence? > 1. "Identify" users who are using these services when they contact > your web site, archive, CVS repository, etc... They need not only > be informed of these issues -- but they need to "sign" a "counter > agreement" that they agree to the policies of our site, archive, > repository, etc... which either "prohibit" uploading from services > where there is such an agreement and/or somehow put the > responsibility on the consumer and/or service to NOT allow such > "dual-copyright/licensure" rights to be applicable to those original > works. Why? If someone who is contributing to a free software project wants, for whatever reason, to dual licence their code to Microsoft, you can't really stop them from doing so. If you insist that all contributors give an exclusive licence to the organisation running the project, then you will probably find that this discourages people from contributing. Usually software authors like to retain their own rights in the software they produce. Edmund
