On Wednesday 11 July 2001 16:33, Matthew Garman wrote:
> I've been particularly mad about all this recently, having just read an
> article about our Redmond boys' new licensing plan. If I read the article
> correctly, it said that on one of Microsoft's new products, their license
> states that you cannot use their product with "viral" software. They
> define viral software as free software with open source licenses (in
> particular, GPL'd software, and software with similar licenses). They
> literally cite Linux and Apache as examples of viral open source software.
> Doesn't anyone else find this outrageous? This is the same as saying you
> can't wear hand-me-down pants with your overpriced Abercrombie & Fitch
> shirt. It's like a violation of your personal freedom.
>
> Sorry, just had to rant a bit.
> Matt
Mat,
I would really like that url or publication name. I am also getting very
irritated with the FUD&M$ camp_terror tactics. I have run across several
articles of late that called linux many silly (completely giggle loaded)
things. Yet, you are the first who has mentioned (yet another stupid) M$
license where open source is coined as 'viral'.
I realize this is just the tip of the burg. Running linux could soon be
considered a crime in the US. . .
Thanks.
--
Jaye Inabnit\ARS ke6sls\/A GNU-Debian linux user \/ http://www.qsl.net/ke6sls
If it's stupid, but works, it ain't stupid. SHOUT JUST FOR FUN.
Free software, in a free world, for a free spirit. Please Support freedom!
