Interesting Microsoft license clause re open source

[Dave J Woolley]

> From:	Ravicher, Daniel B. [SMTP:DRavicher at brobeck.com]
> 
> You are right that broader language increases potential litigation risk to
> those who accept it, but this risk is nothing but another cost that may/
> should be considered when deciding whether to enter into the license.  
> 
[DJW:]  How many businesses actually refuse to use Microsoft 
software because of the licence terms?  I suspect the number is
negligible; they have a monoopy in the market and in the minds
of senior management that means that licences are accepted unread.

Something that hasn't been discuessed is the use of the emotive
term "Viral"; I'm sure some people reading this licence will 
read it as implying that free software may contain computer
viruses in the sense used by people like Network Associates.  The
term is defined in the text with a specific and different meaning, 
of course.  "Viral" is a term coined by the anti-GPL lobby in the
free software movement, to describe the GPL, precisely because of its
negative connotations.  However they are not talking about obligations
being put onto the supplier of the non-GPLed components, as Microsoft
seem to be doing in their definition - I'm not aware of any way in which
the GPL would do this.

If I had time, I'd also like to think about whether this licence is
self contradicting - does it have Viral characteristics with regard to
software suppliers other than Microsoft?  Does it even have them 
with respect to Microsoft, and therefore within the terms of their 
definition?

IANAL.
-- 
--------------------------- DISCLAIMER ---------------------------------
Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender,
except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of BTS.

>