Microsoft's near-OSD-compliant shared source license

[Don Jarrell]

Yes, but this is ONLY about a parochial intent, as I 
see it.  I really don't think it accomplishes anything
different from many OSD-compliant licenses, and it is,
IMO, no less "infectious" OR libertarian than the GPL.
(Forgive me, Richard - though I doubt you are reading 
here.)

As Baptists used to say about Methodists, "We sing
'Amazing Grace' out of a blue hymnal, and you sing it
from a brown hymnal, so you're going to HELL !"

Cheers.     dj 

******************************************************** 
Don B Jarrell                don at digitalthinkinginc.com 
Digital Thinking Inc.        512 266 7126        office 
www.digitalthinkinginc.com   972 467 6793        mobile 
******************************************************** 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Johnson [mailto:david at usermode.org]
> Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 11:19 PM
> To: Don Jarrell; license-discuss at opensource.org
> Subject: Re: Microsoft's near-OSD-compliant shared 
> source license
> 
> 
> On Monday 30 June 2003 09:01 pm, Don Jarrell wrote:
> 
> > So, it only says that I cannot, in effect, do something
> > that _uses_another_license_ to REQUIRE of subsequent
> > distros, what this license accomplishes explicitly in
> > its own language.  How parochial is that ?!?
> 
> It seems to me to be just as parochial as the GPL 
> and most other strong 
> copyleft licenses. At least that's how I read that clause.
> 
> -- 
> David Johnson
> ___________________
> http://www.usermode.org
> 
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3