MS-PL/GPL compatibility, was Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License

[Chris Travers]

On 8/23/07, Wilson, Andrew <andrew.wilson at intel.com> wrote:
>
>
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>
> > Ten bottles of best German beer to you if you'll manage to get
> > FSF/SFLC go on record with that regarding GPLv3 and confirm that bits
> > like "the source code for shared libraries and dynamically linked
> > subprograms that the work is specifically designed to require, such as
> > by intimate data communication or control flow between those
> > subprograms and other parts of the work" is nothing but drivel about
> > derivative works under Copyleft Act in the GNU Republic.
>
> So, absent the snideness, rudeness, mechanical repetition
> of one stock phrase ("the AFC test"), and weasel wording,
> what little remains is that you just don't like copyleft licenses.
>
> As Rick Moen would say, this is not your blog.  As I would say,
> if you don't have anything relevant to contribute that is germane to the
> licenses under review, butt out.


In other words, when people disagree, declare them off-topic.  Blog posts
about knitting on the other hand.....

I thought this was a list for discussing licenses in general. The subject
has been changed to reflect the changed topic, so what exactly is your
problem?

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers

Andy Wilson
> Intel open source technology center
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20070823/f497d073/attachment.html>