<HTML dir=ltr><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=unicode">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.5730.11" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV id=idOWAReplyText4645 dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>Michael Tiemann<BR>>Rick, I don't understand at all what you are talking about. </FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>>If I'm understanding everything here correctly, B. Galliart is on top of things. Maybe I don't </FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>>understand your complaint.</FONT><BR><BR>
<DIV id=idOWAReplyText4645 dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>Because he's making a statement from an intern a part of some grand MS consipiracy against Open Source?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>With respect to CodePlex a good number of projects are MS-PL and presumably that number will grow and hopefully dominate. The ratio will never likely quite approach that of SourceForge but even on SourceForge there are a few projects listed under "other" for license that point to home grown licenses that may, or may not fullfill all of the OSD. I know I looked at a couple, shrugged my shoulders and looked for an alternative.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>If you know what Open Source is, it isn't hard to look at a project on CodePlex, as on SourceForge, flick to the license tab and determine that its using an open source license you can agree with. MSR-LA is clearly an academic use license, not open source per the OSD. For some folks this is sufficient. For many, if not most, others it likely is not. But it's not hidden and if you couldn't figure it out you aren't even doing the most minimal due dilligence on understanding license requirements.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>If there's a legitimate complaint about CodePlex its that their FAQ on what is an Open Source license should be updated to definition accepted by MS: What meets the OSD. I'm guessing if you asked, they'd fix that oversight since it appears to be the old corporate position.</FONT></DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>