Re: Interesting "almost open source" Microsoft tactic
"La Monte H.P. Yarroll" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.misc.free-software-business |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Taran Rampersad wrote: > [email protected] wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 01, 2004 at 11:59:34AM -0500, La Monte H.P. Yarroll >> ([email protected]) wrote: >> >> >>> Its very clear that they are attempting to be GPL compatable. >>> >>> The inability to sublicense just confuses me. It isn't as if there >>> is a license registration procedure. >>> >> >> >> IMNAL but I believe that this "inability to sublicense" precludes >> this "GPL compatable". >> >> > I concur. They might say it's 'Open Source Compatible', but it's > definitely not GPL compatible. > Even if they allowed sublicensing the license would be GPL incompatable on the grounds that it would add licensing requirements not specified in the GPL. Most legit copyleft licenses are mutually incompatable. See http://www.fsf.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses for examples. I'm still reserving judgement. Their latest spate of openish licenses are much closer to meeting Stallman's definition of Free Software than I ever expected from that company. E.g. it looks like OpenOffice.org will really be able to implement fully-compatable file readers for the MS-published formats. They will have to calve a subproject and jump through some other hoops, but they'll able to make it work without needing to do full white-room reverse-engineering. -- Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell's sig