OSI Approves Microsoft Licenses

[Scott (angrykeyboarder)]

Derek Broughton spake thusly::
> Joel Bryan Juliano wrote:
> 
>> On 10/19/07, Scott (angrykeyboarder) <geekboy at angrykeyboarder.com> wrote:
>>> http://opensource.org/node/209
>>>
>>> Freaky
>>>
>> IMHO, this s*cks 
> 
> Why?  I agree it's "freaky", since MS has been claiming open source will
> kill the industry, but I can't imagine any way that a proper open source
> license for MS software can be a bad thing.
> 
> They certainly don't have to use the GPL - plenty of staunch open source
> advocates don't like it for various reasons.

Some people seem to think it's GPL or nothing.

IMO, there are plenty of perfectly good OSS licenses out there.

Some of them can be found here: 
http://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical :)

Honestly, the GPL can be a royal PITA.

For example....

I recall somebody had posted a link to a program they had written on 
some Linux forum I was on a few years back. They released it under the 
GPL (cuz they didn't know any better).

I couldn't help but notice there was no mention of the source code.

So, I told them "pardon me, but that can't be GPL unless you share the 
source code as well."  I then posted a link to the GPL.

He got a bit miffed and told me I was being "too technical" (I agree I 
was, but I was making a point).  Anyway, the forum owner told him to 
share the source code, change the license or take down the file.  He 
took down the file.

The GPL is just too restrictive for many.   There are other OSS licenses 
out there I like better (the BSD license for example).  And I always 
fond it funny that Stallmanatzi talks about "freedom".  The GPL isn't 
about freedom at all. It's "freedom" with conditions. That's not freedom 
at all.



-- 
             Scott
http://angrykeyboarder.com
I've never used an OS I didn't (dis)like.
©2007 angrykeyboarder™ & Elmer Fudd. All Wites Wesewved