Robert writes:
>Licences like this are in fact a trap door - once you have gone through
>them, you are effectively barred from developing open source software
>through the danger of legal action.
Robert, I'm not an expert reader of licenses - and I suspect other Linkers
may be curious, so could you explain the danger in greater detail?
Richard
-----Original Message-----
From: hartr@redhat.com [mailto:hartr@redhat.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 24 July 2001 17:38
To: brd@austarmetro.com.au
Cc: link@www.anu.edu.au
Subject: Re: [LINK] CE source code opens up
On 24 Jul, Bernard Robertson-Dunn wrote:
> CE source code opens up
> By iTnews staff
> Tuesday, 24 July 2001
> itNews
> http://www.itnews.com.au/story.cfm?ID=7303
>
> Microsoft has thrown down the gauntlet to "open source" software licenses
> by revealing the source code of its Windows CE 3.0 operating system to
> developers.
This is hardly throwing down the gauntlet to open source - as
*revealing* the source code does NOT make it open source.
We went down this track before with Sun and their attempt tp pass off
the Sun Community Source Licence (SCSL) as open source. In that case,
Sun most assuredly lost the battle completely (and suffered some quite
adverse press in the process).
Microsoft is generally regarded as a potent wielder of spin (and has a
great deal of cash with which to pay spinners), so I suspect this battle
will be harder. Furthermore, Sun was talking to Unix software
developers, who (largely) understood open source software pretty well.
> Open source software, which Microsoft has called a "cancer", allows users
> to modify underlying code to meet their needs and redistribute the
modified
> software. The Linux operating system kernel is one such example.
>
> Microsoft is pushing its own "Shared Source License" concept, which gives
> developers the right to alter the source code but not to distribute the
> modified code for commercial gain.
and this is only one of the key differences between open source and
proprietary software (whatever the nature of the proprietary licence).
> The worry is that developers could find themselves embroiled in legal
> proceedings as a result of downloading shared source code. Microsoft could
> accuse developers of breaching their copyright by copying Windows code for
> their own projects.
Which is exactly why open source developers did not agree to the SCSL.
Licences like this are in fact a trap door - once you have gone through
them, you are effectively barred from developing open source software
through the danger of legal action.
-- Robert Hart hartr@redhat.com Red Hat Asia-Pacific, Unit 15, 23 James St, Brisbane, Qld 4006, Australia Tel +61 (0)7 3872 4808 Fax +61 (0)7 3257 4800
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.1 : Tue Jul 31 2001 - 03:10:06 EST