And I second that request....
Many thanks,
Clem Clarke
"Chirgwin, Richard" wrote:
> 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