Matt Liotta wrote:
Well, the real problem IMHO is not getting the license from Microsoft, but others getting the license from you:The bad part is "is precisely so that others will be able tocreate their own commercial CLI implementations.". The word commercial hereis probably meaning non-GPL type of license even if you were going to release a GPL Commercial version they would probably refuse to let you have the rights to their patents... Why not send a request to Microsoft for that royalty free patent ;-)
--quote--
Sub-licensing prohibition: "This means someone else can't come along and license the patent or transfer the license we issued to them to someone else," Herman said.
--endquote--
The original article <http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/0,14179,2887217,00.html> (for those who've lost it :) hits the issue correctly: it's outrageous (to mix prefixes). Almost like they *want* the communities to switch to non-copyleft licensing....
--
Stephen Compall
Also known as S11001001
DotGNU `Contributor' -- http://dotgnu.org
The main clarity, for me, was the sense that if you want to have a
decent life, you don't want to have bits of it closed off. This whole
idea of having the freedom to go in and to fix something and modify
it, whatever it may be, it really makes a difference. It makes one
think happily that after you've lived a few years that what you've
done is worthwhile. Because otherwise it just gets taken away and
thrown out or abandoned or, at the very least, you no longer have any
relation to it. It's like losing a bit of your life.
-- Robert Chassell
_______________________________________________
Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
