From: "Sean" <seanlkml@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 16:24:37 -0500
Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
...
Things mixed with GPL components have no choice about terms.
Microsoft can agree on any terms that they expect to be
appropriate for their products. Will you continue to
pretend that those situations are equivalent?
The _owner_ of the GPL work can agree on any terms they expect
to be appropriate. Licensee's of Microsoft or GPL software
must abide by the license they've agreed to. Those situations
are equivalent. You want to pretend that the requirements of
the GPL license are somehow more evil than the requirements of
a Microsoft license. It's such an obviously flawed and subjective
opinion that it barely requires comment, except it is so oft
repeated.
Claim hell - GPL IS more intrusive and evil than the Microsoft
license. The Microsoft license is clearly defined. It's range is
clearly defined and finite. The GPL is clearly defined. It's
range is basically infinite.
Sean, may I ask something out of curiosity? Approximately how old
are you and in generic terms (real-estate office, large software
development company, boutique game company, or whatever) who do
you work for? I'd like to get an idea of where you are coming from.
You SOUND like a college student who has not gotten out into the
real world to find a real job yet. If that is not right I'd like
to refine my image of you and try to figure out where you come
from in this argument.
{^_^} Joanne
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
