With a risk of being unpopular for a day, ;-)
>From a view point of a commercial software company, there is a kernel of
truth
in what Balmer said, at least when it comes to some open source licenses
(and ASF is not one of them).
Maybe it is the time to coin a new term for a category of 'non infectious'
open source licenses. 'reusable' ? 'sealable' ? 'neutral' ? Any suggestion
?
Tal
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alex Fern�ndez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 6:38 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: The Lie
>
>
> Have you noticed the logical fallacies and flaws that guy can put in a
> few sentences?
>
> "The way the license is written, if you use any open-source software,
> you have to make the rest of your software open source. If the
> government wants to put something in the public domain, it should. Linux
> is not in the public domain. Linux is a cancer that attaches itself in
> an intellectual property sense to everything it touches. That's the way
> that the license works."
> -Steve Balmer, CEO Microsoft
>
> I read 12 fallacies and flaws in 5 sentences:
> 01 - "the license" as if there's only one.
> 02 - "use any open-source software", not write or copy.
> 03 - "the rest of your software open source" in your office, your
> company?
> 04 - "if you use any open-source software, you have to make the rest
> [...]" is simply not true. First, by using it you commit to nothing
> (unlike Windows shrink-wrap license), and most licenses allow you to
> copy and/or include in your own code.
> 05 - "If the government wants [...], it should", thanks for telling
> them.
> 06- "in the public domain" was the term used 20 years ago for open
> source. Not useful any more.
> 07 - "Linux is not [...]", coming from the general to the particular
> just for the sake of attack: 'Divide and conquer'.
> 08 - "Linux is not in the public domain", so what? Straw
> man forever.
> 09 - "Linux is a cancer [...]" is an obvious ad-programme attack,
> loaded with malevolence.
> 10 - "[...] that attaches itself in an intellectual
> property sense to
> everything it touches." It would seem that if you ever use it, or even
> look at it from afar, you must give your firstborn to Richard Stallman.
> I thought it was only if you try to replicate it inside your software
> (which surely they must have tried with little success).
> 11 - "the way that the license works" doesn't make clear if
> it's "the
> license" mentioned first in a generic way, or the Linux license.
> 12 - Kant's Golden Rule -- suppose everyone does what
> Ballmer tells us
> is so bad, use GPL licences, do you see any bad consequence for mankind?
> What would it be?
>
> Not bad, even for a microsoftie.
>
> Un saludo,
>
> Alex.
>
> Mike Dougherty wrote:
> >
> > Jon Stevens wrote:
> > > --
> > > "Open source is not available to commercial companies."
> > > -Steve Balmer, CEO Microsoft
> > > <http://www.suntimes.com/output/tech/cst-fin-micro01.html>
> > >
> >
> > "The last I checked, Red Hat Software, VA Linux Systems, IBM, SGI, and
> > Hewlett-Packard were all "commercial companies".
> > - Eric S. Raymond
> > <http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2001-06-01-010-20-OP-MS>
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
