"Rahul Dhesi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"amicus_curious" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I find the many web sites that publish descriptive "how-to" projects as
sample code to be much more useful than GPL stuff. These authors seem
only
interested in educating those who read their articles and rarely demand
any
sort of quid pro quo. Microsoft itself publishes gigabytes of tutorials
and
samples for this purpose.
Since you were defending the MIT license and criticizing the GPL
license, let me ask you this:
These "how-to" web sites, including Microsoft's alleged gigabytes of
tutorials -- do they use the MIT license, thus allowing you to freely
republish their content freely?
If not, then I fail to see your point.
I don't think they use any license at all. I have no desire to republish
their content either. I am only interested in learning how do do various
things with .NET in this particular case. These articles serve to show the
way, nothing more.
Perhaps if I wanted to create an office automation suite of my own I would
want to plow through OO's code or if I were interested in a web server I
would similarly go through Apache. The same for MySQL, PHP, and the other
landmarks of OSS, including Linux itself. But I don't really much care to
do any of that, I am only interested in perhaps using these programs for
some purpose of my own. If they did not work, I wouldn't fool around trying
to fix them, I would look for another program that did work. If my need
were unique enough and still had wider appeal, I might consider writing my
own program and marketing it to those who could benefit from it and would be
willing to pay me for that benefit.
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
