Yes, but this is ONLY about a parochial intent, as I see it. I really don't think it accomplishes anything different from many OSD-compliant licenses, and it is, IMO, no less "infectious" OR libertarian than the GPL. (Forgive me, Richard - though I doubt you are reading here.)
As Baptists used to say about Methodists, "We sing 'Amazing Grace' out of a blue hymnal, and you sing it from a brown hymnal, so you're going to HELL !" Cheers. dj ******************************************************** Don B Jarrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Digital Thinking Inc. 512 266 7126 office www.digitalthinkinginc.com 972 467 6793 mobile ******************************************************** > -----Original Message----- > From: David Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 11:19 PM > To: Don Jarrell; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Microsoft's near-OSD-compliant shared > source license > > > On Monday 30 June 2003 09:01 pm, Don Jarrell wrote: > > > So, it only says that I cannot, in effect, do something > > that _uses_another_license_ to REQUIRE of subsequent > > distros, what this license accomplishes explicitly in > > its own language. How parochial is that ?!? > > It seems to me to be just as parochial as the GPL > and most other strong > copyleft licenses. At least that's how I read that clause. > > -- > David Johnson > ___________________ > http://www.usermode.org > -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
