Mark Bergeron wrote:
> My point was that for MS's .NET strategy, Perl and XML would open the project up to
>a much stronger development range. Of course as MS has a habit of assimilating
>technology, surely that would prove difficult.
>
> I don't remember seeing them call it a cancer. Is that right?
I don't think the word was "cancer,", but I do remember seeing a report
about M$'s new license strategy, restricting users of Micro$oft's new
development tools from use with "potentially viral" [sic] software such
as (these were explicitly named examples): the GPL, the LGPL, the
Mozilla PL, and something from Sun.
Another cover of this story is here:
http://www.zdnetindia.com/techzone/linuxcentre/stories/27792.html
And descriptions of some of these licenses can be found here:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html
A google search for "potentially viral" and Microsoft will undoubtedly
turn up dozens of results.
All this is very interesting, since M$ allowed ActiveState to develop
Visual Perl, an M$ Visual Studio-compatible app. Or is ActiveState's
particular license restrictive enough to not be a threat to Redmond?
[ snipped a lot - didn't count ]
Tim Hammerquist
--
"Nobody will ever need more than 640k RAM!" -- Bill Gates, 1981
"Windows 95 needs at least 8 MB RAM." -- Bill Gates, 1996
"Nobody will ever need Windows 95." -- logical conclusion
_______________________________________________
Perl-Win32-Web mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/listinfo/perl-win32-web
