Subject: Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
From: Chris Travers <chris@metatrontech.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 10:20:10 -0700
Fri, 17 Aug 2007 10:20:10 -0700
Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Chris Travers (chris@metatrontech.com):
>
>   
>> Why should we hold Microsoft's position against the GPL against it, when 
>> we do not hold attacks by RMS against the BSD licenses against them when 
>> approving the GPL v3?
>>     
>
> Please cite instances of "attacks by RMS against the BSD licenses".  One
> URL at which same can be read would suffice.
>
> The only critique by Richard against a BSD licence is his pointing out
> the long-ago "obnoxious advertising clause" creating accumulating problems
> in deriviative works, especially in a commercial context, and creating
> mostly gratuituous compatibility problems.  Even that cannot be fairly
> characterised as an "attack" against old-BSD, but rather deploring some 
> side-effects of that one clause.  E.g.:
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html
>
>
>   
I will be happy reply on an appropriate with this as I do not believe 
that it is relevant to *either* this thread nor the question of GPL v3 
approval.  Myonly question is why Chris Dibona seems to think that an 
organization whom many consider an "enemy" should be singled out for 
special treatment.  I don't believe that they should.

Soon I intend to post a set of warnings about what we should be 
concerned about in the future relating to comments from RMS, the FSF, 
and the GPL v3 process.  While this will be under an appropriate GPL v3 
thread, it will not be intended as an objection to the approval of that 
license, just things to watch for in the future based on past performance.

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers


["text/x-vcard" not shown]