> >Please remember what UC Berkely were trying to achieve.
>
> Ok. My statement still stands though. Current day open-source
> development that is BSD licensed or similarly can go directly to
> Microsoft.
There's still no problem with that. The only big problem
with the BSD license is that Microsoft isn't required to
give back their changes to the BSD community.
I don't see anything wrong with commercial companies using
Open Source stuff in their products -- as long as they give
something back to the community...
I propose we move the discussion to another forum and
continue there to talk about a new kind of license
incorporating the best of GPL and BSD :)
<plug>
linux-legal@nl.linux.org
</plug>
cheers,
Rik -- Open Source: you deserve to be in control of your data.
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Le Reseau netwerksystemen BV: http://www.reseau.nl/ |
| Linux Memory Management site: http://www.linux.eu.org/Linux-MM/ |
| Nederlandse Linux documentatie: http://www.nl.linux.org/ |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/