Good Luck Trying Microsoft
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| beirwin Jul 06, 2007 2:55 PM EDT |
Microsoft is living in Cloud Cuckoo Land if they think they can wiggle out of this one. |
| jdixon Jul 06, 2007 3:41 PM EDT |
As always, any relationship between the truth and what Microsoft says is purely coincidental. |
| dinotrac Jul 06, 2007 6:27 PM EDT |
>As always, any relationship between the truth and what Microsoft says is purely coincidental. It may not be as simple as that. Much as FSF might wish it were otherwise, depending on the specifics of the contract -- I don't know what they are -- Microsoft may well be right. The problem comes in attaching a practical scope to the word "convey". For example, if you go down to your local Fry's and buy a copy of Linspire, is Fry's bound by the GPL? They certainly would be conveying and distributing Linux, but any claim that they have brought themselves under the GPL by doing so in likely to be laughed out of court. If Microsoft can make a case that their relationship to the distribution of SuSE is akin to the distribution of Linspire by Fry's, they might just be right. If. |
| devnet Jul 06, 2007 7:54 PM EDT |
It's possible...but the certificates they offer bind them to it. They offer support...while Fry's wouldn't offer support for a TV you bought there. Sure, a warranty, but not support. Microsoft sells support for Linux. They might have a bit tougher time with that. What do you think Dino? |
| dinotrac Jul 07, 2007 2:33 AM EDT |
>Microsoft sells support for Linux. They might have a bit tougher time with that. What do you think Dino? But do they offer support or simply handle a transaction for support from Novell? Think of a Linux box that comes with 30 days free support, again at the Fry's -- or CompUSA if you've still got an open one near you. I don't know. I really don't. |
| jdixon Jul 07, 2007 7:10 AM EDT |
> For example, if you go down to your local Fry's and buy a copy of Linspire, is Fry's bound by the GPL? With respect to any software patents they hold affecting the code they're distrbuting, they probably are. :) That said, Microsoft may be correct. As long as they specify that the license they are distributing is only for code pre-GPLv3, they are probably OK. If Novell chooses to upgrade that license to a current one, that has nothing to do with Microsoft. However, there is a flip side to their deal with Novell. They also get a per seat fee paid to them for each copy of SuSE Novell sells. That still makes them party to the GPLv3, as they're being paid for the "conveyance" of the software. Unless they want to specify that's only for GPLv2 software too, they're probably screwed. |
| Abe Jul 07, 2007 9:06 AM EDT |
Quoting:They also get a per seat fee paid to them for each copy of SuSE Novell sells.You nailed it. Quoting:depending on the specifics of the contract -- I don't know what they areThat is true, but there is one guy who has seen the contract under NDA and that is Eben Moglen. We don't know whether Novell showed him the whole thing or not, on the other hand, Moglen seems to know what he did with the GPLv3 and based on information we don't have. It looks like GPLv3 is accomplishing its objects, which are: 1. Stop MS from taxing FOSS/Linux by way of contracts. It looks like MS is distancing itself from vouchers for now and needs time to assess whether they will continue distributing or not. MS & Novell could decide to maintain their own GPLv2 code, which might be costly and without gaining them much. 2. Protect Linux adopters from MS patents it claims Linux infringes on. GPLv2 doesn't do it (as far as we know) and if MS doesn't extend their vouchers to cover GPLv3, MS might be safe and we have to wait for them to let us know what those patents are. On the other hand, Moglen is saying that the vouchers are non-expiring. When Novell releases FOSS code under GPLv3, and they will if they don't intend to maintain GPLv2 code on their own, and any of those vouchers gets redeemed, MS is screwed. All in all, it looks like GPLv3 is doing its job and worthwhile to adopt. |
| dinotrac Jul 07, 2007 1:54 PM EDT |
>However, there is a flip side to their deal with Novell. They also get a per seat fee paid to them for each copy of SuSE Novell sells. That still makes them party to the GPLv3, as they're being paid for the "conveyance" of the software. ***Equivocation alert: I haven't read the actual agreement. No. They are not being paid for the conveyance of the software. Novell is being paid for the conveyance of the software. That conveyance, in turn, triggers an obligation on the part of Novell to pay Microsoft. |
| jdixon Jul 07, 2007 2:47 PM EDT |
> That conveyance, in turn, triggers an obligation on the part of Novell to pay Microsoft. Yes, but the wording would have to be very specific to avoid any obligation on Microsoft's part. That's possible, but given that they didn't have the text of the GPLv3 available at the time, unlikely. Especially as the GPLv3 was drafted with that specific agreement in mind. |
| dinotrac Jul 07, 2007 5:04 PM EDT |
>Yes, but the wording would have to be very specific to avoid any obligation on Microsoft's part. I don't know how specific any wording would have to be. Microsoft doesn't distribute Linux, they distribute "coupons" entitling Microsoft clients to get software from Novell. |
| jdixon Jul 07, 2007 5:16 PM EDT |
> I don't know how specific any wording would have to be. This isn't referring to the coupons Dino, this is in reference to the payments for Novell's sales. When you're getting money for something, it's hard to argue that your not a participant in the activity. Microsoft may have phrased the agreement in such a way that they can argue that, but given that the GPLv3 came out after the agreement, and took the agreement into account, I doubt it. |
| azerthoth Jul 07, 2007 5:39 PM EDT |
Anyone else remember those coupon books you used to be able to buy? If you managed to use them all you would have saved yourself a few hundred bucks but the books themselves only cost 15 or 20 bucks? They would be collections from all kinds of different vendors and services. The purveyors of those coupon books themselves weren't liable for a darned thing unless the paper that they used had a habit of spontaneous combustion when exposed to air. One has to wonder if something of the same might not apply here. Regardless though it would be an interesting case if ever it went to court. As stated before though, unless one of us happens to be one of the few who have seen the contract and understands it, all the rest is just guessing. We can make the assumption that Prof. Moglen, who has seen the contract, made sure to word things so that the outcome was very much in the favor of the FSF. However no one in infallible in all circumstances, to prove this one way or the other will without a doubt require a court case. That will settle it, until that happens though, even any claim the FSF makes is just idle speculation and wishful thinking. |
| dinotrac Jul 07, 2007 5:53 PM EDT |
>When you're getting money for something, it's hard to argue that your not a participant in the activity. That's all fine, but the question is what brings Microsoft under any GPLV3 obligations and what would those obligations be? Novell is a different matter. If Novell distributes GPLV3 software, they clearly will be bound by it. > We can make the assumption that Prof. Moglen, who has seen the contract, made sure to word things so that the outcome was very much in the favor of the FSF. All well and good -- though I would take issue with your characterization. I presume that he would have worded the thing to best further and protect free software. The real question, however, has NOTHING to do with the terms of the GPLV3. The question is how do you bind Microsoft to it. If Microsoft does nothing that requires the rights granted by GPLV3, Microsoft cannot be bound by it. |
| jdixon Jul 07, 2007 7:46 PM EDT |
> The question is how do you bind Microsoft to it. Novell will distribute GPLv3 software. Microsoft will receive money from that distribution (the per seat license fee Novell has agreed to pay Microsoft). Unless Microsoft clarifies that the fees are NOT for any GPLv3 software, but only for GPLv2 software, the fee they receive makes them a participant in the distribution. As I noted above, when you're getting money for something, it's hard to argue that you're not a participant in the activity. |
| azerthoth Jul 07, 2007 11:55 PM EDT |
I bring your attention again to the analogy of the coupon book. The folks you bought the coupon book from are in no way liable when the wheels fall off your car 5 miles from the shop where you used one of their coupons to get your brakes inspected. The folks who sold you the coupon got money for selling them, and the shop got your business because of it. This is one of those discussions that really drives home the point that for all the "free" in whatever term you care to apply thats relevant to the GPL, it is really a proprietary license. |
| tracyanne Jul 08, 2007 12:36 AM EDT |
Quoting:This is one of those discussions that really drives home the point that for all the "free" in whatever term you care to apply thats relevant to the GPL, it is really a proprietary license. Please explain. |
| Sander_Marechal Jul 08, 2007 2:48 AM EDT |
Quoting:Novell will distribute GPLv3 software. Microsoft will receive money from that distribution (the per seat license fee Novell has agreed to pay Microsoft). Unless Microsoft clarifies that the fees are NOT for any GPLv3 software, but only for GPLv2 software, the fee they receive makes them a participant in the distribution. I am pretty sure that as soon as Novell starts shipping GPLv3 software and the MS-Novell deal stands unchanged, that the FSF will come knocking on Novell's on suspicion that GPLv3 is broken and requesting to see the agreement (again) to see if it is or not. |
| dinotrac Jul 08, 2007 3:37 AM EDT |
>As I noted above, when you're getting money for something, it's hard to argue that you're not a participant in the activity. Sigh. Let me make this a little more clear. What is Microsoft doing that anybody could sue them for under copyright law? You see, a license is what allows people to do things that copyright law would forbid otherwise. It is a shield against prosecution for infringement because it eliminates the infringement. So. Take your "participate this" and "participate that" and argue yourself blue in the face. Have fun while you're at it. However, at some point, you have got to be able to imagine yourself in front of a judge explaining exactly what Microsoft has done in violation of copyright laws. Good luck. |
| tracyanne Jul 08, 2007 4:42 AM EDT |
Quoting:Let me make this a little more clear. I'm confused Everyone else seems to be talking about a license, namely GPL3, while you are talking about copyright. As far as I can see Microsoft has done nothing that is affected by copyright law, but they may have done something that is contrary to the License in question. |
| jdixon Jul 08, 2007 6:15 AM EDT |
> What is Microsoft doing that anybody could sue them for under copyright law? Nothing. That wasn't the question. The question was "What are they doing which binds them to the terms of the GPLv3?" If they're bound by the GPLv3, they're bound by it's patent provisions. The question then isn't what can someone sue them for?; it's what can they sue someone for? > ...but they may have done something that is contrary to the License in question. Not yet. But if they're subject to the GPLv3, they will when they try to sue a GPLv3 user for patent violations. |
| dinotrac Jul 08, 2007 6:28 AM EDT |
>As far as I can see Microsoft has done nothing that is affected by copyright law, but they may have done something that is contrary to the License in question. The connection is pretty simple, though not clear if you haven't thought about it. A license is a grant of rights. The GPL, for example, gives you the right to do certain things with GPL'd software that the law would otherwise forbid. You are able to do those things so long as you abide by the terms of the license. Copyright law (we won't worry about patents here - they are a similar but smaller and stickier case) is the law that ordinarily forbids you from doing things with software that you did not author. If you wish to do those forbidden things, you need permission (a license) from the owner of those rights. If you don't do those forbidden things, you don't need diddly squat. That is the real question: Is Microsoft doing anything that requires an exercise of the rights granted by the GPL? If not, they can't be bound by it. |
| jdixon Jul 08, 2007 6:42 AM EDT |
> Is Microsoft doing anything that requires an exercise of the rights granted by the GPL? Yes. They're getting paid for the distribution of GPL'ed code. Under the GPLv3, this means they're granting the rights to the patents involved. |
| dinotrac Jul 08, 2007 6:58 AM EDT |
>Yes. They're getting paid for the distribution of GPL'ed code. Under the GPLv3, this means they're granting the rights to the patents involved. You may know something that I don't, so let's break down my understanding and you tell me if I am right or wrong. 1. As I understand it, Microsoft distributes coupons that entitle people to a copy of SuSE's enterprise edition of Linux. 2. Coupon recipients receive their Linux from Novell, not from Microsoft. 3. The payment Microsoft supposedly receives -- I say supposedly because the net dollar flow is overwhelmingly to Novell -- is not for distribution of software, but for it's promise not to sue Novell customers or some such thing. That should be clear from the fact that they do not distribute any GPL'd software. So...what subjects them to action under copyright? What are they doing that they are not entitled to do? |
| jdixon Jul 08, 2007 7:09 AM EDT |
> The payment Microsoft supposedly receives -- I say supposedly because the net dollar flow is overwhelmingly to Novell -- is not for distribution of software, but for it's promise not to sue Novell customers or some such thing. Dino, if I agree to loan someone my car, in exchange for 10% of the proceeds from each bank he robs using it; it doesn't matter what my supposed justification for loaning him my car is, I'm still a partner in the bank robberies. Microsoft can argue all day long that they're not a partner in the distribution of SuSE. The fact that they're getting paid money for each copy sold says otherwise. I think a court would agree with me. I have been wrong in the past, of course, and Microsoft has proven extremely adept at using the court system to their advantage. We'll have to see how things pan out. |
| dinotrac Jul 08, 2007 7:27 AM EDT |
>I'm still a partner in the bank robberies. Microsoft can argue all day long that they're not a partner in the distribution of SuSE. Ummm... You really should quit when you're just a little bit behind. Never mind that you are confusing copyright and criminal law -- two different animals. Let's look at how silly your comparison really is. First, you don't need to receive any of the proceeds -- or any benefit whatsoever -- to be an accomplice to a felony. You merely have to knowingly aid and abet it in some fashion. Second, note that you are talking about an illegal act. Robbing a bank makes you subject to criminal enforcement. The question here is what makes Microsoft subject to the terms of the GPL? What differentiates them from Fry's, who also receives a payment for every copy of Linux that they sell? How are they any more a partner in the distribution of Linux than Fry's, who provides shelf space and actually takes part in the distribution process? The answer is nothing. You are wrong and a court would not agree with you -- at least on the basis of the things we have discussed in this forum. The question remains: What is Microsoft doing that would violate the Copyright Act if they were not granted rights under license? If they distribute SuSE Linux itself, instead of merely distributing coupons, and SuSE Linux violates the GPL, then, depending on the nature of the distribution, Microsoft might -- and only might -- subject itself to the GPL. In such a case, the details would become important. |
| jdixon Jul 08, 2007 10:16 AM EDT |
> Never mind that you are confusing copyright and criminal law -- two different animals. Yes, they're different. However, I'm not confusing them, merely offering a reasonable laypersons analogy. > What differentiates them from Fry's, who also receives a payment for every copy of Linux that they sell? Probably nothing. Fry's is distributing Linux, and is probably also covered by the patent sections of the GPL. The fact that Fry's doesn't have any software patents they're trying to claim against GPL'ed code renders that analogy as inapplicable as you claim mine is. > The answer is nothing. You are wrong and a court would not agree with you -- at least on the basis of the things we have discussed in this forum. There's only one way to determine that for certain. I am perfectly willing to accept that I may be incorrect, but I hope you'll excuse me for not just accepting your opinion on the matter. In this particular case, I think I'm right and you're wrong. > What is Microsoft doing that would violate the Copyright Act if they were not granted rights under license? Nothing yet. But if they are subject to the the GPLv3, they've given up their right to sue FOSS users for patent infringement. Whether the Novell agreement makes them subject to the GPLv3 is for a court to decide, not me. I believe it does, you believe it doesn't. Reasonable people can disagree, especially given the limited information available concerning the agreement. |
| dinotrac Jul 08, 2007 10:52 AM EDT |
I see that this thread has strayed a little far afield from my original intent, so, before I continue, let me reiterate my original statement: Microsoft may well be right. That is different from Microsoft is right. I don't know all the details of what they are doing, but I can imagine a good legal argument in their favor (at least, one based on my understanding of what they are doing). That said, let me shift into a full Devil's Advocate mode and finish up from the "is right" position: >Nothing yet. If you accept that, then you agree with me. To be subject to the GPLv3, they must rely on some right it grants. That means they must do something that requires such a right. That's the tricky part of the exercise. No provisions of the GPLv3 matter unless you are subject to the license itself, so citing the GPL is like citing Bible verses to an atheist. It's possible that they are, in fact, doing something and we don't know about it. In that case, fine. It's also possible that they are doing something that they will stop doing once GPLV3 software starts showing up in Novell Linux. At any rate, they must do something that, under the law, they have no right to do. Otherwise, the GPL means nothing to them because they don't need it. |
| jdixon Jul 08, 2007 11:41 AM EDT |
> Microsoft may well be right. Yes, they may be. Which would be purely coincidental. :) We agree about that. The coupons they're giving out, which were issued before th GPLv3, may not obligate them to the GPLv3 in any way, especially since they've now stated that's not their intent. It's an iffy matter, but an argument can be made either way. > If you accept that, then you agree with me. Yes, I think we agree on most of the points. Which is usually the case, actually. > To be subject to the GPLv3, they must rely on some right it grants. Distribution of the software is one such right. :) My position is simple. Unless they may a similar statement wrt the payments from Novell (i.e., GPLv3 software is not included) they will be receiving payments for the distribution of GPLv3 software, making them a party in the distribution and therefore subject to the patent provisions of the GPLv3. In essence, it's not just the coupons they have to worry about. The payments from Novell also have the potential to subject them to the provisions of the GPLv3. In both cases, a court would have to make the final decision, and a lot would depend on the actual wording of the agreement, as you've noted. I don't think it will ever reach that point. I suspect Microsoft will back down from these deals as soon as possible rather than even risk such a court decision. That's effectively what they've done with the coupons. |
| dinotrac Jul 08, 2007 1:17 PM EDT |
>they will be receiving payments for the distribution of GPLv3 software, making them a party in the distribution and therefore subject to the patent provisions of the GPLv3. Except that you are misrepresenting the facts, or at least the publicly available facts. They are not being paid to distribute software. Ostensibly, they are being paid so that Novell can distribute software without fear of Microsoft suing its customers. It's an important difference. Had the Novell agreement been for the distribution of software, the FSF would not have gotten its nose out of joint. |
| jdixon Jul 08, 2007 2:40 PM EDT |
> Except that you are misrepresenting the facts... No, I'm not. Microsoft is. Microsoft is being paid a fee for each copy of Linux Novell sells. That's being paid for distributing software. Microsoft can claim anything they want, they can call it anything they want, it's still being paid for distributing software. |
| dinotrac Jul 08, 2007 4:39 PM EDT |
> That's being paid for distributing software. Sigh. Enjoy yourself out there in fantasyland. |
| jdixon Jul 08, 2007 4:56 PM EDT |
> Enjoy yourself out there in fantasyland. Dino, you're thinking like a lawyer. A court and lawyers can define a car to be horse, but that still doesn't mean it will run on oats. The Novell agreement, which pays Microsoft a fee for each copy of Linux Novell sells, makes Microsoft a party to the distribution of Linux. I don't care who disagrees with me on the matter or how many there are, it's still the simple truth. Whether a court can discern that I have no idea, no do I much care. Added: Oh, and I'm sure I will. I hope you'll join me someday. :) |
| dinotrac Jul 08, 2007 7:48 PM EDT |
>The Novell agreement, which pays Microsoft a fee for each copy of Linux Novell sells, makes Microsoft a party to the distribution of Linux. The issue is not whether they are "a party" to the distribution, whatever you think that means. The issue is whether they are doing anything that would require an exercise of rights that can only be acquired via the GPL. Enough said. I'm tired of this nonsense. |
| jdixon Jul 08, 2007 8:10 PM EDT |
> Enough said. I'm tired of this nonsense. Agreed. We've wasted enough electrons, and said more than enough to allow others to gauge our positions for themselves. |
| Abe Jul 09, 2007 5:55 AM EDT |
Quoting:We've wasted enough electronsTrue, and looking at the bright side, you both gained enough neurons to agree on something.:) What is really important and counts the most is that, GPLv3 did accomplish its goals and objectives. My post above that didn't get any comments, do we agree on that? Quoting: 1. Stop MS from taxing FOSS/Linux by way of contracts. It looks like MS is distancing itself from vouchers for now and needs time to assess whether they will continue distributing or not. MS & Novell could decide to maintain their own GPLv2 code, which might be costly and without gaining them much. |
| dinotrac Jul 09, 2007 6:19 AM EDT |
>All in all, it looks like GPLv3 is doing its job and worthwhile to adopt. GPLv3 isn't doing anything yet. Let's see what happens when it's actually being used in a serious way. Then, if all is well, we can pat it on the back and congratulate it for a job well done. |
| Abe Jul 09, 2007 6:32 AM EDT |
Quoting:GPLv3 isn't doing anything yet.Well, at least it put MS on the defensive so far trying to figure out what to do. Don't you think? |
| dinotrac Jul 09, 2007 6:35 AM EDT |
>Don't you think? Not any more than I have to. As to Microsoft on the defensive, I should hope that the job of GPLv3 is furthering free software, not having some effect on Microsoft. |
| Scott_Ruecker Jul 09, 2007 6:50 AM EDT |
Quoting:As to Microsoft on the defensive, I should hope that the job of GPLv3 is furthering free software, not having some effect on Microsoft. Aw come on Dino, If one of the goals of GPLv3 is to make it harder for companies like Microsoft to subvert it or work its way inside through a loophole then the GPLv3 making Microsoft jittery is doing something in a serious way. Making the 400lb gorilla in the room stutter sounds like something is working to me. |
| dinotrac Jul 09, 2007 6:53 AM EDT |
>Making the 400lb gorilla in the room stutter sounds like something is working to me. If you count the entertainment value, then I suppose so. The problem is that Microsoft's pain is just that -- Microsoft's pain. It may or may not translate into a gain for free software. It might even be the first symptom of pain for free software, though that seems (I hope) unlikely. |
| Scott_Ruecker Jul 09, 2007 7:05 AM EDT |
Quoting:I should hope that the job of GPLv3 is furthering free software, not having some effect on Microsoft. I believe that the goal of the GPL whether it be v1-2-3 is to further software, not just free software. With all of the programs that have been migrated from proprietary licenses to the GPL, obviously it has done much more than just further free software. |
| dinotrac Jul 09, 2007 7:22 AM EDT |
>With all of the programs that have been migrated from proprietary licenses to the GPL, Ummm...Not to say anything Scott, but moving software from proprietary to free is -- ahem -- furthering free software. |
| Abe Jul 09, 2007 7:43 AM EDT |
Quoting:The problem is that Microsoft's pain is just that -- Microsoft's pain. It may or may not translate into a gain for free softwareCrazy Ben Franklin once said "a penny saved is a penny earned". Saving FOSS code from being taxed is a code gained. Stopping MS from harassing FOSS adopters is a major gain. Making useless of contracts MS spent a lot of resource on is a major gain. I don't think we really need more gain than that. |
| dinotrac Jul 09, 2007 8:52 AM EDT |
Abe - You sound like a business trumpeting its revenues to deflect attention from the fact it lost money. Gain is net. Time will tell. |
| Abe Jul 09, 2007 11:19 AM EDT |
Quoting:business trumpeting its revenuesFOSS is not a business, it doesn't need to trumpet anything even if it was. Quoting:Gain is net.Very true. GPLv3 is attracting new adopters. Apache & Eclipse are couple examples. http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2007/07/ap... Quoting:Time will tell.True again. I believe, so far, Indications show things are going in the right direction for FOSS. |
| dinotrac Jul 09, 2007 11:58 AM EDT |
>Very true. GPLv3 is attracting new adopters. Apache & Eclipse are couple examples. Umm...You should read your own link. Nothing in that article suggests that Apache and Eclipse are adapting GPLv3. Quite the contrary, it seems that they are very pleased that the FSF has loosened up restrictions from GPLV2 so that Apache and Eclipse licenses are compatible with V3. |
| Abe Jul 09, 2007 12:13 PM EDT |
Quoting:Apache and Eclipse licenses are compatible with V3.Being compatible is first step for adopting. Quoting:FSF has loosened up restrictions from GPLV2Loosing is not bad and a good step to gain as long as nothing is lost in the process. As a bonus, GPLv3 became a better and stronger license in other areas. I would say the creation of GPLv3 was a good smart move. |
| dinotrac Jul 09, 2007 12:15 PM EDT |
>Being compatible is first step for adopting. Are you trying to say that the FSF is planning to adapt the Apache or Eclipse license? It is, after all, the GPL that has changed, not the other two. |
| Abe Jul 10, 2007 7:59 AM EDT |
Quoting:Are you trying to say that the FSF is planning to adapt the Apache or Eclipse license? It is, after all, the GPL that has changed, not the other two.That is exactly what I am saying. I don't see any thing wrong with that, Do you? The GPLv3 didn't only bring in more restrictions to protect against the loophole that existed in GPLv2 and MS took advantage of in their contracts, it also brought in flexibility to accommodate for better consolidation with other FOSS licenses. All in all, I consider the GPLv3 to be a win win license for FOSS. If some companies don't like it, tough luck. |
| dinotrac Jul 10, 2007 9:29 AM EDT |
>That is exactly what I am saying. I don't see any thing wrong with that, Do you? No, but it seems that they've gone to an awful lot of effort to devise and maintain their own license. Seems silly if they're just going to move on to somebody else's. |
| Abe Jul 10, 2007 10:24 AM EDT |
Quoting:Seems silly if they're just going to move on to somebody else's.Dinooooo! Come on. There is a lot more to the GPLv3 than just one simple clause or term. We are talking about agreeing with the license and making it compatible with other licenses for dual licensing not necessarily using the same license. |
| dinotrac Jul 10, 2007 10:53 AM EDT |
>We are talking about agreeing with the license and making it compatible with other licenses for dual licensing not necessarily using the same license. You were talking about organizations adapting a license. I take that to mean they will use the license. If you mean organizations modifying a license, then fine. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!