dotgnu-general
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [DotGNU]Propoganda starts at home...


From: David Sugar
Subject: Re: [DotGNU]Propoganda starts at home...
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 07:45:36 -0400
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux 2.2.16-9mdk i686; en-US; m18) Gecko/20001013

I suspect one reason they choose to come up with that horrible "shared source" license was because they had code that could not be hidden in a true binary (CLR stuff) and so found it nessisary to have some license to cover "visible code" and later convenient to use it as a marketing tool. The effect of this system and .net software in easily decodable binaries could be very corrosive.

Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:

David Sugar <address@hidden> wrote:


Because the runtime (virtual machine) code can be easily rendered into a
readable source much like Java (albiet missing identifiers) there is
some risk that if one has used a .net system when it exists, that one
might have looked at and de-compiled these files to create compatible
libraries.  It is hard to prove that didn't occur per se, much like what
could theoretically happen to Wine and Samba if, say, someone
deliberately leaked MS code.


Indeed, this is a grave concern.  It's clear that Microsoft is trying to
stamp out the GPL.  And, there are now some Microsoft licensing floating
about that claim you are forbidden to develop GPL'ed software with them.

I think Microsoft would likely lose in court with such a license, but we
don't want the legal battle.  It's best to develop DotGNU with just the
publicly available ECMA specification documents, and be rigorous about it,
so no developer ever has to touch Microsoft software.


--
Bradley M. Kuhn, Vice President
Free Software Foundation     |  Phone: +1-617-542-5942
59 Temple Place, Suite 330   |  Fax:   +1-617-542-2652
Boston, MA 02111-1307  USA   |  Web:   http://www.gnu.org



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]