On 8/3/07, Lloyd Linklater <lloyd / 2live4.com> wrote: > John Lam (CLR) wrote: > > As for *interpreting* those conditions, please make sure that you > > consult with your friendly neighborhood attorney before making any > > business decisions around this. Unfortunately, email threads on RubyTalk > > and blog posts / comments on the internet don't count as legal advice :) > > Doesn't your saying that we now need to get lawyers to tell us what we > can and cannot do sort of tell us that the source is not open anymore? > I thought that the idea was to relax and share openly, hence the term. > If we have to cower and run to lawyers, who cannot tell us the right or > wrong of it but only whether they can defend it when some other lawyer > is paid to fight for the other team, then why would we want that around > anyway? Should open source be open source? > > This is taking a most disheartening turn. You are so right, that is why having some framework like OSI approval might help in relaxing a bit more... But I guess John is giving sound advice for this low world. Concerning the MS license I can only say "Timeo danaos et donas ferentes" and yes I now exactly what happened to the guy who said that first, funny to see Bill Gates as Ulysses, but my horse sense is telling me so... Cheers Robert > -- > Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. > > -- [...] as simple as possible, but no simpler. -- Attributed to Albert Einstein