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