From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 23 Jun 2001 02:47:15 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 23 Jun 2001 02:47:05 -0400 Received: from front2.mail.megapathdsl.net ([66.80.60.30]:38674 "EHLO front2.mail.megapathdsl.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 23 Jun 2001 02:46:54 -0400 Subject: Re: [OT]Re: One more ZDNet article with BillG hammering Linux and Open Source. From: Miles Lane To: Miles Lane Cc: Gerhard Mack , Ben Ford , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <993277680.25169.1.camel@agate> In-Reply-To: <993277680.25169.1.camel@agate> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Evolution/0.10.99 (Preview Release) Date: 22 Jun 2001 23:53:26 -0700 Message-Id: <993279211.25168.3.camel@agate> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org It would be great to see the "Shared Source" licenses that Microsoft has made people sign. It would be especially interesting to compare the agreements that were given to the various classes of licensees: University Research Departments, ISVs, Enterprises and so on. Then we'd be able to have a somewhat more balanced public discussion of that includes the problems with Microsoft's licenses. Perhaps some of you work or study at institutions or companies that have copies of some iterations of the Microsoft licenses. If so, perhaps you could post them on the web and send the URLs. Miles