Catastrophic loss for unencumbered standards

TalkBack 26 of 96:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

The problem is...

The non-redistribution clause does make it impossible for free software developers to use the technology, because MS' license terms prohibit 3rd parties from distributing it (to include end users giving copies to friends). This would have meant that if SenderID was included in Sendmail, or Alache, these programs could only have been distributed through MS-approved channels; that sounds like a good way for MS to take de facto control of software they didn't write, possibly even a good way to force binary-only distribution of the software. That was almost certainly why MS put it in and why free developers were correct to reject it. This had nothing to do with ideology on the developers' parts (we're talking about conservative BSD and MIT license types, not the FSF) and everything to do with MS' war against open source (can you think of any other reason why MS insists on the clause?).

MS was really interested in fighting spam, they'd license the technology without encumbrance. Its only practical value under the current terms is as a weapon they can use to pit proprietory developers against free ones (it's not even useful as a money-maker, at this point).

Posted by: John L. Ries   Posted on: 09/25/04 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• VMware Infrastructure: A Guide to Bottom-Line Benefits VMware Frustrated by the costs of maintain ever larger data centers?or building ... Download Now
• Virtualization: Architectural Considerations And Other Evaluation Criteria VMware Of the many approaches to x86 systems virtualization available in the ... Download Now
• The True Costs of Virtual Server Solutions VMware In an economic environment that is repeatedly heralding the message "do ... Download Now