Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 18th Aug 2007 20:13 UTC
Permalink for comment 264451
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/25/13 0:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 23:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Howard Fosdick on 05/24/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 14:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-02-21
I agree with you 100%. Microsoft's intentions are really irrelevant in this matter. The focus should be on the merits of the license itself and whether or not it meets the standards of OSI. It shouldn't matter whether the license was submitted by Microsoft, you, me, or somebody from a small town in the middle of no-where Kansas. Saying, "This license is not really valid because it was submitted by Microsoft" is in and of itself not really a valid statement and shows a decision based off of nothing but emotion.