Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 18th Nov 2008 06:45 UTC, submitted by pablo_marx
Thread beginning with comment 337582
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: First open source kernel from Microsoft!
by John Nilsson on Tue 18th Nov 2008 17:35
in reply to "RE[4]: First open source kernel from Microsoft!"
RE[6]: First open source kernel from Microsoft!
by andrewg on Tue 18th Nov 2008 18:44
in reply to "RE[5]: First open source kernel from Microsoft!"
Nothing to do with distribution. Its all about the fact that there is no GPL software where anyone in their right mind would pay to use the software. Paying for support and all the services around that is not the same as paying for the use of software i.e. paying for the actual utility of the software.
Which is why companies like Redhat and MySQL make next to nothing compared to their scope and quality of their offering.




Member since:
2005-11-13
The bastards!! How dare they?
Well, they're compatable in the sense that they're both pretty much non-commercial, which was his point. One license forbids you from selling it commercially. The other one allows it, though nobody in their right mind is going to purchase it if they can just get it elsewhere for $0.