Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 7th Dec 2011 22:24 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 499456
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[4]: Clarification - OSS but not FOSS
by Valhalla on Fri 9th Dec 2011 06:46
in reply to "RE[3]: Clarification - OSS but not FOSS"
That article makes no sense, it states the following from the Microsoft agreement :
“If your app includes FOSS, it must not cause any non-FOSS Microsoft software to become subject to the terms of any FOSS license.”
This is Microsoft adding a safety disclaimer, but there's no reason why any Microsoft software would 'become subject to the terms of any FOSS licence' as the only thing any Microsoft software will do is distribute an unmodified (by Microsoft) binary. This is no different from hundreds of sites which already distribute binaries of GPL licenced software, fully in compliance with the licence. As long as Microsoft does not add any restrictions as for distribution/copying of the FOSS apps (which is what Apple did) then there's no problem with them distibuting GPL licenced software.




Member since:
2009-05-06
And yet: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/12/08/open_source_windows_8_windo...