[IronPython] License change?
vernondcole at gmail.com
Tue Apr 20 01:47:39 CEST 2010
Yes, a change to a license which did not contain the name "Microsoft" would
be a benefit. People have long memories, and Microsoft has a remembered
history of not playing well with others. (My own memory goes back 20 years
to the WordPerfect war.) I tend to not trust the news from MSNBC simply
because of the first two letters in the name. Unfortunately, prejudice runs
deep in humans.
Even more unfortunately, Microsoft's policy of refusing to allow patches
to IronPython from outside the company reinforces the worry that, even
though the playground bully may be acting nice right now, he's still a bully
deep down inside. It really interferes with the desired image of MS as a
team player. IMHO some corporate Vice President should visit the legal
department and slap faces until that policy gets changed. But what do I
know? -- I'm just a customer.
For all you in the development team, keep up the good work!
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 4:10 PM, Dan Wierenga <dwierenga at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Dino Viehland <dinov at microsoft.com>
> > Do you think adopting a more popular license, such as the Apache
> License, would be a good change for IronPython?
> My $.02: there aren't a lot of people that are familiar with the MS
> public licenses compared to the Apache/GPL/BSD/etc licenses. For many
> of them, the mention of "Microsoft" in the license name immediately
> (erroneously, but immediately nonetheless) makes them conclude a
> project isn't open source.
> Adopting a license that people are familiar with will make it easier
> for them to come to terms with the fact that Microsoft can and does
> sponsor open-source projects. And it convinces them from the outset
> that there isn't some hidden backdoor in the license for Microsoft to
> Users mailing list
> Users at lists.ironpython.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Ironpython-users