Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

["Paula Paul" <Paula AT PaulSoftware.com>]

> 
> Looks like Microsoft has jumped on the "loudly misunderstand open
> source" bandwagon.

... well, (you probably can guess my stance on this one) I would think
that Microsoft has had hordes of lawyers examine the GPL and LGPL, so
I'm guessing they probably understand the realities of the GPL and LGPL
even better than we do.  Although the press may try to skewer Microsoft
as the open source anti-christ, Eric Raymond points out what Microsoft
is really after here:

"It's very clever of them," said Eric Raymond, president of the Open
Source Initiative. "Instead of attacking the entire open-source movement
they've singled out the one license that is in a sense politically
controversial."

It's not Microsoft's fault that the GPL is controversial, as Eric
Raymond freely admits.  The GPL impacts Microsoft's business
(possibility of even more lawsuits if somebody shows that GPL's code
found its way into a product), and I expect it impacts their employees
(they are probably restricted from working with GPL'd code, to avoid
even more lawsuits), so they are doing something about it.  I can't
fault them for that.  

Whether we like it or not, the GPL is dividing the software community -
that alone can't be healthy.  

Personally, I'd like to live in a world where there was a kind of
general software license that encouraged big software companies like
Microsoft and Apple to use it, but as it stands today, neither Microsoft
nor Apple like the GPL. 

"The year's Big Lie is the assertion that Apple has embraced open source
software....":
http://cma.zdnet.com/texis/cma/cma/+Qh9ek_UcxzmwwwqqFqr+sW6s++mzmwwwwnzm
wwwwpFqrp1xmwBnLFqnhw5B/display.html

Just because people don't agree with something does not mean they don't
understand it ;-)
Paula