Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 18:03:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Brett Taylor <brett@peloton.runet.edu> To: James Howard <howardjp@wam.umd.edu> Cc: freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Response to Fatal Flaw in BSD (part 2) Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0006191757470.56313-100000@peloton.runet.edu> In-Reply-To: <200006192016.QAA23911@rac4.wam.umd.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi,
On Mon, 19 Jun 2000, James Howard wrote:
> So here is the revised version, please send me anything you think
> needs changing.
> * Second, the Kerberos code could have been released under the GPL.
> If this had happened, the Microsoft would have surely refused to
then
> Why did Microsoft choose not to use existing code? I cannot say. The
> license would have allowed them completely use the existing code without
license allows them to use the existing code as is without
> However, despite legal availability of code, it was not used and this
the code,
> So we are now left with Leibovitch's articlewhich is clearly designed
article which
> of Kerberos is an ``example of real harm to the frees software
free software
> which is based on a BSD license. The X Windows System's widespread
> availability and interoperability is also based on it's liberal
its
Brett
*****************************************************
Dr. Brett Taylor brett@peloton.runet.edu *
Dept of Chem and Physics *
Curie 39A (540) 831-6147 *
Dept. of Mathematics and Statistics *
Walker 234 (540) 831-5410 *
*****************************************************
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0006191757470.56313-100000>