> > Microsoft gives them free reign to use the drivers,
>
> yeah, because Microsoft are already paid! - I came into OSS in the first
> place _because_ of M$'s licensing terms for developers. I don't think I'm
> alone in that, somehow.
>
Yes but the subject at hand is not whether users should develop for the
Microsoft platform using the Microsoft tools but how to treat those who have
decided to do so.
> I couldn't agree more with you, Mike. Clarity's hugely
> important. Finding
> clarity is not so straightforward, that's kinda where we're all at. The
> first thing we all need to agree on is whether we start achieving it by
> looking at licensing on a per-case basis, or whether we start looking at
> licensing from first principles.
>
Making things clear for commercial developers needs to be a first principle.
These are the people who will be buying commercial licenses when the
situation requires them to. The situation for OSS developers is many times
simpler than for commercial ones.
Whatever happens in the end, clarity is the highest priority. The license
should not be subject to interpretation, but instead two individuals should
come away from reading the license documentation with the same understanding
of what they can and cannot do.
Mike
