Re: Disgusted with kbuild developers

[Daniel Phillips]

On February 19, 2002 09:04 am, Giacomo Catenazzi wrote:
> Daniel Phillips wrote:
> >>. A Microsoft engineer wrote scripts/Configure.  For three years, I have
> >>  lived in fear that Microsoft would notice this fact and use it to attack
> >>  Linux through public relations channels or legal means.  They haven't 
> >>  yet, so I have been wrong so far.
> > 
> > Teehee.  I don't think you have anything to worry about, Microsoft would 
> > be incredibly embarassed to admit they're contributing to 'problem number 
> > 1'.
> 
> I agree, but we know some strange 'behaviour' of MS.
> They have a lot of lawers, they can make us a lot of trouble.
> (You will notice that there are no copyright statment on that file,
> only the name of authors).
> 
> Remember the RMS (a flame with the word 'ESR' MUST have also the 'RMS' :-))
> way to include 'free' patches: sign and send to FSF a piece of paper,
> that the patches CAN be included.

Under the GPL Having exclusive copyright just means that you can relicense 
later stuff if you want.  I'm not clear on why FSF considers it so important
but for Linux it just means that nobody, not even Linus, can ever release
under a new license (e.g., the BSD license).  So actually, having multiple 
copyright holders is a good thing for you, it protects your investment in GPL 
capital better.  I say, if Microsoft employees want to contribute to Linux, 
the more the merrier.  Heck, even billg is going to wake up on day (with a 
start, in the middle of the night) and realize which way the wind is blowing. 
Steve Jobs did.

> I think nobody in Linux have done that,

Great.

> thus we can expect some more troubles and microsoft is a large 
> troubles-maker

Oh yes...

-- 
Daniel