[luau] MS Shared Source license

[Eric Hattemer]

Anyone ever read about this MS shared source concept?  The URL is
http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/sharedsource/default.asp .  Here are some
of the highlights of the FAQ
http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/sharedsource/ssfaq.asp :

"Linux is one of Microsoft's many competitors."

Unless you consider windows to be a server operating system, Linux is really
one of the only competitors (for the OS).

"There is no question that the GPL is a complicated license that has led to
a great deal of confusion. "

Ever read a Microsoft license and understood what they were actually saying?
I haven't.

"Some open source licenses are viral, that is, they require that all
derivative works be licensed on the same terms as the original program.
These licenses are described as viral because they "infect" derivative
programs. Viral licenses vary in how infectious they are, depending on how
they define which programs are derivative works. However, one of the
dominant open source license-the GPL-is the most infectious. It attempts to
subject any work that includes GPL-licensed code to the GPL. Thus, if a
government or business uses even a few lines of GPL-licensed code in a
program, and then re-distributes that program to others, it would be
required to provide the program under the GPL. And, under the GPL, the
recipient must be given access to the source code and the freedom to
redistribute the program on a royalty-free basis. "

"Open source licenses that are non-viral, on the other hand, permit software
developers to integrate the licensed software and its source code into new
products, often with much less significant restrictions. A prominent example
of this type of license is the Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) license.
The BSD license allows programmers to use, modify, and redistribute the
source code and binary code of the original software program, with or
without modification. Moreover, programs containing code subject to the BSD
license are subject to only limited obligations imposed by that license.
This type of license gives users freedom to incorporate their own changes
and redistribute them, without requiring them to publish the new source code
or allow royalty-free redistribution. "

BSD licensing makes it so that MS no longer needs to hire programmers.

I found this when I was considering a USC Network User's Group post in which
someone pointed out that you really need to open a software box (thus
accepting the license) before you can actually read the license.  I really
think there should be some bill passed to require that software makers list
their licenses on the box (which would make less complex legalese licenses),
or at least link to an online version of the license.  At the very least,
they should be required to mail a license to you on request.  Any thoughts
on any of this?

-Eric Hattemer