"amicus_curious" <ACDC@sti.net> writes:
...
Since you were defending the MIT license and criticizing the
GPL license, let me ask you this:
These "how-to" web sites, including Microsoft's alleged
gigabytes of tutorials -- do they use the MIT license, thus
allowing you to freely republish their content freely?
If not, then I fail to see your point.
I don't think they use any license at all. I have no desire to
republish their content either. I am only interested in
learning how do do various things with .NET in this particular
case. These articles serve to show the way, nothing more.
I think you are wandering around aimlessly here. You were
claiming that the GPL provides nothing that the MIT license does.
I asked you if you wanted to benfit from the work of others
without giving back anything in return (which the MIT license
lets you do). You suddently switched tracks and brought into the
discussion how-to web and Microsoft web sites containing alleged
gigabytes of tutorials. This would make sense if these how-to
sites used the MIT license. But apparently they don't use any
license at all, according to you. This would make them public
domain.
I think you are completely confused about what you want to say.
Sometimes you advocate the MIT license. Other times you seem to
advocate no license at all, i.e., public domain works. And yet,
the web sites you mention do not provide public domain
information -- I know Microsoft does not.
It's hard to argue with, or hit, a target that not only moves,
but moves randomly and aimlessly and seems to have no substance
at all.