Seems that the open source folks don't like the proposed terms of the licensing agreement Microsoft has put forth as part of the settlement with the EU. I have no problem with the general concepts behind open source. If folks want to give their work away for free, that is fine. I don't agree with it from a philosophical standpoint, but to each there own.

What I really don't understand, however, is how these folks feel they are some how entitled to enforce their concepts of business practices on others. Per the article, the open source folks feel that they should not have to adhere to a per license royalty structure because they give their stuff away. Per license royalties don't match with their business model. This would be similar to me going to Subway and saying, "Hey, I prefer all you can eat buffets, and as a result, I am going to pay you for one sandwich but you just keep making as many as I feel like eating." If Microsoft says anyone can license our stuff as long as they pay for each copy they distribute, then I think the open source folks better start finding a way to pay up or else they shouldn't license the software. Put up or shut up.

Of course, I am sure that if Microsoft came out with some modified version of the agreement that gave the option of charging some huge lump sum of money instead of per distributed copy, the open source folks would howl about how they were being discriminated against due to the higher cost even though it fit better with their model. Apparently, the open source folks are all about freedom of choice, as long as the choice is offered on their terms. Hmmmmm.....