But he finds the license provisions unacceptable for his purposes. Jim is just making the same point in reverse. But Jim Allchin represents an organization which has huge financial and political clout, which is why his comments have riled up so many people. And my point is that if the government is funding software development, an argument can be made that the software should be published under a completely free license, so that it's equally accessible to people with proprietary and free software business models. You don't get to hoard it.
GPL'd software levels the playing field.
I think the conversation should really be on and what would happen if GPL software was sponsored and really thought out. No one really knows if it is or not. We know that BSD and other types of licenses work, as people have been using them before with the government. Plus MS, etc. has no problems with those types of licenses. If the government put the product under GPL that would mean those other software projects building off of that GPL product, must be GPL and so on.