Shared Source vs. Open Source
leonbrooks writes "Microsoft are fond of touting Shared Source as being "as good as" Open Source, with a view to muddying the waters as much as possible, and so keeping as many people away from the benefits of Open Source Software (OSS) (particularly Software Libré AKA "Free Software") as they can.
This new article analysing the differences arrives just in time for Microsoft's Australia-wide series of "Competitive Hour" misinformation sessions on Open Source, and includes a handy list of potentially showstopper questions.
We'd like your help in putting these and other questions to the speaker during such misinformation sessions, with the dual aim of opening the eyes of many of the audience, and reporting back to us what was said so that we can refine the questions to close whatever loopholes are employed in evading these important issues."
why don't they just give it an open source license?
If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, but it tastes like crap on a bun, it's probably a bad licensing scheme.
"...I'll need guns" --Chow Yun-Fat in 'Replacement Killers'
Stop sabotaging my business, okay? I'm just trying to eek out an honest living, is that so wrong!? ...billg
Hasn't the OSS done battle with the SS once before?
So you have a bizarre czar at your bazaar?
Use the fork, luke, use the fork!
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
It is free as in "this software code has been freed from any restrictions, to the point that no man or woman may hide it or stop it from living its life to the fullest".
Don't anthropomorphize code. It hates when you do that.
The older, more self-assured slashdot poster rises Zenlike above this silliness. He knows that it is the idiocy of his opinions which will send his PJF heavenward.
"Do you want your enterprise code written at 4am by a community of hackers?!" It is better than the alternative. "Do you want your enterprise code hacked at 4am by a community of hackers?!"