Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

A Slightly-Softer Microsoft Shared Source License

Posted by timothy on from the just-initial-here-and-here-and-here-and-here dept.

RadBlock writes "Microsoft Watch has a story on a recent change in Microsoft's shared-source licensing... I guess the main difference is that programmers do not have to send back any changes made to the source code. But they can't combine any of the Microsoft code with other software. Here's the full text of their new license agreement." The article claims that Microsoft is "inching closer -- at least in spirit -- to the GNU GPL" with these license tweaks, but it doesn't look that way to me.

7 of 342 comments (clear)

  1. Anti-Microsoft bias showing through again... by Chester+K · · Score: 4, Insightful

    but it doesn't look that way to me.

    You have to learn to crawl before you learn to walk. Think back a few years when Microsoft didn't even let their source out the door at all -- then try to say with a straight face that they're not slowly sliding down the slippery slope towards the gaping maw of Open Source that's eating their lunch.

    Look, Microsoft is a company that wants to make money. They will eventually do whatever their customers demand. If that means eventually giving out full source along with their binaries because everyone else is doing it, then that's what they'll do; or they'll become irrelevant in the marketplace, which is something they'll never allow to happen.

    --

    NO CARRIER
    1. Re:Anti-Microsoft bias showing through again... by brad-x · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The main purpose for shared source is to obfuscate the meaning of open-source, to make it less important in the eyes of the customer.

      Hey, our source is free for you to browse also, what's the difference?

      Big difference. But it won't matter to people. It's buzzword compliant. Make no mistake, this business is NOT about meeting customer demand.

      This business is about telling the customer either directly or indirectly what to demand, and lock them into their decisions long term.

      You can't accuse a shyster of appealing to your needs because he's interested in them.

      --
      // -- http://www.BRAD-X.com/ -- //
  2. Rights? by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Timothy, I have a question. It's not a troll, and it's not flamebait; it's just a simple question, one that could be addressed with a simple answer.

    What does this have to do with "your rights online?"

    I have come to accept, over the past several years, that the Slashdot idea of "rights" is wildly different from my own. This bothers me deeply, but I see little point in arguing about it in broad strokes. But I fail to see how this story fits in with even the Slashdot-standard idea of "rights."

    Can you-- indeed, can anyone-- clear this up for me, please?

    --

    I write in my journal
  3. So what does it look like, timothy? by tuxedo-steve · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The article claims that Microsoft is "inching closer -- at least in spirit -- to the GNU GPL" with these license tweaks, but it doesn't look that way to me.
    I'd say this is pretty clear-cut. Is not having to send MS any changes made to the code more or less like the GNU GPL? More, you say? Doesn't it follow then that the license could be said to have "inched" closer to the GNU GPL?

    I know /. has a vested interest in polarising people around these issues in order to keep people emotionally interested and the readership up, but if you're going to make illogical editorial commentary like this, how about posting it in the comments instead of the article body?
    --
    - SMJ - (It's not just a name: it's a bad aftertaste.)
  4. Re:Microsoft would never consider a GPL-like appro by pauljlucas · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Windows on the other hand, like it or not, is a catalyst of profitable software firms. Where would Adobe, Veritas, heck even Electronic Arts be without MS?
    They'd be exactly where they are now, but writing software for some other OS (e.g., Mac OS X).
    But who can say that without Windows, these company would be just as successful today?
    To those companies, Windows is just the API they have to write to. Windows does nothing to market their product muchless make it better.
    ... but one thing [Microsoft] got right from the beginning was how to drive the market to complement their invention.
    Funny, but Apple has been doing this for years. If they didn't, they wouldn't exist now.

    Since you bought up Adobe, they've always been very Mac-friendly. It was Apple that enabled Adobe to make lots of money licensing PostScript interpreters in every Apple LaserWriter sold that started desktop publishing. And now Mac OS X incorporates PDF into the core of the OS.

    --
    If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
  5. Re:Inching closer? by munter · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I agree.

    The thing is...How many years will it take for the average Microsoft sales/support guy (i.e. people on the ground) to adopt GPL/OpenSource Culture? - Never.

    I think that that is what is really important. Culture, Attitude.etc. Sure licensing issues are a big deal. But what it's really about is changing the way the industry works, and a philosophical thing. "..It belongs to no-one,anyone can improve it, everyone can use it .." - This is fundamentally not what Microsoft is about.

    The way I see it is that everything happens in a cycle. We've had a certain kind of methodology for a couple of decades. It's simply natural for things to change, tables to turn etc. It is simply time for a change.

    Perhaps it's time for wealth distribution as wel...

  6. it's only sample code... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is all pretty meaningless. The code in question is just sample code that people can modify instead of starting from scratch. Nothing to see here, folks. Please move along.