Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Planning on Opening Up More Source
mhh5 writes "It's a bit surprising, but it looks like Microsoft is considering making some of its code open source. Obviously, Microsoft's OS or Office are not going to be opened, and it seems like Microsoft is just trying to get more developers, but it's a interesting change of policy."
This is purly a business move aimed at PHB's. IBM has made money telling people that Open Source is good and MS is getting in on the right for free.
It could also be that they are trying to get in on the good side of budding developers. I don't know any other CS majors that use Windows on their main desktop and I know of no CS majors who write their code in Windows. At Georgia Tech everything in class is done in Linux after the first Scheme class. If the future coders don't know Microsoft stuff they won't use it or push it in their jobs.
There is nothing wrong with being gay. It's getting caught where the trouble lies.
Common Public License, or CPL, from IBM. But is all written in legalese, not sure what will that imply in plain words. At least they are saying that this is an open source license, to make a difference with Shared Source that is definately not.
Well, a bit of Googling turned 'em up: Windows Template Library (WTL) and Windows Installer XML (WiX).
There ain't no rules here; we're trying to accomplish something.
but it's a interesting change of policy
This change is not from today, the change started with WIX under the CPL.
Anyway, if you make a CPL program better(and if it's not yours) you can't earn money with this, only if it helps you to make other things, but who created the program can earn money with your code.
The want the media atention and to be the good guys with this things. Them whem someone talk about Microsoft be against open source software they will say: "we released XX softwares under open source licenses, how we can be against our softwares?"
Beep. Wrong.
They have stuff under the CPL, such as WIX.
The SSI is something else, it is aimmed at companys, and includes stuff like WinCE.
Wow, I should not post when knackered.
Once again, damned if they do, damned if they don't.
Not quite. It's "Damned if they don't, and damned if they don't", because they haven't done what people think they've done. They haven't Open Sourced *anything*, they've only "Shared Sourced" some stuff.
Thus far MS has used the CPL for its OSS projects.
Which (take a look at the URL) is OpenSource.
The SSI is a different beast.
Wow, I should not post when knackered.
This led to the question of what is the CPL and how does this differ from other licenses. A little Googling on my part turned up this site that compares the open source licenses.
The most significant difference between the CPL and the GPL involves the license of derivative works.
-cmh
"Name an instance of IIS being automatically exploited. I'll cite you two Apache holes in return."
Here you go, freshly under investigation, spreading as I type.
From the article: "Government and industry experts warned late Thursday of a mysterious, large-scale Internet attack against thousands of popular Web sites. The virus-like infection tries to implant hacker software onto the computers of all Web site visitors. [ ... ] The mysterious infection appeared to target at least one recent version of software by Microsoft Corp. to operate Web sites, called its Internet Information Server, popular among businesses and organizations."
That was fun. Your turn.