Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft 'Shared Source' Attempts to Hijack FOSS
aacc1313 writes "An article that details how Open Source is being hijacked by Microsoft and the sort via 'Shared Source' licenses and how Open Source licenses have become so much more confusing. From the article, "The confusion stems from the fact that Microsoft's 'shared source' program includes three proprietary licenses as well, whose names are similar in some ways to the open-source licenses. Thus, while the Microsoft Reciprocal License has been approved by OSI, the Microsoft Limited Reciprocal License (Ms-LRL) is not, because it allows users to modify and redistribute the software only on the Windows platform" and "The 'shared source' program was and is Microsoft's way of fighting the open source world, allowing customers to inspect Microsoft source code without giving those customers the right to modify or redistribute the code. In other words, "shared source" is not open source, and shouldn't be confused with it.""
I could care less what Microsoft calls their "open" licenses. Wouldn't use any Microsoft license at all. Any tie to Microsoft is a tie they can and will exploit, a liability no one can really afford.
Maybe diehard linux copyleft fanatics equate open source with free software because of their blind and ignorant zeal. Regardless, source that you can view is by definition open source.
Your argument is like saying a banana isn't a fruit because we call it a banana and not a fruit.
Microsoft always reacts in the most juvenile fashion. It's almost as if Bill Gates never grew up.
Their response to every legitimate attempt by others to advance the state of the art consists of throwing rocks at it. Look at Zune and 'plays for sure'. Look at OLPC. Look at what's happening here.
Spoiled brats.
I am sorry to all the Zealots but it is... ./configure && make && make install complains about most will dump it and go for an other tool. Or if none of those work they will just make an application for their own use, because believe it or not it is sometimes easier to write your own apps then to modify others code to get it to work. Yes they are exceptions but in general (Meaning more then not). I myself would much rather have Open Specs (Open Source != Open Specs) Open specs expresses how the application works, vs. Here is the code that is good enough spec. Because people if they need to use some advanantage of the tool it would be much better if there is a well documented explanation on how it works vs. Hunting threw the code filtering out Old Code that may not do anything anymore or something platform independent that would require more research to figure out. Open Source or Shared Source is fine and if you choose to make it open source and follow whatever license you feel is approprate for Your software it is all fine in good, but in the big picture it doesn't do much eaither way. Having an Open Spec would help more by giving new tools Open Source or Not the ability to share communications and best practices with each other. Vs. Now Best Practices found in GPL Code cannot be used in Closed Source and Vice Versa. You want freedome as in speach but source code really isn't speach, I agree there is an artistic almost literary style to coding, but it really isn't speach as in terms of constitutionally. Open Spec is more to Free Speach then Open Source. We are actually creating Specs for Human to Human sharing of information. Not Human to Computer then reverse translated back to Human.
Yes it has its advantages that I am sure Ill get dozons of replayes telling me this... But really think about it for most people, Even Highly skilled Programmers. They are not going to spend spend hours/days/months/years to get an open source application to do what they want it to do. They will download it install it and see if it works. Heck often it requires a prerequiset and a
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.