Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Releases Source Code For Web Sandbox
nandemoari writes "After flirting with open source development for some time, Microsoft has made another step towards real commitment with the release of source code for Web Sandbox, a program used to test and secure web site content.
The Sandbox source code will be released under the Apache 2.0 license, an open source license agreement allowing the content creator to maintain copyright while permitting others to develop the product for their own use. Microsoft has gradually been increasing their involvement with the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) since 2008 when they agreed to fund development of certain ASF initiatives."
What good is "Free Software" when it only runs on a proprietary platform? It's like saying "free food" but neglecting to mention the cover charge.
He may not be CEO, but last time I checked Gates still represented Microsoft.
So the Borg icon may be coming up on 15 years old, but it's still relevant! ;-)
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Consider Qt -- before Nokia bought trolltech and relicensed it as LGPL, it was FREEly available as GPL. Not because they believe in FREEdom, but to encourage/force end users to buy the proprietary/non-FREE version. How can the GPL ensure FREEdom if it encourages people to use non-FREE software? The GPL can and is used to force the usage of proprietary software.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Typical of MS offerings, it took a while to chase the links down to find out what the hell Sandbox actually is/does. See http://websandbox.livelabs.com/
Seems to be similar to Caja, allowing you to include third-party scripts or content in your pages without worrying that they will muck things up or steal your cookies.
Has anyone (shudder) actually used it for anything? I'm afraid if they want my attention I need to see some simple, obvious examples.
What re-licensing as GPL does is that it keeps the downstream users "honest" by forcing them to be as nice to their downstream users as their predecessors were for them.
Horseshit and worse terms. What relicensing does is to spit in the face of those who released the code in the first place. And you know it, you little fucking gnulot. If you want to "force" downstream users to be "nice," why choose to not be "nice" to your upstream?
Oh, wait. Because it's Micro$oft, LOLOLOLLOLOLOLOL!
"You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
Then the open source windows apps could run on a free OS.
Interoperability should be available, while I might prefer FLOSS mail servers others may not and we should be able to work together.