Source : http://www.zdnetindia.com/techzone/coding/stories/ 66702.html
Microsoft's shared source chief Jason Matusow talks about whether the company plans to release more Office source code. The question is, does anybody want it?
As program manager of the Shared Source Initiative at Microsoft, Jason Matusow is responsible for coordinating Microsoft's global source licensing strategy. ZDNet UK caught up with him to talk about Microsoft's long-term plans.
Q: Just over a year ago, Microsoft senior vice president Craig Mundie made his infamous comments about open source. Since then, Microsoft has been rolling out its Shared Source Initiative. How do you rationalize your Shared Source Initiative with Microsoft's views on open source?
A: One unfortunate thing we did was coming out against open source--we knew it would be controversial. There is a longstanding industry debate around source code and what role it plays. IT professionals have one point of view, developers have another, business decision makers have yet another and then hobbyists come at it from an entirely different direction again.
For a long time we were held up as being anti-open source. But the idea of Shared Source came about because of customers telling us: "I am able to do some things in open source because I have access to the source code, and I would like to be able to do the same thing with your code."
The fact is that Linux is now competing with Windows. That is good because it is spurring us on and making us compete better, but equally, it is difficult for us to say Windows has better management tools than Linux because all of a sudden people say we are attacking open source.
We now share Windows, some of Windows CE and parts of.Net -- our implementations of the C# CLI (Common Language Infrastructure) specification.
When you say Shared Source, what do you mean exactly?
Different groups with Microsoft have very different businesses; Windows is a very different product to Golf, for instance.
The Windows program is a reference-only license. So in the Windows team today we let you view the code and debug against it, but you can't change the code. So if you're building your own application that sits on Windows you can debug the applications and Windows code in the relevant APIs (application programming interfaces).
This also means you can trace back issues and have them fixed. It helps in deployment engineering where someone is rolling out applications that sit on Windows, which in turn is sitting on hardware. And it helps with security audits--nobody will be doing an end-to-end audit of Windows but you can audit components that interface with your security application.
But we are committed to the integrity of the platform: we will not allow derivatives of the source code.
why dont they come down harder read here
They are alredy here , the laws that is we as a people do not stand by our own laws
The Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act requires unsolicited commercial e-mail messages to be labeled (though not by a standard method) and to include opt-out instructions and the sender's physical address. It prohibits the use of deceptive subject lines and false headers in such messages. The FTC is authorized (but not required) to establish a "do-not-email" registry. State laws that require labels on unsolicited commercial e-mail or prohibit such messages entirely are pre-empted, although provisions merely addressing falsity and deception would remain in place. The CAN-SPAM Act takes effect on January 1, 2004.
The CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 was introduced by Senators Conrad R. Burns (R-MT) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) in April 2003, with minor changes from the previous year's version, S. 630 (2002). Two other bills (S. 1231 and S. 1293) were subsequently merged into it. The final version was approved by the Senate in November 2003 and by the House of Representatives in December 2003, and was signed into law by President Bush on December 16, 2003.
http://www.spamlaws.com/federal/summ108.html
I always think of file sharing as some type of medical drug. Doctors tell you one day this great for you (IE eggs) and then the next day they have to much this or that. I think of File sharing the same way because they took Napster down and then they nut it back up it must not be half bad for you
This is in my mind is off the wall because what I think they are saying here is if said person has not agreed to Rules " Agreement" then they can not communicate I think they did one of two things here went to far or this needs some clarification as to what the law is tiring to protect. Has the person not already agreed to a set of terms when they signed they cell/text Messaging Service Provider? Before I say the U.S should follow by creating the same type of law I would like to see a copy of the UK Law.
If we the public make the Support for Open source better it is my thinking that we can widely increases the User base and increases the impact the world of open source has on the general public
Slashdot Mirror
Source : http://www.zdnetindia.com/techzone/coding/stories/ 66702.html
Microsoft's shared source chief Jason Matusow talks about whether the company plans to release more Office source code. The question is, does anybody want it?
As program manager of the Shared Source Initiative at Microsoft, Jason Matusow is responsible for coordinating Microsoft's global source licensing strategy. ZDNet UK caught up with him to talk about Microsoft's long-term plans.
Q: Just over a year ago, Microsoft senior vice president Craig Mundie made his infamous comments about open source. Since then, Microsoft has been rolling out its Shared Source Initiative. How do you rationalize your Shared Source Initiative with Microsoft's views on open source?
A: One unfortunate thing we did was coming out against open source--we knew it would be controversial. There is a longstanding industry debate around source code and what role it plays. IT professionals have one point of view, developers have another, business decision makers have yet another and then hobbyists come at it from an entirely different direction again.
For a long time we were held up as being anti-open source. But the idea of Shared Source came about because of customers telling us: "I am able to do some things in open source because I have access to the source code, and I would like to be able to do the same thing with your code."
The fact is that Linux is now competing with Windows. That is good because it is spurring us on and making us compete better, but equally, it is difficult for us to say Windows has better management tools than Linux because all of a sudden people say we are attacking open source.
We now share Windows, some of Windows CE and parts of .Net -- our implementations of the C# CLI (Common Language Infrastructure) specification.
When you say Shared Source, what do you mean exactly?
Different groups with Microsoft have very different businesses; Windows is a very different product to Golf, for instance.
The Windows program is a reference-only license. So in the Windows team today we let you view the code and debug against it, but you can't change the code. So if you're building your own application that sits on Windows you can debug the applications and Windows code in the relevant APIs (application programming interfaces).
This also means you can trace back issues and have them fixed. It helps in deployment engineering where someone is rolling out applications that sit on Windows, which in turn is sitting on hardware. And it helps with security audits--nobody will be doing an end-to-end audit of Windows but you can audit components that interface with your security application.
But we are committed to the integrity of the platform: we will not allow derivatives of the source code.
why dont they come down harder read here They are alredy here , the laws that is we as a people do not stand by our own laws The Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act requires unsolicited commercial e-mail messages to be labeled (though not by a standard method) and to include opt-out instructions and the sender's physical address. It prohibits the use of deceptive subject lines and false headers in such messages. The FTC is authorized (but not required) to establish a "do-not-email" registry. State laws that require labels on unsolicited commercial e-mail or prohibit such messages entirely are pre-empted, although provisions merely addressing falsity and deception would remain in place. The CAN-SPAM Act takes effect on January 1, 2004. The CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 was introduced by Senators Conrad R. Burns (R-MT) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) in April 2003, with minor changes from the previous year's version, S. 630 (2002). Two other bills (S. 1231 and S. 1293) were subsequently merged into it. The final version was approved by the Senate in November 2003 and by the House of Representatives in December 2003, and was signed into law by President Bush on December 16, 2003. http://www.spamlaws.com/federal/summ108.html
I always think of file sharing as some type of medical drug. Doctors tell you one day this great for you (IE eggs) and then the next day they have to much this or that. I think of File sharing the same way because they took Napster down and then they nut it back up it must not be half bad for you
http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/business/te chnology/personal_technology/7520904.htm
This is in my mind is off the wall because what I think they are saying here is if said person has not agreed to Rules " Agreement" then they can not communicate I think they did one of two things here went to far or this needs some clarification as to what the law is tiring to protect. Has the person not already agreed to a set of terms when they signed they cell /text Messaging Service Provider? Before I say the U.S should follow by creating the same type of law I would like to see a copy of the UK Law.
If we the public make the Support for Open source better it is my thinking that we can widely increases the User base and increases the impact the world of open source has on the general public