User: Phoenix_6

Re:Use Free Software instead

On: How Open Does Open Source Need to be?

By my definition, even Windows is Open Source. In principle, I can view the source code to Windows. It's difficult and I have to sign a whole bunch of documents but I could do it with sufficient patience. This is why I don't like Open Source as a term; it is far too misleading. In fact, it doesn't actually mean anything other than the fact there is a mechanism by which you can see the source code that doesn't involve getting a court-order.

Windows is most definitely not open source. Even if you ignore the ISO definition, which has already been mentioned several times, your assertion about being able to view Windows source code is wrong. I work for a company that writes high-availability software for server clusters for both Linux and Windows. Recently we met with Microsoft, and they asked us what they could do to help make our product work just as well on Windows as on Linux. Of course, what it comes down to is we don't have access to the Windows source code, so it's much harder to make our product run correctly. On Linux we can see all the internal workings and even patch the kernel if we need to, but on Windows we're stuck with a black box. Despite the fact that this might hurt their share of the server market, they still won't give us any access to the source code, no matter what. It's not a matter of just signing some forms--they just don't let people see it.