Re: OT: Reasons why few takers on MS Open Source
On Sat, 2002-10-26 at 02:06, Kent West wrote: I understand that one of the the reasons that Microsoft's Open Source program has had few takers is because Microsoft's license is viral (to borrow MS's term for the GPL); once you see their code, there's a risk that any code you develop thereafter could be tainted. Does anyone have any links to more info to this effect, or have any opinions? I've basically told someone the above, and now need to document it somewhat. I think you mean shared-source. I don't think they've ever called it open source, nor should they, because it isn't open source. I remember the register had some articles about this. www.thregister.co.uk and do a search. Slashdot might have some stories and links. The other reference is microsoft.com and see if you can find a copy of the shared-source license. Kind Regards Crispin Wellington signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: OT: Reasons why few takers on MS Open Source
On Sat, 2002-10-26 at 02:39, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote: Programmer A sees the code to MS foo. A year later while working on a project (open or not) he ends up implementing something resembling foo. MS now claims copyright/trademark on the code. This sounds reasonable until you realize that their code covers just about any type of software you intend to work on later, especially if they are giving access to the OS guts. That could stop you from working on any OS later. Another thing to note is that whether Microsoft can or can't *legally* do this (its bordering on restraint of trade) is irrelevant. They have the money and the lawyers. You go directly to jail, and do not pass go. And the law doesn't seem to have been much of a problem for them so far :P Kind Regards Crispin Wellington signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
OT: Reasons why few takers on MS Open Source
I understand that one of the the reasons that Microsoft's Open Source program has had few takers is because Microsoft's license is viral (to borrow MS's term for the GPL); once you see their code, there's a risk that any code you develop thereafter could be tainted. Does anyone have any links to more info to this effect, or have any opinions? I've basically told someone the above, and now need to document it somewhat. Thanks! Kent -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OT: Reasons why few takers on MS Open Source
On Friday 25 October 2002 11:06, Kent West wrote: I understand that one of the the reasons that Microsoft's Open Source program has had few takers is because Microsoft's license is viral (to borrow MS's term for the GPL); once you see their code, there's a risk that any code you develop thereafter could be tainted. Does anyone have any links to more info to this effect, or have any opinions? I've basically told someone the above, and now need to document it somewhat. Thanks! Kent I recall this discussion on slashdot and seem to remember that they pointed to some other people's writeups on the situation. The executive summary goes like this: Programmer A sees the code to MS foo. A year later while working on a project (open or not) he ends up implementing something resembling foo. MS now claims copyright/trademark on the code. This sounds reasonable until you realize that their code covers just about any type of software you intend to work on later, especially if they are giving access to the OS guts. That could stop you from working on any OS later. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OT: Reasons why few takers on MS 'Open Source'
Kent West said: I understand that one of the the reasons that Microsoft's Open Source program has had few takers is because Microsoft's license is viral (to borrow MS's term for the GPL); once you see their code, there's a risk that any code you develop thereafter could be tainted. Does anyone have any links to more info to this effect, or have any opinions? I've basically told someone the above, and now need to document it somewhat. last I heard the MS Shared source was ONLY available to certain bigname big spending customers, and it may not be free(e.g. you may have to pay hefty fees(as in money), to see the source), and you have little freedom to do with the code as you wish(patch it/use it etc). at least with Sun's solaris source program almost anyone can get the source for solaris for low cost(media+S/H which when I ordered it for my former company it was about $80). Anyone qualified for this program. I can tell you my former company could of benefited HUGELY from access to WinNT and Win2000 source code, one of the products they made was a citrix-like clone which had deep ties to the kernel of the system, a simple mis-step and the system would BSOD(which was a VERY common thing which is why the product sold like crap for so long, the new version is supposed to fix most of the problems but how often have I heard that from other companies ) But the company either did not qualify(not big enough) or didn't spend enough(very small company, the win32 development office was about 30 people, with revenue of approx $2mil/year at the high end). So unlike citrix who has access to NT4 and Win2k(and probably XP and .NET server) my company's developers had to struggle with MS's stuff. Even something so simple as applying the Win2k Security fixup pack would change the kernel enough to BSOD the machine which had the company's product on it. Bad programming? I'm sure some of it had to do with that, but most of it I believe was the constant moving, obscure target that is the Win32 OSs(which isn't so hard to follow if your a big company and can afford big agreements with MS). so, in short, their source program in general does nothing for the little guy nate -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: OT: Reasons why few takers on MS Open Source
Sean 'Shaleh' Perry said on 25 October 2002 4:39 AM The executive summary goes like this: Programmer A sees the code to MS foo. A year later while working on a project (open or not) he ends up implementing something resembling foo. MS now claims copyright/trademark on the code. This sounds reasonable until you realize that their code covers just about any type of software you intend to work on later, especially if they are giving access to the OS guts. That could stop you from working on any OS later. Sean that's the way it always works, because copyright laws are flakey (especially in the good ole u.s.a). Hell some company will end up copyrighting farting one day (just remember Amazon getting a patent on the word amazon a few years ago, what a total joke). Personally I think that employers should have no rights to an employees inventions, period. The sooner we get rid of stupid laws like this the better for all mankind. Make them public domain I say, that way they better everyone. Just my 2c worth. Dave -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
