Andrew Ho [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, Tim Churches wrote:
...
OK, I see what you are referring to now - the licenses for BSD
material
from the Regents of the Uni of California etc at the end of the
document. But surely that is an example of Microsoft making use of
other
party's open source code,
Tim,
What Microsoft has done with open-source software goes far beyond
just
use. They are actually re-distributing it.
No they are not. They are distributing a closed-source, binary-only deribative of
the original open-source BSD code. I don't see how this can be construed as
contributing **anything** to further open source. Now, if they distributed the BSD
source code on the Windows XP CD-ROMs, then my attitude would be different,
but they are not doing that, are they?
and incorporating (as permitted by the BSD licenses) into their own
closed source code.
That's exactly what the authors of code allowed. Microsoft has done
a
good job finding the software, incorporating them into Windows, and
properly (as far as I can tell) giving credit.
Sound of one hand clapping as we applaud Microsoft for including the attribution
to the BSD code as required in the BSD license.
I don't see any evidence of Microsoft distributing their **own**
code
under an open source license,
As I mentioned, there are different ways to contribute to
open-source
projects. Re-distribution of open-source software is one of many
useful
and important tasks.
But they are not doing this. They are distributing closed-source derivatives of
open-source software. That is not the same thing.
As a comparison, how many subscribers of OpenHealth list actually
distributed our **own** code under an open source license?
Not everyone who subscribes to this list is in a position to write and distribute
their own code, and besides, writing code is an essential but only one aspect of
developing open source software. Documentation, testing, support, advocacy
are also important. But since you ask, I do.
In fact, how
many of us played a part in re-distributing other people's open
source
code like Microsoft?
But they aren't. And redistribution is no longer a very importnt issue, what with
SourceForge, Savannah etc and their multiple mirrors. Allowing your PC to
participate in a BitTorrent session helps a bit, I suppose.
or even their modifications to other people's code in source code
form.
Or have I missed something?
Only that Microsoft is quietly being a real open-source software
provider while some others make lots of noise about the merits of
open-source but do the opposite. :-)
This is so wrong I don't know where to start...
Tim C
