Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
How about "Microsoft Services For Unix" ? Isn't it free ? Can we discuss on them too ?
Free Software is not to be confused with Freeware.
And neither should the Micro$oft $hared $ource License be confused with GPL. As of November 2002, Microsoft's Shared Source program (http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/default.mspx) offering is actually a collection of eight different programs with different restrictions.
All versions of `shared source' deny you the right to redistribute the code or share it with third parties.
The shared-source programs applicable to commercial and government organizations forbid modification of the code; thus, you cannot actually use your access to solve your problems. Because you are not allowed to build, experiment with, or deploy modified versions, your "read-only" access cannot help you field fixes to Microsoft's bugs any more quickly.
Shared source licenses include a requirement that the licensor agree to treat Microsoft's code as confidential proprietary data. It follows that any developer, once he has seen shared source code, can be enjoined under trade-secrecy law from any activity that Microsoft considers to be competitive with its code.
M$ marketing has been touting Shared Source as its answer to Free Software. Just letting the list members know about the dangers with this type licensing plan. But everyone here uses GPLed software, right ?
-- / \__ ( @\___ Raj Shekhar / O My home : http://geocities.com/lunatech3007/ / (_____/ My blog : http://lunatech.journalspace.com/ /_____/ U
_______________________________________________ ilugd mailinglist -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
