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
