On 9 Mar 2001, Kai Henningsen wrote:
[snip]
> And remember that other companies have been doing similar things since
> just about forever. It's not as if MS invented this thing.
>
> Or maybe I have to take that back. The "must not modify" clause certainly
> seems non-standard.
>
> AT Unix
On 9 Mar 2001, Kai Henningsen wrote:
[snip]
And remember that other companies have been doing similar things since
just about forever. It's not as if MS invented this thing.
Or maybe I have to take that back. The "must not modify" clause certainly
seems non-standard.
ATT Unix source
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lars Gaarden) wrote on 08.03.01 in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> You can accuse MS of a lot of things. Being stupid and ignorant
> of the market is not one of them.
I'd have to disagree there.
In the mid 80's MS had never had a really successful applications
product, even though
On Fri, 09 Mar 2001, Rogier Wolff wrote:
>Jesse Pollard wrote:
>> On Fri, 09 Mar 2001, Graham Murray wrote:
>> >"Mohammad A. Haque" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >
>> >> making a patch means you've modfied the source which you are not allowed
>> >> to do. The most you can do is report the bug
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lars Gaarden) wrote on 08.03.01 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Venkatesh Ramamurthy wrote:
>
> > Please check out this article. Looks like microsoft know open source is
> > the thing of the future. I would consider that it is a begining step for
> > full blown GPL
> >
> >
Ralf Baechle wrote:
>
> Maybe they can be applied that way but no sane engineer would ever develop
> a patch without source if possible at all.
Keyword there being sane right? =P
Sorry, I'm running off little sleep right now.
--
On Fri, Mar 09, 2001 at 08:26:36AM -0500, Mohammad A. Haque wrote:
> Hmm. I guess you have something there. I come from a Mac background and
> some patches I've seen to 'hack' a feature into one of Apple's drivers
> has been one that modifies the resource fork of the driver file. The
> person
Graham Murray wrote:
> Does making a patch necessarily require modifying the source code?
> Back in my days as a mainframe systems programmer (ICL VME/B), most OS
> patches were made to the binary image, either in the file or to the
> loaded virtual memory image.
Hmm. I guess you have something
Jesse Pollard wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Mar 2001, Graham Murray wrote:
> >"Mohammad A. Haque" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >> making a patch means you've modfied the source which you are not allowed
> >> to do. The most you can do is report the bug through normal channels
> >> (you dont even have
On Fri, 09 Mar 2001, Graham Murray wrote:
>"Mohammad A. Haque" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> making a patch means you've modfied the source which you are not allowed
>> to do. The most you can do is report the bug through normal channels
>> (you dont even have priority in reporting bugs since
Oh my, why I am responding to this garbage thread?
On Fri, 9 Mar 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, J. Dow wrote:
>
> > From: "Alan Cox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > > > Please check out this article. Looks like microsoft know open source is the
> > > > thing of the future. I
"Mohammad A. Haque" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> making a patch means you've modfied the source which you are not allowed
> to do. The most you can do is report the bug through normal channels
> (you dont even have priority in reporting bugs since you have the code).
Does making a patch
"Mohammad A. Haque" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
making a patch means you've modfied the source which you are not allowed
to do. The most you can do is report the bug through normal channels
(you dont even have priority in reporting bugs since you have the code).
Does making a patch necessarily
On Fri, 09 Mar 2001, Graham Murray wrote:
"Mohammad A. Haque" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
making a patch means you've modfied the source which you are not allowed
to do. The most you can do is report the bug through normal channels
(you dont even have priority in reporting bugs since you have
Jesse Pollard wrote:
On Fri, 09 Mar 2001, Graham Murray wrote:
"Mohammad A. Haque" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
making a patch means you've modfied the source which you are not allowed
to do. The most you can do is report the bug through normal channels
(you dont even have priority in
Graham Murray wrote:
Does making a patch necessarily require modifying the source code?
Back in my days as a mainframe systems programmer (ICL VME/B), most OS
patches were made to the binary image, either in the file or to the
loaded virtual memory image.
Hmm. I guess you have something
Ralf Baechle wrote:
Maybe they can be applied that way but no sane engineer would ever develop
a patch without source if possible at all.
Keyword there being sane right? =P
Sorry, I'm running off little sleep right now.
--
On Fri, Mar 09, 2001 at 08:26:36AM -0500, Mohammad A. Haque wrote:
Hmm. I guess you have something there. I come from a Mac background and
some patches I've seen to 'hack' a feature into one of Apple's drivers
has been one that modifies the resource fork of the driver file. The
person who
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lars Gaarden) wrote on 08.03.01 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Venkatesh Ramamurthy wrote:
Please check out this article. Looks like microsoft know open source is
the thing of the future. I would consider that it is a begining step for
full blown GPL
On Fri, 09 Mar 2001, Rogier Wolff wrote:
Jesse Pollard wrote:
On Fri, 09 Mar 2001, Graham Murray wrote:
"Mohammad A. Haque" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
making a patch means you've modfied the source which you are not allowed
to do. The most you can do is report the bug through normal
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lars Gaarden) wrote on 08.03.01 in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
You can accuse MS of a lot of things. Being stupid and ignorant
of the market is not one of them.
I'd have to disagree there.
In the mid 80's MS had never had a really successful applications
product, even though Word,
On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, J. Dow wrote:
> From: "Alan Cox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > > Please check out this article. Looks like microsoft know open source is the
> > > thing of the future. I would consider that it is a begining step for full
> > > blown GPL
> >
> > Oh sure
> >
> > Maybe 1200
Venkatesh Ramamurthy wrote:
> send a patch and they would put it in thier next version. Is this not the
> same way Linux Kernel is developed?. Only thing microsoft does not want to
> immediately go full open sourcing and get embarrased at the hands of linux
> people.
Is this linux-kernel or "The
> > It seems to me this might be an opportunity...
>
> Or a trap. I'm not about to go anywhere near this and won't even look at
> the licience but I bet the M$ argument will go something like:
>
>You've looked at the code.
>You now know things that are propriatary to M$.
>You are not
Venkatesh Ramamurthy wrote:
> Enterprise customers are beginning to see the value of having
> source available, and MS is doing this as a half-baked
> solution to give decition makers one less reason for switching
> to Open Source.
>
>
> Microsoft such attempts can be
I suspect this is actually in response to the reported breakings and
external access to the M$ code base.
There have been a number of concerns about backdoors, trojan horses or
other things being maliciously added to the code base and the
resulting extreme security risk.
By 'increasing' the
- Received message begins Here -
>
>
> > Not a chance. First your company must have at least 1500 licences and
> > you can't modify any code... which implies that you can't rebuild either...
>
> You can modify your compiler, so that it accepts patches (with no context)
>
Venkatesh Ramamurthy wrote:
> Please check out this article. Looks like microsoft know open source is the
> thing of the future. I would consider that it is a begining step for full
> blown GPL
>
> http://www.zdnet.com/enterprise/stories/main/0,10228,2692987,00.html
I'm not so sure about
Enterprise customers are beginning to see the value of having
source available, and MS is doing this as a half-baked
solution to give decition makers one less reason for switching
to Open Source.
Microsoft such attempts can be viewed as either
1. Trying to make
On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 12:21:12PM -0500, Stuart MacDonald wrote:
> "As such, clients will not be allowed to alter the code in any form and
> may not give any other party access to any aspect of that code."
>
> Does this preclude one reading the source and then using
> the knowledge gained to
On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 10:01:57AM -0500, Venkatesh Ramamurthy wrote:
> Please check out this article. Looks like microsoft know open source is the
> thing of the future. I would consider that it is a begining step for full
> blown GPL
>
>
> Not a chance. First your company must have at least 1500 licences and
> you can't modify any code... which implies that you can't rebuild either...
You can modify your compiler, so that it accepts patches (with no context)
and completely rewrite anything that needs modified.
The modified
>From Mohammad A. Haque on Thursday, 08 March, 2001:
[snip]
>Also notice that you're now paying MS so you can find their bugs. Very
>nice.
Indeed. They've been very successful so far in getting people to
pony up (pay) for beta software (see W2K: The Beta, Whistler/XP: The
Beta, and (I am
On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 05:53:08PM +, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
> >
> >They do already license the source to a few trusted companies (Executive
> >Software used to ship modified NTFS drivers for NT 3.51 as part of
> >Diskeeper, IIRC). They are inching ever so slowly towards letting human
>
On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, Mohammad A. Haque wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, Venkatesh Ramamurthy wrote:
>
> > My initial thought after seeing this article was that microsoft was testing
> > its waters on open sourcing. If i have 1500 licenses then i would get the
> > source. If i find any bug in thier
At 17:36 08/03/2001, James A. Sutherland wrote:
>On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
> > At 16:04 08/03/01, Venkatesh Ramamurthy wrote:
> > It is a "look but don't touch" license which is as far away from the ideas
> > of the GPL as you can possibly get.
>
>Is it? Going from "totally
Stuart MacDonald wrote:
>
> It seems to me this might be an opportunity...
Or a trap. I'm not about to go anywhere near this and won't even look at
the licience but I bet the M$ argument will go something like:
You've looked at the code.
You now know things that are propriatary to M$.
On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, Stuart MacDonald wrote:
> From: "Venkatesh Ramamurthy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > http://www.zdnet.com/enterprise/stories/main/0,10228,2692987,00.html
>
> "As such, clients will not be allowed to alter the code in any form and
> may not give any other party access to any aspect
On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
> At 16:04 08/03/01, Venkatesh Ramamurthy wrote:
> >My initial thought after seeing this article was that microsoft was testing
> >its waters on open sourcing. If i have 1500 licenses then i would get the
> >source. If i find any bug in thier source
From: "Venkatesh Ramamurthy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> http://www.zdnet.com/enterprise/stories/main/0,10228,2692987,00.html
"As such, clients will not be allowed to alter the code in any form and
may not give any other party access to any aspect of that code."
Does this preclude one reading the
hings as you can get.
Wayne
Venkatesh Ramamurthy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 03/08/2001 10:04:25 AM
To: 'Alan Cox' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (bcc: Wayne Brown/Corporate/Altec)
Subject: RE: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?
My initial thought after seeing
At 16:04 08/03/01, Venkatesh Ramamurthy wrote:
>My initial thought after seeing this article was that microsoft was testing
>its waters on open sourcing. If i have 1500 licenses then i would get the
>source. If i find any bug in thier source , i would report to microsoft or
>send a patch and
On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, Venkatesh Ramamurthy wrote:
> Only thing microsoft does not want to immediately go full open
> sourcing and get embarrased at the hands of linux people.
They don't need to release their source code to achieve that.
Rik
--
Linux MM bugzilla:
On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, Venkatesh Ramamurthy wrote:
> My initial thought after seeing this article was that microsoft was testing
> its waters on open sourcing. If i have 1500 licenses then i would get the
> source. If i find any bug in thier source , i would report to microsoft or
> send a patch
IL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?
>
> > Please check out this article. Looks like microsoft know open source is
> the
> > thing of the future. I would consider that it is a begining step for
&
On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, Venkatesh Ramamurthy wrote:
> Please check out this article. Looks like microsoft know open source is the
> thing of the future. I would consider that it is a begining step for full
> blown GPL
>
> http://www.zdnet.com/enterprise/stories/main/0,10228,2692987,00.html
> -
Venkatesh Ramamurthy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Please check out this article. Looks like microsoft know open source is the
> thing of the future. I would consider that it is a begining step for full
> blown GPL
>
> http://www.zdnet.com/enterprise/stories/main/0,10228,2692987,00.html
Not a
Please check out this article. Looks like microsoft know open source is the
thing of the future. I would consider that it is a begining step for full
blown GPL
http://www.zdnet.com/enterprise/stories/main/0,10228,2692987,00.html
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
Please check out this article. Looks like microsoft know open source is the
thing of the future. I would consider that it is a begining step for full
blown GPL
http://www.zdnet.com/enterprise/stories/main/0,10228,2692987,00.html
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
Venkatesh Ramamurthy [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Please check out this article. Looks like microsoft know open source is the
thing of the future. I would consider that it is a begining step for full
blown GPL
http://www.zdnet.com/enterprise/stories/main/0,10228,2692987,00.html
Not a chance.
On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, Venkatesh Ramamurthy wrote:
Please check out this article. Looks like microsoft know open source is the
thing of the future. I would consider that it is a begining step for full
blown GPL
http://www.zdnet.com/enterprise/stories/main/0,10228,2692987,00.html
-
Feh.
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?
Please check out this article. Looks like microsoft know open source is
the
thing of the future. I would consider that it is a begining step for
full
blown GPL
Oh sure
Maybe 1200 people
On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, Venkatesh Ramamurthy wrote:
My initial thought after seeing this article was that microsoft was testing
its waters on open sourcing. If i have 1500 licenses then i would get the
source. If i find any bug in thier source , i would report to microsoft or
send a patch and
At 16:04 08/03/01, Venkatesh Ramamurthy wrote:
My initial thought after seeing this article was that microsoft was testing
its waters on open sourcing. If i have 1500 licenses then i would get the
source. If i find any bug in thier source , i would report to microsoft or
send a patch and they
On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, Venkatesh Ramamurthy wrote:
Only thing microsoft does not want to immediately go full open
sourcing and get embarrased at the hands of linux people.
They don't need to release their source code to achieve that.
Rik
--
Linux MM bugzilla: http://linux-mm.org/bugzilla.shtml
hings as you can get.
Wayne
Venkatesh Ramamurthy [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 03/08/2001 10:04:25 AM
To: 'Alan Cox' [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (bcc: Wayne Brown/Corporate/Altec)
Subject: RE: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?
My initial thought after seeing this articl
From: "Venkatesh Ramamurthy" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.zdnet.com/enterprise/stories/main/0,10228,2692987,00.html
"As such, clients will not be allowed to alter the code in any form and
may not give any other party access to any aspect of that code."
Does this preclude one reading the source
On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
At 16:04 08/03/01, Venkatesh Ramamurthy wrote:
My initial thought after seeing this article was that microsoft was testing
its waters on open sourcing. If i have 1500 licenses then i would get the
source. If i find any bug in thier source , i
On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, Stuart MacDonald wrote:
From: "Venkatesh Ramamurthy" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.zdnet.com/enterprise/stories/main/0,10228,2692987,00.html
"As such, clients will not be allowed to alter the code in any form and
may not give any other party access to any aspect of that
Stuart MacDonald wrote:
It seems to me this might be an opportunity...
Or a trap. I'm not about to go anywhere near this and won't even look at
the licience but I bet the M$ argument will go something like:
You've looked at the code.
You now know things that are propriatary to M$.
On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, Mohammad A. Haque wrote:
On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, Venkatesh Ramamurthy wrote:
My initial thought after seeing this article was that microsoft was testing
its waters on open sourcing. If i have 1500 licenses then i would get the
source. If i find any bug in thier source ,
On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 05:53:08PM +, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
They do already license the source to a few trusted companies (Executive
Software used to ship modified NTFS drivers for NT 3.51 as part of
Diskeeper, IIRC). They are inching ever so slowly towards letting human
beings (cf
From Mohammad A. Haque on Thursday, 08 March, 2001:
[snip]
Also notice that you're now paying MS so you can find their bugs. Very
nice.
Indeed. They've been very successful so far in getting people to
pony up (pay) for beta software (see W2K: The Beta, Whistler/XP: The
Beta, and (I am
snip "microsoft may be going open source"
Not a chance. First your company must have at least 1500 licences and
you can't modify any code... which implies that you can't rebuild either...
You can modify your compiler, so that it accepts patches (with no context)
and completely rewrite
On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 10:01:57AM -0500, Venkatesh Ramamurthy wrote:
Please check out this article. Looks like microsoft know open source is the
thing of the future. I would consider that it is a begining step for full
blown GPL
On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 12:21:12PM -0500, Stuart MacDonald wrote:
"As such, clients will not be allowed to alter the code in any form and
may not give any other party access to any aspect of that code."
Does this preclude one reading the source and then using
the knowledge gained to write,
Enterprise customers are beginning to see the value of having
source available, and MS is doing this as a half-baked
solution to give decition makers one less reason for switching
to Open Source.
Microsoft such attempts can be viewed as either
1. Trying to make
Venkatesh Ramamurthy wrote:
Please check out this article. Looks like microsoft know open source is the
thing of the future. I would consider that it is a begining step for full
blown GPL
http://www.zdnet.com/enterprise/stories/main/0,10228,2692987,00.html
I'm not so sure about that.
- Received message begins Here -
snip "microsoft may be going open source"
Not a chance. First your company must have at least 1500 licences and
you can't modify any code... which implies that you can't rebuild either...
You can modify your compiler, so that it
I suspect this is actually in response to the reported breakings and
external access to the M$ code base.
There have been a number of concerns about backdoors, trojan horses or
other things being maliciously added to the code base and the
resulting extreme security risk.
By 'increasing' the
Venkatesh Ramamurthy wrote:
Enterprise customers are beginning to see the value of having
source available, and MS is doing this as a half-baked
solution to give decition makers one less reason for switching
to Open Source.
Microsoft such attempts can be viewed
It seems to me this might be an opportunity...
Or a trap. I'm not about to go anywhere near this and won't even look at
the licience but I bet the M$ argument will go something like:
You've looked at the code.
You now know things that are propriatary to M$.
You are not allowed
Venkatesh Ramamurthy wrote:
send a patch and they would put it in thier next version. Is this not the
same way Linux Kernel is developed?. Only thing microsoft does not want to
immediately go full open sourcing and get embarrased at the hands of linux
people.
Is this linux-kernel or "The
73 matches
Mail list logo
