Nothing "open" about Microsoft's shared souce license
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| wind0wsr3fund Nov 02, 2006 9:19 AM EDT |
Furthermore, there's no reason for this article to be published on this site. |
| dinotrac Nov 02, 2006 9:35 AM EDT |
W3F - You might be wrong on both counts. The Microsoft "Permissive License" looks an awful lot like an Open Source license...allowing redistribution of both code and binaries to, it appears, nearly anybody. I'm sure a careful reading would find points that keep it from being fully open in the Open Source Intitative, sense, but it comes amazingly close when you consider the source (pardon the pun). The others look subtantially less like an open source license. You, of all people, should understand why it is appropriate for Lxer, or so I would have thought. For all of your carping about free vs open, I would have expected you to recognize an opportunity to make a concrete point, ie, something other than going ""tut-tut" and raving about four freedoms. I consider Open Source to be misdirected as a marketing strategy. I believe that the "free" in free software is what makes it interesting and powerful, not the "open". Open is a natural consequence of free, but it is only a subset, and not a sufficient one. Now Microsoft is touting licenses that look a whole lot like Open Source (at least in their most permissive version) and seem to provide the benefits touted by Open Source advocates like ESR. There's a lesson in there somewhere, and it has a lot to do with the difference between what Microsoft is doing and free software. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!