On Thu, Jan 16, 2003 at 10:34:19PM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> it's not open source -- microsoft refers to their program as
> "shared source", and it comes with all the typical NDAs and
> restrictions.
Nope; it's normal proprietary software.
> - you can't see all of it, just what MS wants you to see
> - you can't discuss what you see with anyone else
> - you can't make changes to what you see
Well, I suspect this is the camel's nose. Once they open pieces for
licensed inspection, it's all gotta come down.
> perhaps the most dangerous part of this is that, once you *do*
> see any of that code, you are now worthless as a programmer in
> that area since, if you ever write code for a competing product,
> MS will be in a position to sue you for stealing their code.
Um...that doesn't follow, any more than AT&T could sue anyone who wrote
something for GNU after working at Bell Labs. (This is a _very_ familiar
subject for me...)
Folks, let's be realistic. Virtually every other commercial vendor has
been willing to open their source to licensees, with the usual NDAs,
restrictions, etc., for various reasons--custom mods the vendor wouldn't be
willing to do, escrow, whatever.
Microsoft has NEVER been willing to do this.
Now, they're approaching normal business practices for companies selling
proprietary software.
Why?
Because WE--Linux, GNU, _et al_--have threatened them enough to force this.
Oh, sure, continue to distrust them. I certainly intend to. But don't
belittle what we just got; Open Source has made Microsoft blink.
"And it ain't gonna be gettin' any better for 'em."
I LOVE this.
--
Dave Ihnat
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=unsubscribe
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
