On Fri, 17 Jan 2003, Dave Ihnat wrote: > 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.
what i meant was that a number of the articles describing this are referring to microsoft's "open source" program, in order to sow confusion in the minds of, well, just about everyone. technically, the original version of this program was called microsoft's "shared source" program, which has all kinds of limitations and restrictions, and is definitely not to be confused with open source. > > - 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. not necessarily. there's an amusing piece in the moscow times: www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2003/01/16/002.html which switches back and forth between claiming that MS will open the "source code", and that it will reveal the "blueprints", for windows. i find this reference to "blueprints" interesting, since if they meant source code, they would just say so. the word "blueprints" is maddeningly vague. it could mean source code, or pseudo-code, or flowcharts, or vague, amorphous whiteboard drawings of circles with arrows. or maybe i'm just being overly skeptical. nah. > > 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...) microsoft is not at&t. microsoft is microsoft, the most litigious company in the history of the galactic quadrant. the last thing anyone wants is to get on the wrong side of their legal department. i stand by my original assertion -- once you've seen the source code for windows, and have signed an agreement to that effect, MS has you by the short and curlies. i'd *love* to see the contract/ NDA one has to sign to be part of that program. > 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. same here. but i'm not willing to believe this is much more than MS putting on a dog-and-pony show, offering to let selected, potential clients see the code, while in reality doing very little of that. one of the claims of this program is that those who sign up will have the freedom to change the code. however, *every* article i've read qualifies that freedom with "if necessary". and what do you bet that it's microsoft that gets to decide if something is necessary? "microsoft offers to let clients see source code" "UFO cult creates first human clone" "republican conservatives actually become compassionate" after a while, it's hard not to get jaded about all of this. rday -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=unsubscribe https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
