"Mark Kent" <mark.kent@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:gi5n14-vka.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> begin oe_protect.scr
> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>> Microsoft to open up Windows CE kernel source?
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>| Microsoft will make a surprise announcement at the Nov. 1 launch
>>| of Windows CE 6.0, according to the Web's rumor-mill. In what
>>| would be its most substantial nod to the open-source movement,
>>| Microsoft is rumored to be opening up CE 6.0's entire kernel
>>| as "shared source."
>> `----
>>
>> http://www.windowsfordevices.com/news/NS4547551075.html
>>
>> Betrayal of principles if this is true. Could the icon of binary blobs
>> acknowledge the fact that there is value in making the source code
>> available?
[...]
>
> "shared source" is worse than useless, in that once you've seen it, then
> working on proper GPLed projects is going to be very risky indeed.
> There's no GPLed aspect to MS's "shared source", it's merely a sop to
> try to con stockbrokers and the technically inept into thinking MS are
> doing something "open source". They're not.
Actually, "shared source" refers to a collection of licenses, not to any
one particular license. Last time I checked, there are 5 licenses under the
official "Shared Source" name, of which 2 are GPL-like, and 3 are not.
http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/press-release/2005q4/000120.html
<quote>
According to FSFEs first glance, the "Microsoft Permissive License"
(Ms-PL) and "Microsoft Community License" (Ms-CL) both appear to
satisfy the four freedoms that define Free Software. In particular:
The Ms-CL also appears to implement a variation of the Copyleft idea,
which was first implemented by the GNU General Public License (GPL).
[...]
"Microsoft has walked a mile and is now standing mere inches from the
GNU (L)GPL: We fully understand that Microsoft is first trying to get
the nail of its little toe wet in the Free Software community, and we
welcome that," continues Greve. "But in the course of time we would
prefer to see Microsoft join the large global community of commercial
GNU (L)GPL vendors."
"For now it will be good if Microsoft starts relicensing its portfolio
under the Ms-PL or Ms-CL; but we still have to warn people to be
careful about the 'Shared Source' label and look at the specific
licenses: The other three licenses of the Shared Source program are
clearly proprietary and obviously do not qualify as Free Software."
Greve finishes.
</quote>
- Oliver
|
|
