Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> ____/ jim on Thursday 04 October 2007 23:38 : \____
>
>> Microsoft announced that it will be releasing its source code for the
>> .Net
>> libraries. But, don't get too excited at Microsoft's new SHARED source
>> initiative.
>>
>> According to CNET (at http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9790863-7.html),
>> "The source code will be released under Microsoft's Reference License.
>> This means that you can only use the source as a reference for debugging,
>> maintaining or enhancing your applications. You cannot modify or
>> distribute the code for any purpose. This happens to be the most
>> restricted shared-source license that Microsoft has. This announcement
>> confirms that .Net is going to be shared source, not to be confused with
>> open source."
>>
>> So, it seems that Microsoft is trying to *look* like an open company
>> while keeping the shackles firmly around the ankles of its users.
>>
>> It's quite ingenious actually. There have been a large number of issues
>> with .Net (www.kbalertz.com is a good place to start your search if you
>> want
>> to see just how many Microsoft has reported). And, what better way to
>> fix those than to basically recruit everyone else to debug your
>> framework.
>>
>> It's like open source....only without the open part. Microsoft calles it
>> "shared source". Which I think is deceptive. If I told you that I was
>> going to "share" my ice cream with you, would you think that I was going
>> to give some of my ice cream for you to eat (or do with as you please) or
>> would you think that I was merely going to allow you to look at my ice
>> cream while I ate my fill?
>>
>> "Shared source" indeed.
>
> Shared workload morelike.
or equally forced free labour. As well as that,
companies are going to insist that
products are debugged and pay for it themselves (!)
and pay for licenses - leaves micoshaft laughing all the way to the bank.
|
|
