What does that mean for you? Is .NET open source now? I wouldn't call it that quite yet. This is the first step on a much longer journey. The license indicates that developers can "see" the source code, but Microsoft's not providing any means of copying it. While its nice to MS MS making some motion in this direction its a tad insulting. They are going to show you code but be careful what you learn from it because (1) You are not licensed to edit it on your personal system and (2) If you apply what you learn you'll likely be violating a ton of 'patents'.
Aside from PR I dont get this move by MS...
1 posted on
10/04/2007 7:31:50 AM PDT by
N3WBI3
To: N3WBI3; ShadowAce; Tribune7; frogjerk; Salo; LTCJ; Calvinist_Dark_Lord; amigatec; Fractal Trader; ..
2 posted on
10/04/2007 7:32:57 AM PDT by
N3WBI3
(Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak....)
To: N3WBI3
Aside from PR I dont get this move by MS... Based on the license terms, it seems that they are trying to intentionally taint the linux code. If they put out this code under this license, and then find some of the patents in Linux later on, then SCO Part 2 will have a leg to stand on.
3 posted on
10/04/2007 7:36:53 AM PDT by
ShadowAce
(Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
To: N3WBI3
Every time I see Microsoft go in this direction, it’s more like “We’ll let you help us debug our code when it breaks your programs.” Not quite what I think of when I hear “open source.”
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson