Microsoft 'Shared Source' Attempts to Hijack FOSS

aacc1313 writes "An article that details how Open Source is being hijacked by Microsoft and the sort via 'Shared Source' licenses and how Open Source licenses have become so much more confusing. From the article, "The confusion stems from the fact that Microsoft's 'shared source' program includes three proprietary licenses as well, whose names are similar in some ways to the open-source licenses. Thus, while the Microsoft Reciprocal License has been approved by OSI, the Microsoft Limited Reciprocal License (Ms-LRL) is not, because it allows users to modify and redistribute the software only on the Windows platform" and "The 'shared source' program was and is Microsoft's way of fighting the open source world, allowing customers to inspect Microsoft source code without giving those customers the right to modify or redistribute the code. In other words, "shared source" is not open source, and shouldn't be confused with it.""

Re:Sounds like Open Source to me

[Anonymous Coward]

If you get to view the source, it sounds like Open Source to me.

If it was Open Source it'd be called (wait for it) "Open Source". "Shared Source" is clearly not "Open Source": the first two words are different, see?

I think the problem is that FOSSies equate open source with the GPL

Er, well you might, but anyone with a functioning brain equates "Open Source" with, well, Open Source, and "Free Software" (look, both words are different with that one!) with the GPL and other Free Software licenses.

Unless of course you personally pronounce "Shared" in a way that makes it sounds like "Open". Then I guess you really could claim that "Shared Source" sounds like "Open Source" I guess, and not be trolling.

Re:Well it's like this

[Culture20]

You wouldn't take a fox's vegetarian food recipes without a barrel of salt either, would you.

I don't know... Regurgitated grass doesn't sound like it needs any seasoning.

Re:Sounds like Open Source to me

[Anonymous Coward]

access to the source.

...by Circuit City.

Re:GPL is an easy decision...

[nuzak]

> The very mention of its name sends Microsoft people into foaming fits of anger.

The only frothing I see here is from those driven to apoplexy at the term "Open Source" instead of "Free Software".

Re:Auditable source

[Anonymous Coward]

Shared Source? Illustrative Source? Read-Only Source? This is where I get stuck. Code that anyone can see but cannot use.

How about "Useless Source"? Pretty much sums up source that I can see, but I can't modify or redistribute.

How about "IP Violation Trap Source"? Pretty much sums up source that can be accidentially mistaken for 'open', re-used by mistake, and get you all set up for a lawsuit.

How about "Microsoft Source"? Pretty accurate description: source code written by Microsoft; watch your step. (On second thought, this shit should have labeling requirements, like any poison, toxic-waste, radioactive material, etc.)

Re:Auditable source

[Hucko]

The FSF just need to add the phrases "... as a bird. Makes good eating too." and all their explanatory problems will dry up.

Re:Auditable source

[KutuluWare]

That doesn't work. Cuz as we all know, that bird, you cannot change. Kinda goes against the spirit of the GPL.