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."" Link to Original Source
This discussion was created for logged-in users only, but now has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
... shared source is PART open-source. This is a far cry from "not open source, and shouldn't be confused with it." Point of fact, if one licenses there code under one of the non-open-source licenses, THEY STILL HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHANGE THE LICENSE LATER if they want to.
For Christ's sake. I know that we all don't like MS. But, why not point at the many things that MS does that are real instead of jumping at shadows.
Correction... (Score:3, Insightful)
For Christ's sake. I know that we all don't like MS. But, why not point at the many things that MS does that are real instead of jumping at shadows.