- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Microsoft ponders open-source database
|
|
|
Comments (5)
Yea right
This article shamlessly implies that "open source" and "shared source" are the same thing. Since when?!
Either has the "open source" movement really lost track of the meaning for it's term or this is a nice near-FUD piece...(or the article writer doesn't have a clue)..
That is exactly why i prefer the term "free software" (and the free software movement and ideology as a whole). "Free software" term ambiguity has become much less of a problem than the "soft" meaning of the term "open source" that actually, being literally understood, means any software with a source code being open.
Thank you Danijel Orsolic
Either has the "open source" movement really lost track of the meaning for it's term or this is a nice near-FUD piece...(or the article writer doesn't have a clue)..
That is exactly why i prefer the term "free software" (and the free software movement and ideology as a whole). "Free software" term ambiguity has become much less of a problem than the "soft" meaning of the term "open source" that actually, being literally understood, means any software with a source code being open.
Thank you Danijel Orsolic
what is the shared source
it looks like open source but it doesn't smell like, is only another hype
"Whatever it seems, this "Shared Source" thing has nothing to do with building community outside of Microsoft. Would you ever share source with a monopolist? What then is Shared Source? I claim it is not so much a license as it is a treaty, crafted by executives trying to buy time while they put down the internal rebellion that is Microsoft's own civil war."
http://www.opensource.org/docs/sharedsource.php
"Whatever it seems, this "Shared Source" thing has nothing to do with building community outside of Microsoft. Would you ever share source with a monopolist? What then is Shared Source? I claim it is not so much a license as it is a treaty, crafted by executives trying to buy time while they put down the internal rebellion that is Microsoft's own civil war."
http://www.opensource.org/docs/sharedsource.php
Shared Source is just that.
You the small time programmer finds a bug in MSFT code, you tell them how to fix it. Your name is removed.
Linux & GPL
You the small time programmr finds a bug, you patch it, and show the others how it was done. Your name is added to the list of of contributors who have worked on the kernel.
You the small time programmer finds a bug in MSFT code, you tell them how to fix it. Your name is removed.
Linux & GPL
You the small time programmr finds a bug, you patch it, and show the others how it was done. Your name is added to the list of of contributors who have worked on the kernel.
I would suggest, if ever offered the option of even looking at a "Shared Source" application or project you politely demure. Just looking at the code could legally block any contribution you might wish to make to a real free or open source project in the future.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
MSFT and Open Source don't really go together. Shared source maybe.
Second MSFT paid Timeline inc. a bunch of money to settle a patent claim. That settlement didn't include protection for developers of MS SQL.
Wait a sec. MSFT's Evil(tm) plan becomes clear.
Open Source MS SQL, have timeline sue developers to make Open Source look bad. People afraid will rush to buy MSFT products because MSFT will protect their money from them.