• Add a Comment
  • Edit
  • More Actions v
  • Quarantine this Entry

Comments (4)

1 localhost commented Permalink

Bob, what are you talking about? Who says MSDN downloads (some of which are quite free to use under EULA, just like ones from developer works) are open-source or even include source code? There might be some, just like the ones that are being done by at least one Microsoft team on SourceForge (where using an OSI-approved license is a strong requirement).I just don't get the juxtaposition with the Illuminata post, which isn't about Microsoft open-source software at all (and I've given up breaking the code about the title), but about counter-claims against Linux performance, dependability, TCO, yadda, yadda, yadda. Like Oracle vs. DB2 vs. SQL server, seems to me.Heck, neither the OASIS OpenDoc specifications (and schemas) nor the Microsoft Office XML Reference Schemas (and specifications) qualify as open-source anything either. But the asserted openness of one is assumed without examination when the reality is that the licensing terms are almost indistinguishable. And I dare say that some of those joint proposals from Microsoft and IBM for Web Service specifications are similar (see http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/NOTE-patent-practice-20020124#def-RF for the definition of royalty-free that seems to be used by a lot of the participants on SOAP, for example: http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/10/16-IPR-statements.html). I don't understand how this is any mystery for someone professionally engaged in standards. So what's the real beef here and what are the actual facts at issue?

2 localhost commented Permalink

Sorry, that was an incomplete reference. At the Barcelona Gartner open source panel, the Microsoft rep used their putting source code on MSDN as an example of Microsoft's participation in "open source." I later pointed out that "open source" had a very specific meaning and that I really thought that very few people who have been making source code available through developer programs (sometimes for one or two decades) would use that as proof of their involvement in open source.

3 localhost commented Permalink

Sorry, to finish that thought ... I juxtaposed the Illuminata link with my comment because they both had to do with open source and Microsoft, and I've been on a kick lately to try to have people talk more precisely about "openness" and "open source".

4 localhost commented Permalink

Bob thanks for the clarification. That makes far more sense. And I wholeheartedly agree with your clarification to the effect that "downloadable to use" and "open-source" are not the same, not even close.

Add a Comment Add a Comment