[LINK] Microsoft does open source u-turn

[hartr@interweft.com.au]

On 15 Oct, Tony Barry wrote:
> Microsoft does open source u-turn
> Microsoft is now cosying up to the open source movement, and there 
> are sound business reasons behind the about-face.
>   <http://cgi.zdnet.com/slink?188220>Read Full Story

I have been away from email for a week so, I am late on this.

Before anyone gets too excited, please note the following from the
article:-

   "We can be open source. We love the concept of shared source," said
    Bill Veghte, vice president of the Windows Server Group. "That's a
    super-important shift for us in terms of code access."

Please note the attempted semantic equation
	shared source == open source

For reasons that have been detailed on this list, Microsoft's 'shared
source licence' is not open source (as is the case with Sun's 'community
source licence').

Providing 'selected' customers with access to the some Microsoft code
(uncer fairly restrictive licence terms) does not provide the user of
the software with the same rights as code licenced under an open source
licence.

Now - before people complain, please note that I am quite happy for
Microsoft (or any other organisation or individual) to licence their
work however they please.

However, I am not pleased when people such as Microsoft claim their
licence is 'open source' when it very patently is not.

It might be 'revealed source' (if you are lucky enough to qualify for
such access) - but it falls far short in terms of user rights when
compared to open source.

Interetingly, the article, in another context, refers to Microsoft's
'Orwellian fervour'. Was it not Orwell who (in 1984) coined the phrase
"truth is falshood" and some such - which appears to be what Microsoft
is attempting here.

-- 
Robert Hart					 hartr@interweft.com.au
Strategic IT & open source consulting                +61 (0)438 385 533
Brisbane, Australia			    http://www.interweft.com.au

----------
For Link list information see http://sunsite.anu.edu.au/link/