A Slightly-Softer Microsoft Shared Source License 359
RadBlock writes "Microsoft Watch has a story on a recent change in Microsoft's shared-source licensing... I guess the main difference is that programmers do not have to send back any changes made to the source code. But they can't combine any of the Microsoft code with other software. Here's the full text of their new license agreement." The article claims that Microsoft is "inching closer -- at least in spirit -- to the GNU GPL" with these license tweaks, but it doesn't look that way to me.
Microsoft never gets it (Score:4, Funny)
This may foretell the doom of man . . . (Score:3, Funny)
here's part of the new license (Score:2, Funny)
The licenses for most open-source software are designed to grant you the freedom to share and change it. By contrast, the MSFT Shared Source License is intended to guarantee the illusion that you have any freedom to share and change Microsoft software software, and to make sure Microsoft can control any user of the software. This Shared Source License applies to a small portion of Microsoft's software, and not to any other software. (Most other Microsoft software is covered by an eight-page EULA instead.) You can apply it to your programs, too -- unless you don't like lawsuits!
When we speak of free software, we are referring to price, not freedom. Our Shared Source Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to use our software, provided you only use it under our terms, and that you have freedom to distribute verbatim copies of the software under our terms (and charging for this service if you wish, provided that the proceeds are returned to Microsoft), that you don't receive source code unless we give it to you, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new programs, provided that you give the changes back to Microsoft; and that you know you can't do these things, when you see the successful high-profile lawsuits against small defenseless companies.
To deny your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to provide you these rights or to ask you to act as if you had the rights. These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you are anyone who owns a computer capable of running Microsoft software.
Re:Rights? (Score:5, Funny)
As best I can tell, many of the zealots here think they have the "right" to the fruits of any programmer or company's labor, simply because it's trivial to make copies of the original work. I've been reading /. myself since '99 or so (I still remember Geeks in Space), and it seems that around here, Richard Stallman's belief that all code should be free for anyone to use or modify somehow reflects actual reality.
Of course, the reality of the situation is that the author of the work has the right (not "right") to release or distribute his work however he sees fit; this of course gives rise to the infantile bawling over how company x (where x usually equals "Microsoft") is the root of all evil, responsible for the Kennedy assassination, the Challenger and Columbia incidents, and just about anything bad that has happened to them personally in their entire lives.
Since Microsoft is only releasing code under the terms of a license the zealots feel is draconian, it is of course an egregious abridgement of the zealots' "right" to get the latest 0day_winXP_hax0r3d.iso.
Hope this helps.
Re:Inching closer? (Score:3, Funny)
Well, it's about 11.803 pico-seconds per light year.
Oh, maybe I missed your point.
---------
Re:The problem with the "spirit of the GPL"... (Score:2, Funny)
Microsoft is noble. (Score:5, Funny)
Contrary to such atrocities against humanity and the larger population of the world, the Microsoft license liberates every person by empowering them to use high quality tools for crashing computers at ten times the price, while simultaneously giving them the power to do almost as much as nothing in terms of repairing problems that arise when the liberation software fails (in other words, when it actually works properly and thus does not fulfill its purpose of crashing the aforementioned computer), thus creating value for the consumer and keeping the economy strong.
If the open source world actually used its brain, every developer of open source software would sign his intellectual property over to Microsoft for free, on the sole condition that Microsoft will also take away everything that person owns and leave them hungry in the streets.
Microsoft is such a noble and ethical entity that most developers would die to defend it.
Re:Inching closer? (Score:5, Funny)
What will be the name of the MS product that will 'take on' Linux?
Windux? Linows?
Which one: WedHat? Webian? Wackware? Wandrake? Wuse? WurboLinux?
And do they put the source on wourceforge and adhere to WOSIX and the WSB? Add linux support with Line (Line Is Not an Emulator)?
Sendlook? exmail? IIPache? Wnome? IEzilla/Woenix? wonqueror? wautilus? Wamba? WaTeX? MSimian Outvolooktion? win3fs? weiserfs? waid5? werl? wython? msSQL?(oops)
Politically correct WNU/Windows?
Dary I say Lincrosoft? Microsux?
Hope they do. Imitation is the best flattery.
Washdot?
It looks like BSD with an anti-GPL rider (Score:3, Funny)
Of course, it only looks BSD like, the "all rights reserved" part bans anyone from examining, compiling or using code created under this license. So the fact that you can ban Microsoft from using your derivative is beside the point.
Re:So what does it look like, timothy? (Score:1, Funny)
So I'd not say they are inching closer, more like moving farther away. Or more likely: stepping sideways to avoid getting hit.
It's all a boxing match. That's what it is. Yeah, has to be.
Re:Absolutely one step closer! (Score:1, Funny)
Re:Inching closer? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Inching closer? (Score:1, Funny)
A Little Story (Score:2, Funny)
"I'll let you have my source code" he said, out of character. Mr Software Developer took his source, but before he could leave, Micro Soft bent him over and raped him up the ass, stealing money out of his back pocket with every thrust.
-
The moral, boys and girls, is somewhat simple...
Microsoft's definition of Open Source = being assraped by Bill for all eternity. It's not open source, it's closed source with a pinhole leak.
Re:Inching closer? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:A Little Story (Score:2, Funny)
When I climbing a hill (Score:2, Funny)