So what?
Posted Oct 31, 2005 13:01 UTC (Mon) by
kempelen (guest, #19458)
Parent article:
Are Microsoft's new licenses open source? (NewsForge)
"One minor sticking point with the licenses is that they name Microsoft as
the licensor."
This is not a minor issue. :-) When I saw the announcement of the new
licenses, I thought Microsoft encourages developers do release their code
under an open source license, and provides help with publishing licenses.
THIS would be great, much better than an open source version of the
official Notepad or whatever. :-) (Notepad was just an example.)
Later I saw the company name mentioned in the licenses. And the .NET
starter kit released under that. So what then? The licenses look useless
to me.
If the license text was saying "replace Microsoft with your company name
or copyright holder of the software", that would be something. I must be
completely misunderstanding something here....
Or do they mean: open source is good for publishing code examples, to get
more developers creating proprietary software with our expensive
development platforms??? :-D
(
Log in to post comments)
