| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
MS shared source licence strangely GPL-like | |
|
||
| Time: 16:16 EST/21:16 GMT | News Source: The Register | Posted By: Alex Harris | ||
|
In his keynote to the recent Government Leaders Conference Bill Gates warned developing countries against using dreaded GPL software in their governments and universities. If they did so, he said, they would be unable to commercialise the resulting programs, and they would never be able to develop an IT industry. Not such a bad thing that, actually. At the same conference the IDC rep explained how much faster IT spend grew than general investment in the economy, and used that as evidence that IT powers economic growth. Indeed it does, by producing jobs in IT and channeling money back to IT companies headed by people like Bill and analysed by people like IDC. But if, say, brandyballs were deemed an absolutely must-have weapon of competitive advantage, would not the effect be approximately the same, saving that the richest man in the world would be a confectioner? | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 313 Last | Next |
The time now is
5:25:24 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 4/29/2002 4:20:34 PM |
| Haha! The issues are far more complicated than this meathead makes them out to be. |
| #2 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/29/2002 5:17:16 PM |
|
So what are they, soda? By my reckoning this article is mainly attacking the assertion that the GPL destroys capitalism and developer incentive by denying the possibility of individual IP ownership. Well, now we get a license which is supposed to promote development--but rather than giving the IP back to the community, you have to give it back to MS. I don't see how that's any less (if not--obviously--more so) a disincentive to develop code under this license?
And what about the potential for infection? What if I look at MS source code to solve some dev problems, but then go back and try to program in a black box--but in someway incorporate or reverse engineer MS code accidentally: is my commercial product now owned by Microsoft? Anyway, the long and short of it is--there is no way to produce a commercial product using the MS Shared Source license unless you are Microsoft. |
| #3 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 4/29/2002 5:42:10 PM |
|
Well, I'm not sure how we can have a particularly useful discussion since you've made several errors, sodajerk.
the MS shared source license does not require you give your work back to MS. The MS shared source license already has a specific disclaimer that already makes moot your other contention of inadvertent contamination. As to your last point, on that you are correct. However, you may certainly choose to negotiate a different license from Microsoft if you want to make a commercial product. It was never Microsoft's goal to give this away freely to the world. On the other hand the GPL provides signifigant constraints against the furthering of software development if that license is used in projects whose intentions should be to give the code to the world. Such examples are government funded research work, such as BSD derivative of Unix, or requirements for open standards such as the compression support for HTTP 1.1. Please note that the zlip implementation for use in HTTP 1.1 had to be relicensed under something other than the GPL specifically because of this: http://www.gzip.org/zlib/zlib_license.html That alone is proof that Microsoft is correct in warning against using the GPL. I have numerous other examples of problems with the GPL. I find the license to be primarily selfish in origin. |
| #4 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/29/2002 6:15:27 PM |
|
Explain to me how I am wrong that you have to give the code back--the license says new code developed as a result of access to shared code falls under the same license which says it's Microsoft's property.
What are these other licensing options you speak of? As far as I know of, there is no other license option to view MS source code. |
| #5 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/29/2002 6:52:48 PM |
|
By the way, it is the last point alone which is most substantial and which makes the point that railing against the GPL is a joke. (I was attacking MS's own license--attacking the GPL in return isn't a defense of MS's license.) MS's own license is more like the GPL than other for-commercial-purposes OS licenses--there is no way to produce a commercial product using the MS Shared Source license unless you are Microsoft.
Which seems to be the major problem and attacking point that MS has against the GPL. This license is definitely more like the GPL then it is like the BSD license. |
| #6 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/29/2002 7:52:38 PM |
|
I don't see how anything you say mitigates the issue, troll. You are saying this is only for education purposes, right. So basically, you are saying that anyone who is ever a student, researcher, or professor who looks at this code (and will hence be "tainted") should be concerned about ever developing commercial software for Windows. (The same concern that Gates warns of those who use the GPL.) If that's the case, MS has just defeated its own argument for using the CLI for educational purposes.
I understand that Shared Source has a very limited (if not nonexistent) purpose, but that's not a defense for coming up with something with the same problems you are railing against. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 313 Last | Next |
The time now is
5:25:24 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
