Read `Microsoft to open source? Not likely' (http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2239301,00.html), it says some interesting stuff, try this: But Muth said the term "open source" has a variety of meanings, and the company's definition differs from the one used to describe Unix and the increasingly popular Linux - in which a worldwide community of developers are able to freely extend, modify and commercialize versions of the software. or this: Differing definitions But its definition of "open source code licenses" means making the technology available to only a select group of computer scientists, researchers and original equipment manufacturer (OEM) and engineering partners, who are offered the code under a set of restrictions that prohibit them from commercializing the technology in any way, Muth said. "They do not receive any intellectual property rights or rights to derivative works." I thought there was only one definition of Open Source, the SPI definition. Maybe I am wrong? -- I consume, therefore I am
Attachment:
pgpXcsA0JsJxF.pgp
Description: PGP signature