On Sat, 2002-10-26 at 02:06, Kent West wrote: > I understand that one of the the reasons that Microsoft's "Open Source" > program has had few takers is because Microsoft's license is "viral" (to > borrow MS's term for the GPL); once you see their code, there's a risk > that any code you develop thereafter could be "tainted". > > Does anyone have any links to more info to this effect, or have any > opinions? I've basically told someone the above, and now need to > document it somewhat. I think you mean "shared-source". I don't think they've ever called it open source, nor should they, because it isn't open source. I remember the register had some articles about this. www.thregister.co.uk and do a search. Slashdot might have some stories and links. The other reference is microsoft.com and see if you can find a copy of the "shared-source" license. Kind Regards Crispin Wellington
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part