Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 4th Mar 2008 20:23 UTC, submitted by SomeMicroserf
Permalink for comment 303444
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-06
No, I understand it well enough. Publishing source code publicly in an open source manner and trying to lock it down via an academic-only license is pointless. You've already opened the source code publicly regardless, and the license means that it is basically useless to everyone who attempts to look at it, and especially, do anything with it. There are plenty of similar projects out there now to Singularity that have reasonable communities around them, more communication and licenses that allow code to be contributed, that are going to be of far more interest to people in academic circles. Academia is also going to choose to use a project with a license that gives them more scope and where they're less likely to get stung later.
You can't just publish source code and then turn around and say "Oh, this license is for open source software and this is for academic purposes". You either do it or you don't do it at all, and that's what Microsoft doesn't get.