Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 18th Nov 2008 06:45 UTC, submitted by pablo_marx
Permalink for comment 337609
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.





Member since:
2005-07-06
So we've established that Singularity is not available under an open source license, and not available under terms that we would all recognise as open source? We're not interested in the MS-PL here because it has no relevance whatsoever.
Academics are best off using code they can do something with and make something out of, and the current crop of MS-PL projects are somewhat less than stellar so I fail to see what relevance either license has.
When something is just a bit too close to reality, mention 'black helicopters' ;-).
Do you think Singularity is merely going to be an academic exercise for Microsoft? :-)
I don't believe .Net was an academic exercise either.
How did that work out, considering that Rotor was just a very cut down CLR that no one did anything with?
Hmmmmm. What was that about black helicopters again, because I believe that's pretty much the point? Regardless of whether Microsoft use an open source license or not, don't expect to be able to do much with the code. Inevitably, Microsoft will see you as competition, as a lot of software vendors have found out.
The MS-PL is generally used for code you will have great difficulty getting off Microsoft platforms like Windows and .Net, and the academic license is where the latter is possibly feasible or where they see it as a real risk.
Edited 2008-11-18 18:34 UTC