Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 26th Jul 2007 20:31 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
"In his keynote at OSCON, Microsoft General Manager of Platform Strategy Bill Hilf announced that Microsoft is submitting its shared source licenses to the Open Source Initiative. This is a huge, long-awaited move. It will be earthshaking for both Microsoft and for the open source community if the licenses are in fact certified as open source licenses. Microsoft has been releasing a lot of software as shared source (nearly 650 projects, according to Bill). If this is suddenly certified as true open source software, it will be a lot harder to draw a bright line between Microsoft and the open source community." In addition, Microsoft has launched a new website where it details its relationship with open source.
Thread beginning with comment 258487
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: FYI for Share Source Licenses
by Almafeta on Thu 26th Jul 2007 21:26
in reply to "RE: FYI for Share Source Licenses"
Member since:2007-02-22
How deep does that go? If person A modifies the software and charges a licensing fee which person B pays, who then modifies it further but doesn't charge a fee...
If you are using person A's work, and person A is charging a fee, then you must pay person A's fee to use it.
If you are using person B's work, and person B is not charing a fee, then you can use it free.
If, however, you are using person B's work, and person B's work is integrated with person A's work, then you have to pay person A's fee.
RE[3]: FYI for Share Source Licenses
by fretinator on Thu 26th Jul 2007 21:54
in reply to "RE[2]: FYI for Share Source Licenses"
Member since:2005-07-06
If, however, you are using person B's work, and person B's work is integrated with person A's work, then you have to pay person A's fee.
So what does "integrated with" mean? Person B can modify and redistribute for free, but if it is "integrated with", he cannot. What does that mean?
(serious question)
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2005-08-28
How deep does that go? If person A modifies the software and charges a licensing fee which person B pays, who then modifies it further but doesn't charge a fee... Will person C have to pay licensing fees to get access to B's work?
I'm also not terribly clear on what the Community License means when it says 'Reciprocal'. Does that mean they have to contribute changes back on a per-file basis depending on the licensee's original code?