Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 4th Mar 2008 20:23 UTC, submitted by SomeMicroserf
OSNews, Generic OSes Microsoft has released source code from the Singularity research project onto Codeplex under an academic, non-commercial license. "The Singularity Research Development Kit is based on the Microsoft Research Singularity project. It includes source code, build tools, test suites, design notes, and other background materials. The Singularity RDK is for academic non-commercial use only and is governed by this license."
Thread beginning with comment 303429
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: license
by MollyC on Tue 4th Mar 2008 23:51 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: license"
MollyC
Member since:
2006-07-04

"yea, you cant earn money on it, but by the looks of it, microsoft may very well earn money on your work on the code...
Yep, that's exactly right, and it just shows how Microsoft doesn't get how open source software processes work and how sad they are about creating soundbites around the whole subject. "

It doesn't show anything of the sort. In fact, it shows the exact opposite. Microsoft doesn't intend this code to be open source, so they didn't use an open source license. If they had intended this code to be open source, they would've used MSPL or MSRL, as they've done with the DLR, IronPython, IronRuby, etc.

Just because they don't want Singularity code to be "open source" and therefore didn't use an open source license, doesn't mean that they don't understand open source, quite the contrary.

If your main concern is using this code in an open source project, then you aren't the target for this code. Not everything is about you.

Edited 2008-03-04 23:53 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 16

RE[4]: license
by segedunum on Wed 5th Mar 2008 01:08 in reply to "RE[3]: license"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

It doesn't show anything of the sort. In fact, it shows the exact opposite. Microsoft doesn't intend this code to be open source, so they didn't use an open source license.


It shows exactly that. There is little point, if any at all, in releasing any source code to anyone in this case - and certainly not publicly on a web site. Microsoft doesn't get what releasing source code publicly actually means, and implies. They are still under the mistaken impression that they can publish source code and keep some form of control.

It looks as if neither you, nor Microsoft, get what 'open source' means as a concept - and no, it does not mean publishing something under an OSI approved license.

Reply Parent Score: -1