Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 13th Jan 2009 10:27 UTC
Windows Every now and then, some blogger working for a big website will write a story about how company Abc should make radical move Xyz in order to better, eh, well, that's usually left in the dark. These are generally more akin to said bloggers hoping for radical move Xyz rather than there being a well-argumented reasoning. Radical moves in the technology business don't happen very often, but when they do, there's generally a good reason for them.
Thread beginning with comment 343259
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: A better question
by evangs on Tue 13th Jan 2009 14:16 UTC in reply to "RE: A better question"
evangs
Member since:
2005-07-07


Maybe I'm just being nieve, but I'd like to think that Microsoft have enough developers not to need to illegally copy other licensed source.


That's not the point. While Microsoft can legally license and thus use other people's code, they cannot legally "open source" such code.

This is an issue that is faced by any closed source project that seeks to go open source. See Open Office, Java, etc.

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 6