Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Microsoft Open Source Software

Microsoft Launches Its Own Open Source Foundation 344

Posted by timothy
from the said-the-spider-to-the-fly dept.
darthcamaro writes "Microsoft already had its own open source (OSI-approved) licenses, its own open source project hosting site and now it's adding its own non-profit open source foundation. That's right, the company that is still banging the patent drum against open source now has its own 501(c)(6) open source foundation. Officially called the CodePlex Foundation, it's a separate effort from the CodePlex site and is aimed at helping to get more commercial developers involved in open source. Considering how they continue to attack Linux and open source, will anyone take them seriously?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Launches Its Own Open Source Foundation

Comments Filter:
  • trap (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 10, 2009 @02:00PM (#29380819)
    It's a trap, don't give them your code!
    • Re:trap (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Icegryphon (715550) on Thursday September 10, 2009 @02:03PM (#29380863)
      keikaku doori
      Translators note means: Just as Planned.
      • Jealousy (Score:5, Insightful)

        by mollog (841386) on Thursday September 10, 2009 @02:14PM (#29381005)
        I think Microsoft sees a lot of good work going on in the open source community and it wants to tap into that source of innovation. Regardless of what they say, Microsoft is sorely lacking in true, original innovation. Their best plays have been rip-offs of established ideas.

        They have the money and they have to try, but I am doubtful that they'll do much else besides foster Microsoft-centric development of tools and programs similar to the Windows Powershell IDE by Dr. Tobias Weltner.
        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Desler (1608317)

          I think Microsoft sees a lot of good work going on in the open source community and it wants to tap into that source of innovation.

          Cloning proprietary applications and OSes is innovation?

          Their best plays have been rip-offs of established ideas.

          Pot calling the kettle black? Almost any app you see in the Linux land is either a clone of a proprietary app or a clone of a clone (and so on).

          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            by poopdeville (841677)

            Cloning proprietary applications and OSes is innovation?

            There are plenty of small, single purpose open source applications with small, innovative communities around them. Consider XMonad, a tiling window manager. No general purpose computer user would ever need a tiling window manager, but the interface is easily modified for turn key kiosk applications. It is excellent for automating repetitive programming jobs. And so on. Each of these is a small niche, but with active development, each niche gets wh

            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              There is truly innovation in the programming language sphere, and Microsoft has a record of hiring successful open source language designers. Simon Peyton-Jones (of Haskell fame) is a recent example.

              Recent? Simon Peyton-Jones has been working for Microsoft Research since 1998. In fact, he is still working on GHC as a Microsoft employee - LINQ was definitely inspired by some things in Haskell, but Simon didn't design it.

              If you want a better example, it's ex-Sun, ex-Google Neal Gafter of Java closures fame [javac.info], since last year working for Microsoft (not MSR) on .NET languages.

          • Re:Jealousy (Score:5, Insightful)

            by tepples (727027) <[moc.liamg] [ta] [selppet]> on Thursday September 10, 2009 @02:44PM (#29381349) Homepage Journal

            Cloning proprietary applications and OSes is innovation?

            MS-DOS 1.0 was originally QDOS, Tim Paterson's clone of Digital Research's CP-M. MS-DOS 2.0 was an attempt to clone some UNIX features. Some (folders, file handles, I/O redirection) were implemented successfully; others (namely pipes) are simulated due to the lack of any sort of task switching.

            Pot calling the kettle black? Almost any app you see in the Linux land is either a clone of a proprietary app or a clone of a clone (and so on).

            Windows is a clone of Mac OS classic, and Excel is a clone of VisiCalc and 1-2-3. Real or malarkey?

            • by Desler (1608317)
              Completely irrelevant since I never claimed Microsoft was some great innovator.
            • Re:Jealousy (Score:4, Insightful)

              by MightyMartian (840721) on Thursday September 10, 2009 @02:47PM (#29381413) Journal

              I think you're rather abusing the word "clone" here. A clone would be identical. DOS was not a clone of CP/M, Windows was not a clone of MacOS, Excel is not a clone of VisiCalc. They have similar functionality, common concepts (I mean, there are only so many ways you can do a spreadsheet) and probably some operability or low-level rip offs, but they ain't clones.

              • by mollog (841386) on Thursday September 10, 2009 @03:01PM (#29381601)
                Sir, you make distinctions without a difference. All of Microsoft's work is derivative.

                Yes, they are hugely popular and they have the major market share. They make billions of profit, yet smaller companies like Apple seem to be the ones coming up with new products.

                Microsoft has been a drag on innovation for more than two decades. Its best, and seemingly only, plays continue to be copies of new technology.
                • "Derivative" and "clone" are too different words. Lotus 123 and MultiPlan were a derivatives of VisiCalc. (I actually used the Xenix version of MultiPlan on a Tandy 6000 to do payroll and scheduling, and for the time it was a pretty impressive spreadsheet).

                • I'd say that most products by both MS and Apple are derivative - not that there's anything wrong with that.

                • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                  If you'd said this:

                  All software work is derivative.

                  I'd probably agree.

                  I mean, sure something like Office is an evolution of other productivity software that came before it, but you're kidding yourself if you think Apple (to use your example) is creating things that aren't similar evolutionary steps or improvements over previous products.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by sopssa (1498795) *

          Even if they take the best ideas elsewhere, MS products are usually solid and just work. Visual Studio is *still* considered the best development environment there is and with a reason. Windows is still the major mostly used OS in desktop (mac, the only competitor, doesn't really come even close).

          Even if you have original ideas, you have to know how to put them together. Now to do something other than car analogy. Even if you have the best ketchup in the world, you cant make your hamburger better if its all

          • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

            by Anonymous Coward

            Oh you naive windows fool. You think MS products are usually solid and just work??? When has a MS product EVER "just worked"? Name one case....exactly. And saying that Visual Studio is the "Best IDE" is really a large jump, Most widely used, yes, but the best? Hardly. How much does VS Team Suite cost for a site license, and how much is XCode? I'd much rather develop in XCode any day of the week.

            Visual Studio is big, bloated, slow, you name it. It's not even smart enough to generate a temporary intellisense

          • Even if you have the best ketchup in the world, you cant make your hamburger better if its all burned up, rotten and full of bugs and worms.

            Urg, remind me not to read your comments during lunch.

            Aside from shamelessly "borrowing" their "innovations" from other companies, and their strong-arm restraint-of-trade distribution tactics, Microsoft have always been the masters of "good enough." For any of the products Microsoft offers (Visual Studio included) there are several commercial competitors that are demons

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by HitoGuy (1324613)
              Don't worry. It's just Microsoft giving more fodder to the gullible Micropologists to futily argue to those who are rightly suspicious or even hostile to Microsoft's actions (I STILL don't trust Mono, for example.). I remember having an argument with one where he insisted that Microsoft not only stopped its "war" on Linux, but was now helping Linux.

              Now, very recently I am sure you are aware Microsoft launched yet another "Get The Facts" style FUD campaign against Linux, this time aimed at Best Buy employ
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by ultrabot (200914)

          I think Microsoft sees a lot of good work going on in the open source community and it wants to tap into that source of innovation.

          Can we please kill the word "innovation" already?

          I don't care about innovation, not should most people involved with software do. Ideas are trivial, implementation is king.

    • by MoxFulder (159829) on Thursday September 10, 2009 @02:22PM (#29381105) Homepage

      ... doesn't seem to be working so well against open-source stuff. Maybe Microsoft's new strategy is to split and balkanize the open-source community with a bunch of conflicting licenses and communities.

      Division, Discord, and Destruction

  • the company formerly known as Traf-o-Data is supporting CodePlex, formerly known as Open Source? a Princely Idea that...
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by sopssa (1498795) *

      That's right, the company that is still banging the patent drum against open source now has it's own 501c open source foundation.

      As far as I've noticed, MS has just protected *other* patent-trolls by getting the patents what they need. I haven't noticed any misuse by them (if they have, please inform me too :)

      Considering how they continue to attack Linux and open source will anyone take them seriously?

      How have they actually attacked Linux? The same way that Linux attackes Windows, aka competition? Competition is good and will only improve products.

      Just because Microsoft's main business model is in closed source, it doesn't mean a company that big cant contribute to open source at all. Their Bing search engine actually ignored [thinkdigit.com]

      • Re:Coal.. Kettle? (Score:4, Informative)

        by Ed Avis (5917) <ed@membled.com> on Thursday September 10, 2009 @02:14PM (#29381013) Homepage
        They have attacked Linux (or more specifically, Linux distributors) using the FAT long filenames software patent. I would call that an 'attack'; those who are a bit more twitchy about such things also use the word 'attack' for FUD-laden marketing materials and other run-of-the-mill corporate tactics.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Chapter80 (926879)

        mod parent up.

        The Microsoft Corporation owes its shareholders a genuine effort to make money and to do the right thing for the long term. I really can't see how anyone could make a business case for Microsoft to have released Windows or Office to be Open Source - It would have been a highly risky strategy, with no "un-do" possible.

        Here, they are trying to dip their toes into Open Source, and the summary bashes them. Geez, guys, get a life!

        • Re:Coal.. Kettle? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Thursday September 10, 2009 @02:28PM (#29381169)

          Here, they are trying to dip their toes into Open Source, and the summary bashes them. Geez, guys, get a life!

          The problem is that it is far too early to tell if this is just another attempt at "embrace, extend, extinguish" -- something MS has a very long and well documented history of doing, or the final stage of "ignorance, denial, attack, accept."

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by poetmatt (793785)

          If they were ever smart enough to do a Good Thing â the world would support them because they are so well known. As much as I hate Microsoft personally if they changed, I'd be a pretty loyal guy. Everyone would. We could use true and open unified computing if done properly.

          However, since we have that thing called history, and it can't be cleared like our browsers one, most people tend to believe that leopards don't change their spots.

          I give it 6 years for Microsoft to evolve or die, really.

        • Re:Coal.. Kettle? (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Requiem18th (742389) on Thursday September 10, 2009 @03:59PM (#29382233)

          Since you have already been modded troll I shouldn't be feeding you but just this time.

          Yes they are obligated to maximize profit for their shareholders, to that goal, it makes no sense to release Windows or MS Office as FOSS, that's not what I want, nor what the majority of FOSS users want either. Except for the minority of loons that actually do want that, the majority of FOSS users and developers understand MS is under no obligation to release Windows or MS Office.

          Still we need a Free, Open Source operative system and office suite, a non hostile system that doesn't regards its users as thieves by default, An office suit that doesn't antagonize us, insert malicious secret codes in our documents, and OS that has the features we want, not the features someone else wants us to have and be limited to.

          So we make our own. No actions from MS are required. But MS has acted. Against us, every time they poison and flood an open standards forum, every time they bribe a politician who is considering going free, every time they they build intentional incompatibilities in their software, every time they scare clients with bogus patent threats, every time they come up with deceiving names to inject noise in the conversation, like .net, like officeopen instead of openoffice, like shared source instead of opens source, and now this fake open source foundation.

          That is what we are complaining about, we don't want them to release their products as FOSS, we just want them to stop playing dirty.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by aoteoroa (596031)
    • by mcgrew (92797) *

      I don't think open source means what Microsoft thinks it means. Wasn't it just a few years ago that Ballmer or somebody was calling open source a "cancer" and some Microsoftie slashdotters trollishly called it "open sores"?

      Maybe they're trying to polish their image, or clean up their act. I hope it's the latter.

  • by wumpus188 (657540) on Thursday September 10, 2009 @02:02PM (#29380839)

    Are we in Soviet Russia now?

  • Oh yeah? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Zarf (5735) on Thursday September 10, 2009 @02:02PM (#29380843) Journal

    we'll make our *own* Open Source only ours will be better and it'll have beer and hookers! Ha! Forget the beer and hookers! ... wait ... that's not how that goes...

  • Parental oversight (Score:4, Informative)

    by proslack (797189) on Thursday September 10, 2009 @02:05PM (#29380881) Journal
    From the link "The CodePlex Foundation will complement existing open source foundations and organizations, providing a forum in which best practices and shared understanding can be established by a broad group of participants, both software companies and open source communities."

    Seems like a meta-organization for open source entities, under the watchful eye of Redmond.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by MightyMartian (840721)

      Translation: Major industry vendors will be able to get together, trash and make threats against real Open Source projects, all under the banner of OSS.

      • by Delkster (820935) on Thursday September 10, 2009 @04:19PM (#29382467)

        Or even more like "Major industry vendors will be able to get together and keep working on open source software projects, and MS will convince their customers to run that open source software on Windows rather than on Linux".

        MS realizes that a lot of open source software (servers, scripting languages, etc.) are in broad use and will stay that way. It's useless trying to make them go away. What MS can try to do is prevent that open source software from dragging people away from Windows.

        MS wants visibility in the same space with specific open source projects. If they doesn't have that visibility, open source software (Apache, MySQL, whatever) will be associated mainly with open source platforms, but if MS can break that association, many organizations might end up running their open source applications on Windows. That means keeping their customers, and many open source projects don't even compete directly with MS products because MS doesn't have a similar offering, so MS might not even lose that much by advocating selected projects.

        Creating bindings between open source software -- say, a scripting language -- and MS platforms such as .NET may help MS with that as well. You know, the whole embrace, extend, etc. thing.

  • Why not? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The FSF attacks open source, and some people still take them seriously. So why not Microsoft?
  • by flyingfsck (986395) on Thursday September 10, 2009 @02:08PM (#29380925)
    It is a way for Microsoft to reduce its tax bill - Donate a few hundred million dollars worth of code to a charity you control and get a nice tax receipt.
    • by nschubach (922175) on Thursday September 10, 2009 @02:12PM (#29380967) Journal

      Not sure it it's that or the fact that they are still trying to be the "center" of technology. It's been revealed in internal docs that they'd rather see their system or standard being used rather than someone else. If they can push their way into Open Source development and corner the market on it, they can phase out licenses they don't agree with and form the community how they like instead of how the community does.

      • Parent's post is likely scenario.

        Just as they desperately need DotnetNuke to stay relevant in CMS, they need this to stay relevant in other areas.

        At this point I'm guessing customers they care about are talking about Open Source and the Microsoft sales rep needs to say "Yeah, we got that." while they are on their way in the Microsoft limo to the strip club/whorehouse.

    • by Plug (14127)

      They want to see open source software running on Windows, and want to see IIS as the web server of record, not Apache.

      The non-MS participators (with the somewhat odd, but welcome, exception of Monty Widenius) appear to be mostly from a .NET background - Mono project leader; co-founder of MindTouch, whose engine is built on .NET (but run primarily on Mono); co-founder of DotNetNuke, open source on ASP.NET, run primarily on Windows.

      Doesn't mean that the software you run on Windows/IIS is any less Free, howeve

  • by gillbates (106458) on Thursday September 10, 2009 @02:15PM (#29381029) Homepage Journal

    "We believe that commercial software companies and the developers that work for them under-participate in open source projects," Microsoft stated.

    While I applaud the intent to appear to be open source friendly, they haven't yet begun to address two of the major issues with Microsoft and open source:

    1. What happens when a Microsoft developer inadvertently contributes to their Open Source repository something better than a commercial Microsoft offering?
    2. Most of us developing commercial software *CAN NOT* participate in open source projects due to overly broad non-compete clauses in our contracts. The extent of our participation is not up to us, or Microsoft - it's up to our employer, and Microsoft's recent action in this regard does nothing to change this.

    Now, here we have Microsoft reinventing the wheel, aka sourceforge. I could even go for a BSD style license, or even public domain. But I have one question:

    Would they host, and allow development on ReactOS? (for those who don't know, it's an open source Windows clone)

    How Codeplex and Microsoft deal with this question would reveal far more about their true intentions than what their pundits say about their open source attitude.

    • by nimbius (983462)
      of course they would love to host ReactOS! then release ReactOS plus pro, which is like ReactOS but includes some blobs (never mind those theyre fine! in fact you can play call of duty using them which helps ReactOS more!) and microsoft-brand open source licensing restrictions (consider them freedom to compete!) heck, we'll include it somehow in vista too so people have choice now between a shit OS and a hijacked project they will associate with said shit OS.

      and in 11 months you can say "ReactOS" and pe
    • by mcgrew (92797) *

      While I applaud the intent to appear to be open source friendly

      Don'y you mean the appearance of being open source friendly? I think that's more accurate, and I certainly don't applaud it. I do hope that is indeed their intent, but I sincerely doubt it. It just isn't in their nature.

    • by iamhigh (1252742)
      I think it's really simple: MS doesn't want you to write an open source OS... they want you to write open source programs for THEIR OS.
    • by ArcadeNut (85398)

      Would they host, and allow development on ReactOS? (for those who don't know, it's an open source Windows clone)

      Sure, if it runs on Windows.

  • Answer: Yes.

    Like it or not, MS is going to spin this in a way that PHB will take it seriously--but seriously only in the Microsoft way.

  • by MountainLogic (92466) on Thursday September 10, 2009 @02:34PM (#29381245) Homepage
    MS is tying up traffic in Seattle today to bring all of their people together in one of the city's sports stadiums. Anybody know if that is the usual monkey-boy chair toss or is something up?
    • My guess (Score:5, Funny)

      by neiras (723124) on Thursday September 10, 2009 @03:17PM (#29381777)

      MS is tying up traffic in Seattle today to bring all of their people together in one of the city's sports stadiums. Anybody know if that is the usual monkey-boy chair toss or is something up?

      The stage is dark. Suddenly, a catchy theme pours from the speakers. It's... could it be... YES! Rick Astley! The crowd groans uncomfortably.

      One of the screens showing the Microsoft logo goes blue. "Stop 0x0000000A or IRQL_NOT_LESS_OR_EQUAL".

      Steve Ballmer appears through a fine mist of perspiration twisted into delicate symmetrical whorls by an army of desperate interns, hair dryers in hand, all aiming at his armpits from just offstage. The humidity in the room increases by an order of magnitude.

      "Seven, Seven, Seven! GIVE IT UP FOR ME!"

      The stage erupts in blue flame. Mystical symbols are traced on the faces of aghast onlookers as Crawzogorium, the Infernal Keeper Of Ring 0 materializes above the podium.

      "WHO DARES SUMMON THE MASTER OF THE HIERARCHICAL PROTECTION DOMAINS?"

      Crawzogorium notices the bluescreen. "TAINT! WHO HAS DISREGARDED MY LAW OF KERNEL PROCESS ACCESS? I WILL PUNISH YOU NOW!"

      The light in the rooms fades to a dark brown, and a tortured scream is heard. It's Ballmer. His interns have dropped their hair dryers and fled the scene. He's fallen to his knees and is scrubbing at his underarm area with the tatters of his shirt.

      Things look bleak for our hero and his audience? How will it all end? Tune in next post!

      This post brought to you by AXE - It's how dirty guys get clean.

  • by paiute (550198) on Thursday September 10, 2009 @02:37PM (#29381287)

    Remember that butt ugly fish with a mouth full of razor-sharp teeth that lives way down deep and has a worm-like appendage that dances tantalizingly just in front of its mouth? That's what I thought of when I read this story.

    • by H0p313ss (811249)

      Remember that butt ugly fish with a mouth full of razor-sharp teeth that lives way down deep and has a worm-like appendage that dances tantalizingly just in front of its mouth? That's what I thought of when I read this story.

      Dude... that's your mom... and she said I should say hello.

      And yes, I am going to hell for this one...

  • I would want to read the fine print, read between the lines, ask 4 lawyers and then maybe think about putting anything on their site.

    I also have to ask, just what do they gain from this _if_ they are completely on the up-and-up with this? Is it advertising or is it that they get to see/measure projects activity so they'll know where to put more marketing dollars to fight it? Or maybe keep and eye on what's active and they should buy up and shut down? Is it just advertising dollars? I really doubt it's about
    • Tools? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by JSBiff (87824)

      I'm not sure, but my first inclination is that they probably want to encourage the development of Open Source software which is based upon Microsoft Technologies and Tools, so that such projects still require Windows to run, and maybe require Visual Studio, SQL Server, etc to build/implement/install?

      I'm sure Microsoft wouldn't be *too* upset about Open Source software which depends upon Microsoft's software to actually work or be built.

  • by malevolentjelly (1057140) on Thursday September 10, 2009 @02:50PM (#29381433) Journal

    Maybe they're trying to develop a functional open source movement within their development culture? After all, Microsoft sells a platform. The DOS free software movement was a boon to their platform, not a detraction.

    We're not looking at a war of ideas, we're looking at a basic platform war. Take Apple, for instance; they sell a high-end commercial platform which heavily leverages the open source ecosystem to augment and flesh-out their platform. Commercial software can be obnoxious, even to a platform vendor: it works against its platform, it puts branding over adherence to user experience, and it makes computer usage frustrating.

    If the Windows platform were viewed from the angle of its development community instead of as a vessel for shareware, then they might be able to preserve and further their platform against more open markets (even Apple) coming up against them.

    The full F/OSS stack (Linux-FOSS-and above) is a weak platform technically, but a strong idea. Microsoft doesn't have to give up the idea of a professionally maintained platform to leverage an open source third party software ecosystem. Better within their sphere of influence than outside of it. Microsoft is offering an extremely friendly and accessible development environment to its users already; it would be a boon to foster an influx of new platform-defining free applications that add value while not becoming an issue of anti-trust.

  • by mindbrane (1548037) on Thursday September 10, 2009 @02:55PM (#29381519) Journal

    People who develop and know how to use Linux are a different bred. They tend to be self reliant and innovative. Corporations like MS tend to naturally harbour fiefdoms around which barriers are effected that can stifle just the type of innovation Linux is driven by. The adage "faster nervous systems eat slower nervous systems" can apply where institutions allow barriers like glass ceilings to protect managers, the barriers erected can be seen as speed bumps and additional costs that Open Source skirts. Open Source may look haphazard in it's development but then so does evolution and both do OK in the long run.

    A lot of Open Source people use Linux and similar OSes because they need to be able to innovate on the spot and not go begging and pleading with Corporate masters for permission to alter a bit of code. Open Source, in my experience, is about innovation and extensibility. MS expected Linux to die of SIDS in its crib. It didn't. I now think MS sees the power and benefits of Open Source and is looking to undermine Linux by offering a similar environment to lure academics and scientists to a similar platform while mining their innovations.

    It's kinda like the serpent wants to take a bite out of the apple.

  •   Just when you think you'd heard it all. I'm sure their licenses will make for interesting reading. I vaguely recall that they'd submitted
    licenses for review by OSI some years past- what became of that?

  • by Smelly Jeffrey (583520) on Thursday September 10, 2009 @03:09PM (#29381697) Homepage

    From IRC 501(c)(6) Organizations â" page K-4 [irs.gov]

    7. Its purpose must not be to engage in a regular business of a kind ordinarily carried on for profit, even if the business is operated on a cooperative basis or produces only sufficient income to be self-sustaining.

      FAIL!

  • mixed signals (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Jeek Elemental (976426) on Thursday September 10, 2009 @03:11PM (#29381725)

    http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/09/linux-foundation-to-microsoft-stop-secretly-attacking-linux.ars [arstechnica.com]

    While I dont think theres some grand plan to kill open source, I see absolutely no reason to trust MS at all.
    Even if Ballmer swears on a stack of dried lawyers, that means nothing tomorrow if someone else gets the job.

    The MS engineers probably mean well, but have no say in the end.

    And ofcourse theres all the crap theyve pulled in the past, should this just be forgiven?

  • Forget about the ideological wars surrounding open source for a moment. The simple fact of the matter is that open source saves significant amounts of time and money for developers, regardless of the license used for the code itself or on the platform it is developed for. As we all know, developers (developers developers) are central to Microsoft's business success. This new foundation can only improve the Windows application ecosystem, so it makes perfect sense for more than just tax reasons.
  • Microsoft's employee guidelines explicitly prohibit not only participation in FOSS projects, but even looking at the code. FOSS libraries (with very few exceptions, e.g. Zlib) are strictly off limits. As a matter of fact, every use of FOSS code, even in binary form, has to be cleared with Legal, even if the library is in broad use in some other product. And if you're a mere peon, they will reject your request, since this is the easiest thing they can do, and you will have to spend months rolling your own.

    Es

  • by davmoo (63521)

    Considering how they continue to attack Linux and open source, will anyone take them seriously?

    Are some of you people really this fucking stupid? Of course Microsoft attacks Linux and Open Source. That is part of their competition. Just like they attack Apple. That's what businesses do. Apple, Open Source and Linux attack Microsoft back just as hard (and most of the time with just as much fud).

    Its like you people expect Microsoft to produce an ad that says "Our software isn't perfect and Open Source mi

  • by ClosedSource (238333) on Thursday September 10, 2009 @03:42PM (#29382017)

    "That's right, the company that is still banging the patent drum against open source now has its own 501(c)(6) open source foundation."

    Taking a few profitless applications from the bone pile and making them open source while patenting everything else like crazy was IBM's idea. Another example of non-innovation by Microsoft.

  • Believe it or not, there is a vast world of non-linux developers out tehre - people who have no interest in developing for linux - who actually are interested in building and using oSS Windows tools. People will take them seriously, and they'll meet with a fairly large amount of success amongst windows-only developers.

Are we running light with overbyte?

Working...