Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft

Microsoft Reduces Shared Source Licenses 164

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the slowly-becoming-more-geek-friendly dept.
UltimaGuy writes to tell us eWeek is reporting that Microsoft will be reducing the number of licenses that it will use for its Shared Source Initiative. Instead of more than 10 different licenses they are aiming for just three core licenses. The first license format, Ms-PL (Microsoft Permissive License), is similar to the BSD license while the second, Ms-CL (Microsoft Community License), is based on the Mozilla Public License. The third format, Ms-RL (Microsoft Reference License), "has no open-source alternative and is a reference-only license that allows licensees to view source code in order to gain a deeper understanding of the inner workings of Microsoft technology."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Reduces Shared Source Licenses More

Microsoft Reduces Shared Source Licenses

Comments Filter:

  • Except that there are 4 licenses... (Score:4, Informative)

    by Benanov ( 583592 ) <brian...kemp@@@member...fsf...org> on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @01:16PM (#13828077) Journal
    From TFW:

    "Microsoft has created a limited version, the Microsoft Limited Permissive License (Ms-LPL), of this license to be used for restricting usage to the Windows platform only. The platform restriction is a measure that Microsoft, as a commercial software provider, may choose for a particular source code release in order to enable positive interaction with Windows-based developers. This version of the license will be employed on a case-by-case basis based upon commercial considerations."

    Limited but Permissive. Insert 1984 newspeak reference here.

    And they add this limitation as a benefit! Whee.

    I'm so jaded I'm not even going to read the terms--I'm just going to stay far far away from them. Not even interested.

    • I mean...5. (Score:3, Informative)

      by Benanov ( 583592 )
      Okay, actually there are 5. There's a Limited Community License too: "Microsoft has created a limited version, the Microsoft Limited Community License (Ms-LCL), of this license to be used for restricting usage to the Windows platform only. The platform restriction is a measure that Microsoft, as a commercial software provider, may choose for a particular source code release in order to enable positive interaction with Windows-based developers. This version of the license will be employed on a case-by-case
      • The are FOUR LIGHTS!...I mean...Licenses
        • Or you can live in comfort, with good food and warm clothing... women as you desire them (virtual, of course)... allowed to pursue your studies of source code and operating systems.

          It's up to you. A life of ease... of reflection and unlimited access to Microsoft source code...

          And all you have to do is just one little thing... it's nothing really...
          • I was a bit frightened that I understood the "4 lights" reference.

            I find the fact that you could quote all that VERY frightening. :-)

            Please tell me you had to look it up somewhere.....
    • are fear, uncertainty, doubt, and an almost fanatical devotion to to Bill Gates.

  • If these are really BSD and MPL style (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @01:16PM (#13828086)
    then I look forward to seeing entries for them on GNU's list of "GPL-Compatible, Free Software Licenses".

    • I doubt it. GPL or GPL-compatible philosophy is basically "you can do whatever you want with the source". I believe MS licenses will state "here is what you can do with the source".

      • Re:If these are really BSD and MPL style (Score:4, Insightful)

        by murphyslawyer ( 534449 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @01:36PM (#13828337) Homepage
        I doubt it. GPL or GPL-compatible philosophy is basically "you can do whatever you want with the source"

        That's not really true - Do What You Want with the source code is a BSD philosophy. GPL is more of an All Software Should Be Open Source philosophy and it trys to enforce that.

        • "GPL is more of an All Software Should Be Open Source philosophy"

          How so?

          I think it's more like a "Here's my work, do whatever. But don't try to sell it closed source, bitch."

          The GPL doesn't say anything about -all- software, or philosophy. Perhaps that's the goal of the people that WROTE the GPL, but the GPL itself is no such thing.

          If you don't want to use it, you simply can't stand on the shoulders of someone else's work that is. It's that simple.
          • GPL is not about "Open Source", whatever that means today.
            The GPL is the license used by the Free Software Foundation, as a tool in their idea that software should be free (not just open source, actually free, as in "freedom", freedom to use, to share, to improve, and to share improvements), and it is actually purposely restrictive achieving the goal of being incompatible with proprietary software licenses, which it's supposed to "fight".

            The GPL is just a license, not a political statement, so it just stat
      • you can do whatever you want with the source

        Except relicense it with anything other than the GPL, and except keeping your modifications closed source. Ironically quite restrictive, compared MS-PL.

        • Except relicense it with anything other than the GPL, and except keeping your modifications closed source. Ironically quite restrictive, compared MS-PL.

          You don't have to distribute your changes unless you redistribute your changed version. I don't see any MS licenses that allow you to relicense their code.

      • Re:If these are really BSD and MPL style (Score:5, Insightful)

        by 2short ( 466733 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @01:43PM (#13828407)
        No, that's the BSD license. With BSD licensed code, you can do whatever you want with it. One of the things you can do with it is include it in a project you then release under the GPL (or any licence you like); therefore the BSD license is GPL compatible, and so will the MS one be if it is really BSD like. The GPL quite clearly does not let you do whatever you want with the code: you cannot release it under a different license.

      • Re:If these are really BSD and MPL style (Score:4, Insightful)

        by OrangeTide ( 124937 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @01:46PM (#13828442) Homepage Journal
        GPL is restrictive, with the purpose of preserving Open Source. GPL philosophy is basically "You may do what you wish with this, as long as anything linked to it is under the same/compatible license".

        MS-PL does not seem too restrictive, if you only wish to use Microsoft's propritary OS.

        "(F) Platform Limitation- The licenses granted in sections 2(A) & 2(B) extend only to the software or derivative works that you create that run on a Microsoft Windows operating system product."

        I would probably say MS-PL's philosophy is: "You can do anything you want with this, as long as it does not dilute our empire"
    • The FSF and open source organizations tend to be fairly rational about that sort of thing: when companies change their behavior, they are treated accordingly. Apple used to be boycotted by many free software supporters because Apple tried to monopolize the GUI with their look-and-feel lawsuits. When that was over, the boycot was dropped. It wasn't even that Apple management saw the light--they probably didn't--they simply lost the case and that was it.

    • Yeah, they don't seem bad. (Score:5, Informative)

      by pavon ( 30274 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @01:45PM (#13828435)
      I don't see anything in the Ms-PL and Ms-CL that would prevent them from meeting the definition of Free Software, so I would definitely expect them to get on the list. I was also pleasantly surprised to see how short and straight-forward the actual texts of the licenses are.

      The limited version of the licenses (Ms-LPL, and Ms-LCL) are definitely not free software as the limit their use to a single operating system, and of course the Ms-RL isn't even close to being free software, so it won't be on there.

      As for GPL compatibility, that is a more difficult question, and is more dependent on legal details than differences in philosophy. IANAL, but I'd guess that they are not GPL compatible because of the Patent Litigation Clause:

      (D) If you begin patent litigation against Microsoft over patents that you think may apply to the software (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit), your license to the software ends automatically.

      This is a restriction that is not in the GPL, and the GPL has a clause that you cannot place any restrictions on the user beyond what is listed in the GPL. It should be noted that the Free Software Foundation is not opposed to a clause like this, and are in fact considering adding one to the next version of the GPL.

      So, by my interpretation, they have technical incompatibilities with the GPL which may go away with the next version of the GPL.

      • I forgot to add. (Score:3, Insightful)

        by pavon ( 30274 )
        One thing in particular that I was glad to see was the absence of any unbalanced vendor rights that exist in many open source licenses created for commercial use. For example, the Netscape Public License requires you to give any changes that you make back to Netscape, regardless of whether you redistribute the changes. Furthermore, it requires that you give Netscape permission to use the changes in proprietary, binary-only products for which they don't release the source.

        However the Ms-PL and Ms-CL do not g
    • All the licences have an MPL-ish patent clause whereby patent litigation terminates both the patent grant and the copyright grant. Consequently none of them are compatible with GPL v2.

  • Yes, that's it (Score:2, Funny)

    by alfrin ( 858861 )

    Let's take every chance we have to attempt and /. Microsoft's servers..

  • We need to reduce number of open source licenses (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @01:17PM (#13828105)
    We need to reduce number of open source licenses as well. It is becoming harder and harder to answer questions about what licenses are cross-compatible. For example, the Sakai Project, a major undertaking from UMich, Indiana, Stanford, MIT, et al uses a new Educational Community License. Why?! Have we not defined the BSD space well enough with modified BSD and MIT licenses? Now, you see people asking questions about GPL compatability with this new license and no one has answers...

    • No One has answers? (Score:5, Informative)

      by brunes69 ( 86786 ) <`gro.daetsriek' `ta' `todhsals'> on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @01:26PM (#13828209)
      Or no one is asking? It is pretty obvious to me that this license is not GPL compatable, and I am no lawyer. All you have to do is read it. These two provisions make it impossible:

      Notice of any changes or modifications to the Original Work, including the date the changes were made.

      Any modifications of the Original Work must be distributed in such a manner as to avoid any confusion with the Original Work of the copyright holders.

      A software licensed under the GPL does not have to provide notice of any changes made from the original work. SO this makes it non-compatable.

      As for the second clause, it i so vague I don't even know how it could be enforced.

      • > All you have to do is read it.

        Good advice, I suggest you take it. The first provision you quote is lifted straight from the GPL section 2A:

        Notice of any changes or modifications to the Original Work, including the date the changes were made.
    • That's easy: just don't use projects with licenses you don't understand.

      Generally, if it isn't covered by GPL, LGPL, X11, BSD, or Artistic, I don't use it.
    • There are many OS licenses, but the only ones that count are the BSD, GPL and possibly LGPL. There's no general one for "patches-only" that I know of, so possibly the QPL deserves its own category. Projects that choose their own license, unless there's a very pressing reason to take notice I'll simply ignore their code. If there's a real improvement in the license I'll look at it, but I don't have the time or inclination to work out why everyone's GPL-like license is supposed to be better and what it allows
    • We can create a micro-license which people can load modules to add more clauses to it.
  • "...Now distributed under the MSPL..."

    the day will come

  • Mixed feelings (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Bogtha ( 906264 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @01:23PM (#13828186)

    On the one hand, these licenses are a good thing. For example, Internet Explorer has a mysterious "hasLayout" feature that screws with CSS development. For years it went undocumented apart from a couple of obscure references in MSDN documentation. If Internet Explorer had been released under one of these "look but don't touch" licenses, we would at least have been able to figure it out for ourselves.

    On the other hand, this type of license reduces the pressure for real openness and shared code. This type of license will undoubtedly be seen as an alternative to a real open-source license, and offers an easy way out to organisations that might otherwise have opened up their source.

    In any case, the BSD-style license sounds decent enough, it's just the "look but don't touch" licenses I'm wary of.

    • What makes you think that Microsoft will release the code of any of its core products under this "look but don't touch" license? Microsoft has only released licenses, not any code under any of these licenses. I bet you Microsoft will never release the code of Windows OS, IE, MS Office Suite etc. under any such license to general public. They may use such licenses to release code to thier client and partner companies but that remains to be seen.

      Just my $0.02!

      Jalil Vaidya

      • Re:Mixed feelings (Score:2, Informative)

        by ergo98 ( 9391 )
        They may use such licenses to release code to thier client and partner companies but that remains to be seen.

        They have been doing so for years.
      • I agree 100%. I will eat roadkill the day MS allows the general public to view source code to a core product. I might add that looking at code in the absence of documentation is a really BAD thing. Documentation is the contract with the client regarding how functionality SHOULD behave. Code reveals the way functionality actually DOES behave, and ought not be interpreted as a contract for an obvious reason - you won't be able to ever change your code if your code is your contract. There are also obvious

      • Re:Mixed feelings (Score:3, Informative)

        by DaHat ( 247651 )
        Microsoft has only released licenses, not any code under any of these licenses.

        Incorrect, they do so and have done so for years.

        I could be wrong... but no part of 'release' means 'to the world at large'... Microsoft has been making the Windows source code available to various colleges and companies for years under rather tight control because they don't want (for obvious reasons) the world at large to have access to it.

        Don't believe me? Just take a look at a list of current licensees [microsoft.com].
    • > On the other hand, this type of license reduces the pressure for real openness and shared
      > code. This type of license will undoubtedly be seen as an alternative to a real open-source
      > license, and offers an easy way out to organisations that might otherwise have opened up
      > their source.

      Actually that sort of look but don't touch license should almost be the default. Except the 'don't touch' shouldn't be any more enforcable than any other EULA. You still couldn't redistribute it because of cop
    • In any case, the BSD-style license sounds decent enough...

      No! It's the worst thing they could do! The BSD license is a license to steal. Microsoft could take Microsoft code and not give back!
      • Well, they probably already have. They'd better sue themselves.

        (and thus the world is consumed by the ouroboros of hot microsoft-on-microsoft action...)
    • This is absolutely great for Microsoft shops who use the Windows API and related technologies. So often things don't work as intended, and you need to pay big $$$ to have MS debug it for you. And they aren't usually willing or capable. At my last job, you had to be stuck for at least 1 week and have had a review of the problem by the senior architect before you could call Microsoft -- it was that expensive. Often times a fails and you don't know why. Having the source code can help so much.

      Your code:

      /

    • That license is to prevent people from writing open source code. If you look at their code and then code open source they have an automatic lawsuit waiting for you.

      I would like to see MS grant a blanket patent and copyright vaiver to anybody who reads their code, until then you can simply presume it's a trap and that you should not walk into it.

  • Of course... (Score:5, Funny)

    by metamatic ( 202216 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @01:24PM (#13828194) Homepage Journal
    ...most Microsoft products will continue to be distributed under the MSBOL, the Microsoft Bend Over License.
  • To study MS source code if they release any programs' source code under the Ms-RL.

    • Please Don't (Score:2, Insightful)

      by temojen ( 678985 )
      It looks like they're trying to be able to say that (any FLOSS project) contains unauthorized MS code. Don't contaminate your brain. Litigation ensues.
    • Of course, once you look at their code, they'll sue you for violating the license if you ever write a single line of code in the future, claiming it resembles their code (even if only in the sense you used the same character set).

      Never trust anyone who says you can see something secret but only if you agree to a license that says you'll never use the information you've seen. No good can possibly come of it.

    • AFAIK, any university can receive the source code to MS Windows under a restrive, look but don't talk, touch, or take license / NDA like the Ms-RL. Here is a list of colleges [microsoft.com] that do. But, I wouldn't touch that code with a 15 foot stick. I don't want to know what their source does in case they ever decide that something I am doing was "inspired" by it.

  • Uh.. yeah (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    "Our new 'look but don't touch' license has no open source equivalent!" Yeah. That's because if any equivalent to this license existed, it wouldn't be open source. Idiot.
    • So they point out that their license is different from an open source license, rather than try to pretend that it's the same thing, and you criticize them? Call me crazy, but aren't they clarifying the very thing that Shared Source has taken flak around here for?

      MS could cure cancer and people would still bitch.

  • FSF Europe's comment (Score:5, Informative)

    by hkl387 ( 565152 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @01:29PM (#13828248)

    Free Software Foundation Europe has already released an early comment on the issue, cautiously welcomming some of the new licenses:

    http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/press-release/ 2005q4/000120.html [fsfeurope.org]
  • That's an odd one. But on face value it seems MS is willing to share some more of source code without actually allowing people to modify/use them. That will help in a sense of compatibility - make more 3rd parties compatible with MS, but not MS compatible with 3rd parties/standards.
    • The've been having the users beta test their software for years. It's the next logical step to have the users do the actual bug hunt as well.
    • If you haven't heard about this already, then just think about for half a second. Microsoft lets you see code but won't let you modify or use it. This is beneficial how? Because you know you can be accused later on of stealing code from them, to use on your own project.

      This is why the Mono people tell everyone who wants to help to stay away from Rotor and other MS stuff that's released under the shared source licenses, because they can probably be accused by MS of stealing code from those projects.

  • But doesn't limiting your open source licenses seem kind of counter productive? It seems Microsoft's initiative is more of a way to get their name out there as "Those guys that did that" rather than to actually commit a change in the way things are done.

  • Code Review (Score:5, Informative)

    by Cardoe ( 563677 ) <cardoe@g[ ]oo.org ['ent' in gap]> on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @01:41PM (#13828385) Homepage
    We probably will see a bunch of shared sourced or open sourced Microsoft apps in the next few years but there are a couple of considerations that must first be evaluated. First Microsoft is a large corporate entity with a certain culture, that culture needs to be changed. We're slowly seeing the changes today. You can see this when a guy at the bottom contributes to an open source project and his boss' boss' boss' boss' boss goes on record with the media saying that "Open Source kills babies". The evolution in their corporate culture is slowly happening but stills needs some time to trickle upwards. Right now the execs see open source as the new catch phrase and are trying to show off that they know what it is and they are catering to customers. (i.e. the hiring of Daniel Robbins, of Gentoo Linux fame, for Linux projects).

    Secondly they need to go through a massive code review for two reasons primarily because the legal team knows Microsoft is everyone's favorite (easiest??) target for a lawsuit (this doesn't mean a victory... just to initiate). They need to know where every single line of code came from and what are their rights to that code before they can open the code up. Because you know the first thing the lawyers will do is try to find someway to sue them for stealing source code. They need to guard themselves against "SCO vs IBM" type lawsuits.

    The other reason they need to complete this code review is because they need to track down and fix as many of the security holes in their software that they can do in a reasonable amount of time. Otherwise this code will be used to ferret out security holes and we will see a new wave of security issues like no one has seen before, because admit it, Microsft products do run on the majority of machines today. The media will portray this as Microsoft handed the hackers the tools and Microsoft will see a lot of their business dry up because companies won't know if they are safe if they go with Microsoft. Once they release this cleaned up code, they will be able to smuggly throw it in everyone's face saying "See we're not so bad after all."

  • I'm a little surprised that Microsoft is giving in here. I know they're somewhat cautious of letting too many "under the hood" details out the door due to the high cost of supporting hacks into calls/code that isn't guaranteed to exist in future releases. It seems like the "look but don't touch" license will only increase the temptation for developers to plug into these hackish solutions, since there will be no support for source modification to incorporate a real solution.
  • How can they limit the number of licenses when I'm still reading the EULA and all the links to the legal exceptions that have me promise my first-born son to Bill G if I don't walk widdershins around the source code and genuflect to Redmond three times a day?

  • Three New Licenses in Brief (Score:3, Funny)

    by HairyNips(*)(*) ( 903978 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @01:50PM (#13828489)
    Depending upon which source code you see:

    1) You are Bill Gates' bitch forever.
    2) You are Steve Ballmer's bitch forever.
    3) You are Steve Ballmer's bitch forever and you have to watch him do the monkey dance.

  • MS makes alot of things similar (Score:4, Funny)

    by Deternal ( 239896 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @01:51PM (#13828501) Homepage
    "is similar to the BSD license while the second, Ms-CL (Microsoft Community License), is based on the Mozilla Public License"

    Yes, just like MS Html is similar to html, MS .NET is similar to Java, MS Active Directory is similar to Novell Directory except not really ldap compliant, MS Java is similar to java etc.

    About time they started making similar licenses too :)

  • I get it! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Sheepdot ( 211478 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @01:52PM (#13828506) Journal
    What it says:
    Microsoft Reference License (Ms-RL) -- The Ms-RL is a reference-only license that allows licensees to view source code in order to gain a deeper understanding of the inner workings of a Microsoft technology. It does not allow for modification or redistribution. This license is used primarily for technologies such as development libraries.

    What it means:
    Microsoft Reference License (Ms-RL) -- The Ms-RL is an open invitation to a future lawsuit. You get to look at our code, and we get to sue your ass when you create something that does a similar function. Since we will have proof of who has viewed our code from user registrations, we'll start scanning open source community websites for names of those users here in a few years. If you can't pay us, it's okay, we'll just take over your project for you.

    • Re:I get it! (Score:4, Interesting)

      by 2short ( 466733 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @02:42PM (#13829012)

      I can understand your concern, but actually the Reference license makes a lot of sense for things like development libraries. If I'm getting some unexpected behavior from some MS lib, it's nice to be able to debug into it and see what's going on. I can't modify it, but I wasn't going to anyway; I've got to make my code work with the unmodified lib that will be on my users machines.

      Besides, having seen code that does something, then writing code to do that thing does not put you on the losing end of a copyright suit. The "gotcha" you fear would not really work. At the least, it hasn't; The RL license is not new, there's a ton of code out there under it, and has been for a while. If the lawsuits you fear were happening, they'd certainly be making news on slashdot.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • What? I can't believed they dropped the Ms-WI (Microsoft Wife Licnense)

    Restrictive license for Wives/Girlfriends that only allows online purchases from Victorias Secret [victoriassecret.com], Flora Lee [floraleeproducts.com], and Think Geek [thinkgeek.com]!

    The Nerve!!

  • Danger (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Brutal_One ( 682848 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @01:59PM (#13828582)
    The danger with the reference license is it then let's Microsoft say that an alleged copyright infringer had the access to see their code and copy it. As far as my knowledege of copyright goes, it seems that the alleged need only have a similar product and access to the original, whether they copied it or not, to prove infringement. Infringement does not have to be line for line copying either, even if you change lines here and there, copyright ownership assigns the copyright on the original as well as any derivatives. Where I a code monkey on an OSS project, I would definitely stay away from any code that Microsoft might throw out there to avoid any issue.

    • Re:Danger (Score:3, Informative)

      by 2short ( 466733 )
      "As far as my knowledege of copyright goes, it seems that the alleged need only have a similar product and access to the original, whether they copied it or not, to prove infringement"

      Your knowledge of copyright does not go far enough. While the typical slashdot understanding seems to be that if you ever saw someone elses code, anything you ever write belongs to them, this is not actually the case.
      You are right that infringement does not have to be line for line copying; but it does have to be cop

  • No open-source alternative (Score:3, Funny)

    by Citizen of Earth ( 569446 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @02:04PM (#13828634)
    Ms-RL (Microsoft Reference License), "has no open-source alternative and is a reference-only license"

    However, it does have a strip-club alternative of "look but don't touch".
  • personaly i don't care that much about looking at windows source.. i just want to read the comments // this damn thing never worked to start with - didn't fix it.. just wanted to note it
  • allows licensees to view source code in order to gain a deeper understanding of the inner workings of Microsoft technology.
    In other words, you are "free" to have your mind irreparably damaged.

  • But will they be USED? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by starseeker ( 141897 ) * on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @02:25PM (#13828851) Homepage
    These are just three more text files unless they are used to release source code. Obviously the last one isn't of interest - will they ever use the other two for anything non-trivial?
  • MS-PL says: "(F) Platform Limitation- The licenses granted in sections 2(A) & 2(B) extend only to the software or derivative works that you create that run on a Microsoft Windows operating system product." It doesn't say that only run on Windows. Can the code therefore be included in cross-platform solutions?
    • IANL, but wouldn't that be a moot point if you're distributing binaries since cross-platform binaries for Windows don't exist?
    • No, the MS-PL does not say that. The MS-LPL ("Limited Permissive License" - hah) says that.
      And what it says is basically "You can use stuff we release under this license only under Windows. You are not allowed to include this in code that executes on a platform other than Windows." It all rests in the interpretation of that little word "run", and Microsoft's interpretation is always all-inclusive, i.e. by "run" they don't mean "it can execute", they mean "it exclusively executes".

  • Latest News (Score:2, Funny)

    by njvic ( 614279 )
    In news just to hand, a further Microsoft meeting has determined that the new licenses will collectively be known as Revised Microsoft Licenses, or RMS Licenses for short...
  • The third format, Ms-RL (Microsoft Reference License), "has no open-source alternative and is a reference-only license that allows licensees to view source code in order to gain a deeper understanding of the inner workings of Microsoft technology."

    Umm, duh! Because what you describe is the exact opposite of the definition of "open," so how could there possibly be an open source equivelant to such an ass-backwards, harmful concept?

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close