Fwd: MS definition of "open source"

------ Forwarded message ------
From: Dwight Johnson <dwj(at)linuxtoday(dot)com>
Subject: MS definition of "open source" -- opportunity for action
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 11:53:52 -0700 (PDT)
Reply-To: Dwight Johnson <dwj(at)linuxtoday(dot)com>

PC Week, "Microsoft to go open source? Not likely"
http://www.zdnet.com/pcweek/stories/news/0,4153,1014327,00.html

>Muth said comments made by Microsoft President Steve Ballmer and
>other company executives at the Windows Hardware Engineering
>Conference in Los Angeles earlier this week were interpreted without
^^^^^^^^
>having a clear understanding of how Microsoft defines "open source."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Muth said the term "open source" has a variety of meanings, and the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>company's definition differs from the one used to describe Unix and
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>the increasingly popular Linux -- in which a worldwide community of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>developers is able to freely extend, modify and commercialize versions
>of the software."

>... its definition of "open source code licenses" means making the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>technology available to only a select group of computer scientists,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>researchers, original equipment manufacturers and engineering
>partners, who are offered the code under a set of restrictions that
>prohibit them from commercializing the technology in any way, Muth
>said.

Dwight
--
http://linuxtoday.com