At 10:13 PM 24/02/2005 +0100, you wrote:

>marius popa wrote:
> > it's shared source (look but don't touch)
> >
> > "Will the software industry's wave of open-source databases spill onto
> > Microsoft's turf? Perhaps. The software giant is considering making the
> > source code for its SQL Server database available to customers,
> > according to Tom Rizzo, director of product management in Microsoft's
> > SQL Server unit."
> >
> >
> http://news.com.com/Microsoft+ponders+open-source+database/2100-7344_3-5587451.html
>
>IMHO, M$ completely missed the point of open source (or didn't want
>to). It is not the ability to be able to read the source, but to take
>it and improve it. But look at this, it's a ripoff. You can look at
>the source, find some bug, propose the fix. M$ might accept it.
>Therefore you increase the value of their project (which you paid for
>in the first place), but they keep all rights on it.
>
>The other thing is that open source gives you a sense of security that
>even if the original developers go away, you can still hire someone to
>maintain the code. If M$ decides to abandon the product, having the
>sources doesn't mean anything to you since you don't that the right to
>alter it.
>
>--
>Milan Babuskov
>http://abrick.sourceforge.net

Actually, Dvorak has one or two interesting insights into the "MS-Linux"
scheme. OK, a lot of the time Dvorak smokes funny cigarettes, but I do
think he's got a point there...

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1768170,00.asp


Helen