One minute ago Microsoft made one of its first "open source" moves under the new Microsoft Reference License: the team in Redmond announced they'll make some .NET libraries available. I say "open source" because to me, open source means you can easily access a .tar or .zip of the code. Microsoft's effort is a bit more cumbersome.

Full story »
leo's picture
Created by leo 10 years 15 weeks ago
Category: Opposition   Tags:
akf's picture


10 years 15 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago


It is not Open Source. The term

It is not Open Source. The term Open Source has a well defined meaning, and that license doesn't fit that meaning at all. It is not one of the licenses they submitted to the OSI (and the OSI even seem to reject them, without further changes).
This license is clearly not Open Source at all. You can't even redistribute the code, let alone use it in other projects. So it is even dangerous to look at the code if you are a programmer...