30 Nov
2002
30 Nov
'02
1:27 p.m.
If memory serves me right, Mahesh T Pai wrote:
But it is bad for programers, who 'share' the
source with M$, coz M$
will not permit to *modify*, *improve* or *re-use* the s/w. There is no
scope for sharing with your neighbour - you need to sign a
non-disclosure agreement.
The *shared* part of the license is that there is no non-disclosure
agreement ... And the shared code is not available for commercial
purposes .. So you can't deploy it for your product ...
You, will still have to pay for two copies for using
the same piece of
s/w in your office and home computers. Even if you have one comp. in
the living room and another in the bed room, you still have to pay two
license fees.
No... Shared source CLI is available for free download ... And the program
distributed under Shared Source is *NOT* the original program .. It is sort
of a stripped down version of .NET without the GUI components or the server
parts ... (or ActiveX.)
So shared source is useful only for educational purposes... but from Rhys'
opinion it isn't that well written either .... Our interpreter is topping
about 70% of their JIT performance which is pathetic ...
But It's sort of like MS saying "Hey, .NET is not monopolizing with windows
... we're even *giving* out copies for *free* for the BSDs too ... " to
a future Antitrust judge ...
Gopal
--
The difference between insanity and genius is measured by success