Frederick Noronha wrote:
Interestingly, Microsoft's Tarun Anand also speaks
on 'Shared Source:
Implementation of .NET'.
Nice. Me, I tried digging the m$ site on Shared Source. I digged and
digged and digged and digged and clicked on link and clicked on a link
which said 'more info' and clicked on link which said 'more info' and
clicked on link which said 'more info' and ............... there was
more and more and more and more and more and more and more on 'benefits'
of Shared Source; they told that you will get the access to the source
code if you 'agree' but the license was not available to read ....
Just a query, how does this concept of 'shared
source' compare with
GNU/Free Software or Open Source licences?
Access to code will enable you to write programs which work better with
the s/w. That is good for M$, coz more people can write programs which
integrate better with M$ programs.
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
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
In fact, the concept of shared source is more dangerous than not having
any access at all - coz. there are limited ways of implementing concepts
in coding ( caveat - I am not a programmer ).
If you merely 'see' a piece of code, you are prone to use the same
methods that is natural human conduct. (Much the same way youngesters
imitate film stars and their fashions). That will expose you to
copyright infringement; coz you cannot re-use. In effect, you become a
Shared source is another way of saying "my code is my code; your code is
Mahesh T. Pai.