Hello, George Bonser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 5 Nov 1998, Jiri Baum wrote: ... [extra level of indenting still Jiri] > > > While this appears at first sight to be a classic play out of the > > > Microsoft handbook, there is a subtle but very important > > > distinction. By releasing the source code, the program is ... > But Microsoft must, at all costs, prevent any extention or modification by > the user that results in any additional utility without additional income > to Microsoft.
Oops - what I meant was that this should be a correction to the explanation of OSS in the memo. Ie, what they are up against. I wasn't expecting MS to turn around and say 'here's the code'. > They might not also want to reveal code that detects > competing products and sabotages them or gives misleading error messages. *Misleading* error messages? I can't remember the last time I saw one... Most of them seem to be content-free. (Does a misleading config option count? The other day I turned off 'enable mobile device connection', and it grabbed the port anyway. Of course, the other program didn't say what the problem is, just 'unable to communicate'.) > their developers are payroll, Open > Source developers are, in most cases, not. Probably doesn't make that much of a difference - if their software was the best, people would be willing to pay extra for it. Jiri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
