

To Microsoft, Open Source means "Windows Encumbered" - bensummers
http://opensource.org/Microsoft-Open-Source

======
cubicle67
Forget the opensource argument. I have no problem at all with people
developing for a single OS, nor paying for software, nor not having access to
the source. What I _do_ have a problem with, however, is data lock-in.

I don't mind paying you to use your software/wesite, but I object very much to
you then acting as if that's _your_ data. It's not.

Bring on Open Data, and make sure it applies to web apps as well

~~~
emehrkay
I agree with you, but I want to add that even data lock in is fine if you let
your users know beforehand (if they're not forward thinking enough to not use
the product, it is on them). What isn't fine is when you try to make your
format the "open" standard.

~~~
roc
I disagree. Data lock-in is flat-out evil. Proprietary formats and stores are
fine, but everything needs to let data back out in open formats.

Every app should have some sort of "I'd like to take my ball and go home"
bulk-export.

Because no matter what you tell users up front, they won't read it. Most
people simply assume reasonableness.

Pretending otherwise is just seeking to take advantage of human nature.

------
kogir
Actually, open source just means open source. The source is available, can be
modified, and can be redistributed. Opensource.org even lists the MS-PL ans
MS-RL licenses as open source.

Free software (as in beer), is a whole different matter entirely. Microsoft
has only claimed to be releasing free software when that is indeed the case.

As a developer for the Windows platform, I've never been mislead or under any
illusions that anything is free. In fact, understanding the licensing and
pricing was critical before making the decision to develop on the platform.

Do I still appreciate that the source for ASP.Net MVC is available?
Definitely. I even ran a fork of it for a time.

------
jimfl
The term "open" is starting to suffer the same fate as the term "organic."
Soon, your local well-intentioned hacker won't be able to call their software
open, because they can't afford to do the federal filing or get the USDS
inspection.

------
zppx
I do not think MS has any responsability to port their applications to any
operating system, it's possible to develop open source software for just one
operating system, such as the various good applications that only runs on
linux (Valgrind comes to mind) but not on other free unix-like systems.

------
anujseth
A sincere question, why is the onus on microsoft to make sure its .net stuff
runs on "one of Google's new fangled hand-held devices"?

Also, how is "They continue to attack, with legal action or threats, any open
source that competes with any of their core products." any different from what
other companies do ? How do you think google would react if some one was to
brand and name a search engine similar to theirs ? What about Red-Hat ? If I
was to take their distro and start selling it as Red-Hat Enhanced Pro Super
Cool version what you think their response would be.

The way I see it, its easy for companies like google to beat the open drum
because it does not hurt their core business, microsoft however sees direct
impact on revenue.

~~~
zppx
Have you even heard of CentOS?

~~~
anujseth
Yes I have. Thats not what I meant, my point was if you use any company's work
to build a product that eats into their own core revenue, they will go after
you no matter how open they claim to be.

------
zokier
Sounds a lot like what RMS called Java Trap

<http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html>

