Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Cergorach" data-source="post: 1500545" data-attributes="member: 725">Let's assume that you mean Microsoft, Microsoft was one of the biggest opponents of the open source philosophy. Not anymore, it's finally seen the value of opening up some of it's source code. Why? Because it can actually save them money, lots of money. They let a comunity help develop and debug a product and doesn't have to spend the resources to do it themselves. They might not use the GPL or one of it's close relatives, but it is a step in the right direction. It wouldn't suprise me in the least that at one time MS might actually make Windows open source, just not under the GPL.But please bear in mind that although the GPL is open source, open source isn't just the GPL. There are many other types of licenses that are more restrictive, but still serve the open source philosophy (opening up source code for inspection and discussion).The only real anology we can make is that OGL ~ GPL and not OGL ~ Open Source.[edit]*wonders if sigil is an ai*Well said Sigil![/edit]</blockquote>