Microsoft goes open source - almost

[laxmanb]

Have you read this bit of news yet?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/21/microsoft_api_open/


Microsoft goes open source - almost
Gentle Ballmer
By John Oates → More by this author
Published Thursday 21st February 2008 15:47 GMT
Find out how your peers are dealing with Virtualization

Microsoft later today will present itself as a kinder, gentler software maker. The company is expected to announce a broad change in its development policies.

The Register has obtained information out of Europe that Microsoft will open up all of its APIs and protocols around the companies' major products such as the Windows operating system and SQL Server. In addition, Microsoft will vow to be more open about its standards body work and more willing to let users move their data from Microsoft-based products to rival code.

These moves will include being able to move content out of applications such as Office and Sharepoint. In addition, Microsoft will publish specifications for software layers such as Samba online.

All of the major Microsoft brass will be on hand to provide more details, including CEO Steve Ballmer, chief lawyer Brad Smith, server SVP Bob Muglia and chief software architect Ray Ozzie

Microsoft's policies around its APIs have long been a point of controversy, cropping up during the company's anti-trust trial and in repeated gripes from rivals and customers. ®

[MaximB]

It sounds like a big joke to me ... specially "Microsoft will vow to be more open about its standards" ....LOL.

[aaaantoine]

Oh noes! The cancer has spread to my company!"

Surely their open specifications will be riddled with lines such as "behaves like Microsoft %PRODUCT %OBSOLETE_VERSION when %EVENT happens".

But, if true, there are a couple of really important implications regarding this.

1. It will be easier to program an application that properly handles SQL Server management, which means fewer visits to VirtualBox for me.
2. The slight possibility of opening up Direct X.

[jrusso2]

This just does not sound right to me. I will wait until I see more about this posted before I comment on it. I still don't know if this is for real

[LaRoza]

New from Microsoft! VapourPromises: To accomodate the every popular VapourWare!

[cnr437]

future is open but not for microsoft :)

[PriceChild]

Hmmm theregister... I'll believe it when I see it.

[Lostincyberspace]

Microsoft is stupid now that they have released the code kind of it will be so much easier to find exploits in the system, and since only a few people can make patches still they will be used by many hackers and other bad guys (and girls).

[dca]

Hmmmm.

http://www.news.com/8301-13860_3-9876029-56.html?tag=nefd.lede

[Borbus]

Microsoft is stupid now that they have released the code kind of it will be so much easier to find exploits in the system, and since only a few people can make patches still they will be used by many hackers and other bad guys (and girls).

Yeah, Windows will become as insecure as Linux and FreeBSD... Oh wait...

[LaRoza]

Yeah, Windows will become as insecure as Linux and FreeBSD... Oh wait...

Doesn't work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_through_obscurity

[phrostbyte]

I'll believe it when I see it. Somehow I doubt anything useful will be opened up.

[solitaire]

If you get rerally bored with your Ubuntu scrips have a read here


http://www.microsoft.com/interop/osp/default.mspx

http://www.microsoft.com/interop/ITDMs/access.aspx

:D

[kevin11951]

Have you read this bit of news yet?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/21/microsoft_api_open/

it says they will be releasing their API's, does that mean WINE will start to work better.

[Bartender]

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2008/feb08/02-21ExpandInteroperabilityPR.mspx?rss_fdn=Press%20Re leases

From Ballmer's mouth -
“For the past 33 years, we have shared a lot of information with hundreds of thousands of partners around the world and helped build the industry, but today’s announcement represents a significant expansion toward even greater transparency. Our goal is to promote greater interoperability, opportunity and choice for customers and developers throughout the industry by making our products more open and by sharing even more information about our technologies.”

EVEN GREATER transparency, and EVEN MORE sharing than before

whatever

[DrMega]

It sounds like a big joke to me ... specially "Microsoft will vow to be more open about its standards" ....LOL.

I suspect this is just MS putting a positive spin on the fact that they keep getting fined by the EU for breaching competition and monopoly laws.

[fatality_uk]

No one mentioned the EU yet!! April is another anti-trust hearing in the European Commision. And now MS announces this, great timings boys, but it wont save you!!


In addition, Microsoft will publish specifications for software layers such as Samba online.
Nothing new. They have been forced to do this anyway

[adityakavoor]

April 1st has come early. :lolflag:

[richard.stallman]

It sounds like a big joke to me ... specially "Microsoft will vow to be more open about its standards" ....LOL.

+10,000. now who was saying that " Linux is a cancer"???:):confused::)

let microsoft first accept odf, instead of promoting ooxml

[mivo]

Slashdot: Microsoft Releases Office Binary Formats (http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?no_d2=1&sid=08/02/20/0420258)

[laxmanb]

Somethings better than nothing... right?? I mean lotsa peopla use Windows and Office... better interoperability with linux, solaris or whatever is definitely a step in the right direction.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/21/microsoft_goes_open/

It's more than I'd expect from MS this soon anyway...

[blazercist]

Its a trick obviously.... they have good reason... They are going to release their API's and allow devs and programmers to create interoperability then once all the work is done and integrated and everyone is happy they will sue for copyright infringement based on the code in their API's and bankrupt all the poor programmers and devs. LOL.

No seriously I'll believe it when I see it, but in their defense they are making the right steps and If I recall correctly VIsta is supposed to be their "last non-modular OS" this small step could be just a hint of what is to come in the future.

[Samueltehg33k]

microsoft hates opensource. but really thats all vista is worth it should have been released 5 years ago.

[hhhhhx]

rofl

[bash]

According to an article on the renowned german news site spiegel.de this is happening and its happening in a move to a) to avoid further trouble with the EU and b) with the goal to basically make MS products more attractive by encouriging and giving everyone the posibility to "participate".

The most intresting part in the article (link: http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/tech/0,1518,536910,00.html) was imo this one:


Damit nicht genug, kündigte das Unternehmen an, genau zu dokumentieren, welche Microsoft-Patente auf die einzelnen Kommunikationsprotokolle anzuwenden sind. Lizenzen zur Nutzung dieser Patente will der Konzern interessierten Firmen zu günstigen Preisen anbieten. Entwickler sogenannter Open-Source-Anwendungen sind von den Lizenzvereinbarungen allerdings ausgeschlossen, dürfen sämtliche Protokolle sogar kostenlos nutzen.

This says that MS will document exactly which MS patents cover which Protocoll and more importantly that OSS software will be able and allowed to use/implement all these protocoll free of charge. If they stick to this it will be quite a turn around in their strategy.

Also MS apperently wants to help inter-operability between MS and OSS products and offer help to OSS developers to get their products to work correctly with MS products.

I have to say if they keep their word and put all of this into action this could be a great chance for both MS and the open source world.

[mivo]

Well, it says that they will be able to use the patents free of charge, but it doesn't say whether there might be other conditions. We are talking about MS here, a monopolist that will not do anything without benefits for themselves -- and these benefits are the chief priority.The more charity-like MS is trying to make this sound, the more my skepticism increases.

We'll have to see how this unfolds over the next few weeks, months and years.

[DrMega]

Also MS apperently wants to help inter-operability between MS and OSS products and offer help to OSS developers to get their products to work correctly with MS products.

Thus tempting open source developers towards Windows.


I have to say if they keep their word and put all of this into action this could be a great chance for both MS and the open source world.

If their motives are pure it would be great, but I suspect they have had a meeting about the exponential growth in open source take up and are getting concerned. They have been pushed out of the web to a large extent for some time now, with something like 80% of web servers running as LAMP servers (Linux Apache PHP MySQL), and recently Linux has been gaining a growing desktop share.

I think it would be good for MS, as some of the reasons why many of us switch to open source products would suddenly apply to them as well, and those who are tentative about trying Linux would maybe have less of a reason to do so.

[prizrak]

Yeah they will open them up as they opened their new OpenXML standard.....

[stooshbunutu]

Has any one seen this story on BBC news

Basically Microsoft is being sued for not Making its software work on other OS's

Apparently some top Microsoft Software will become open source for "non-commercial use"

What does everyone think?

[Vitamin-Carrot]

this is a smart move from MS in my opinion,

time will tell though

[Vitamin-Carrot]

there are other discussions on this subject but im too lazy to find the link

[Hortinstein]

so when is my offical Linux Zune client coming out?

[original_jamingrit]

so when is my offical Linux Zune client coming out?

lol

It's funny because, I'm sure there's at least some linux users would use it. If only microsoft could find them...

[aysiu]

there are other discussions on this subject but im too lazy to find the link
I believe I've merged this thread with the appropriate other one on the same topic.

[MadsRH]

Found this link:
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2008/feb08/02-21ExpandInteroperabilityPR.mspx

[kjb34]

Interesting. I think I'll take a wait and see approach. I feel like they have some ulterior motive whether trying to help their case with EU, or something else.

[piousp]

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,142699/article.html#


OMG, please wake me up! :(

[Chame_Wizard]

If you get rerally bored with your Ubuntu scrips have a read here


http://www.microsoft.com/interop/osp/default.mspx



:D

that's lot of ............

[amingv]

When you think about it, it's always been the same: close a door, open a (windows?).

Microsoft doesn't seem to be opening it's source, but just (some) of their private standards. The way I see it works like this:

If you want to create a compatibility layer for, say, *.docx format, you can, they will not sue you.
Now, a dear MS programmer wants to create a plug-in for MS Office to open *.odt can do it too.
Neither the former nor the latter can give commercial use to it. Interoperability increases, without Microsoft having to move one finger. They get everybody off their backs.

Open Source? Maybe. Free software? Not a chance.

Of course, this is just my (short sighted) opinion. But let's wait and see...

[bonzodog]

This is just MS waking up and finally smelling the Ubuntu Coffee.

Look at how many other big software companies have opened up, and the benefits it reaped. Bill Gates Said 2 years Ago that Open Source Development was the way to go, and MS would be working on this over the coming years. Sun did it. Adobe are part way there.
Open Source IS the future, and there is no escaping it. Richard Stallman was right all along and he knew it. Open Source is the latest Big Thing on the Internet, and modern software companies know that if they want a future for their product, then they have to look at Open Source as the key model for development.

[piousp]

When you think about it, it's always been the same: close a door, open a (windows?).

Microsoft doesn't seem to be opening it's source, but just (some) of their private standards. The way I see it works like this:

If you want to create a compatibility layer for, say, *.docx format, you can, they will not sue you.
Now, a dear MS programmer wants to create a plug-in for MS Office to open *.odt can do it too.
Neither the former nor the latter can give commercial use to it. Interoperability increases, without Microsoft having to move one finger. They get everybody off their backs.

Open Source? Maybe. Free software? Not a chance.

Of course, this is just my (short sighted) opinion. But let's wait and see...

You hit the right spot there. Its M$ after all :mad:

[Tom Mann]

It's worth noting in that statement that they will open up and not sue open-source used *for non-commercial use only* in other words if you're a company you're still not allowed to use it...

[bruce89]

sudo aptitude install win32-dev win32-doc

I don't think so.

[zerhacke]

I'll believe this (they won't sue) after someone makes a docx plugin for OO and puts it on most Linux distros.

[bruce89]

I'll believe this (they won't sue) after someone makes a docx plugin for OO and puts it on most Linux distros.

Have a look at OO.o's open dialogue for "Microsoft Word 2007". Look at Gnumeric's open and save dialogues for "MS Excel 2007".

[Midwest-Linux]

Same story, different source

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/21/AR2008022101489.html

[Dwiman89]

Microsoft is starting to give a crap about its customers despite loosing market shares by becoming more open.
http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSWNAS191120080222?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0

[Knyven]

Everything is going wrong for MS nowadays, its a sinking ship, the last one was HD-DVD.

The only way it could save it now is to buy companies, buy more but a lot refused, or just embrace open source.

In other words we are winning.

[Taino]

Whenever Microsoft is involved in anything there is a "catch" to their benefit, This is Microsoft your talking about after all...

For example their attempt at taking over Yahoo is still on going and getting dirty (as usual).

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/20/BUM0V51LL.DTL&feed=rss.news

Quotes from the above article:



Microsoft Corp. is poised to try a hostile takeover of Yahoo Inc. by nominating its own slate of directors if the Sunnyvale Web portal fails to start negotiating its sale, according to a person familiar with the matter.




Unwilling to take no for an answer, the Redmond, Wash., software behemoth is preparing a hostile bid - a proxy fight - that would ratchet up what is already among Silicon Valley's most high-profile takeover sagas.




For Microsoft, trying to install a new board has its obvious advantage, aside from stacking a merger vote in the company's favor. The cost would be around $20 million to $30 million - mostly for legal and adviser fees - compared with spending billions dollars on a sweetened merger offer, according to the source, who is not authorized to speak publicly about the developments.




To initiate a proxy fight, Microsoft would have to nominate a slate of Yahoo directors by March 14, the deadline for putting forward candidates. Investors would vote on the board's makeup in June during Yahoo's annual shareholder meeting.

Unlike many companies, Yahoo's board is structured so all 10 board members come up for election at the same time. Rather than having to wait years to get a majority, Microsoft therefore could wrest control in one fell swoop.


Can we say bully tactics?

Im amazed that this kind of thing is legal in the business world, how would you feel as the founders of Yahoo to have someone come to you and bascially say "hey pal i want your company for myself and im going to do everything in my power to take it from you even to the extent of manipulating and influencing change in your board of directors and stock holders until we wrestle it from you".

Microsoft only cares about Microsoft, If they are looking to open their code up a bit and looking for some additional involvement with the opensource world it will always be a ploy to have it benefit themselves in the end more than anyone else.

[FranMichaels]

Whenever Microsoft is involved in anything there is a "catch" to their benefit, This is Microsoft your talking about after all...

True. Anyway, the catch here is that "non-commercial" use stuff. Linux qualifies as commercial and non-commercial depending on the circumstance. Same for all Free Software.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080221184924826

As for the Yahoo! business, I agree with this: Yahoo won't function as it did if it has to use Windows as a base and many talented employees will leave.
http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS8001941484.html

P.S. For those that wonder why many don't trust Microsoft... You may want to read this:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071023002351958

[Sordelka]

Microsoft doesn't do anything unless money is involved. Ponder this when you think of the whole issue.

[uberlube]

Believe it when I see it. They've got something up their sleeves.

[zenwhen]

I really do not see how this can be viewed as anything but good for the community. Also, seeing people still using "M$" in posts makes my blood boil.

Immaturity like that shines very negatively on our community.

[igknighted]

I really do not see how this can be viewed as anything but good for the community. Also, seeing people still using "M$" in posts makes my blood boil.

Immaturity like that shines very negatively on our community.

+1, I couldn't agree more (on both counts). I understand the skepticism, but if microsoft is serious about this, it is in our best interest to embrace their openness. Open source is a community, and anyone who comes to the table to contribute should be welcomed... even microsoft. The "M$" attitude in the community only sets this back.

[zmjjmz]

I agree that 'M$' is immature, although I still am kinda doubtful of this.
It seems like a distraction from the hostile takeover.
Anyways.
There are two hings that I really care about here.
A) The Office formats.
B) the Windows API.
I'm pretty sure the office formats won't stay open, but if all of the current ones do, I'm pretty sure it's just to get on the ISO. Unless I see .docx implemented in OOo and Lotus Symphony and such, I'm really not going to trust MS. (Oh, and if .***x abilities are added, we'll be getting updates to OOo, right?)
Secondly, the Windows API docs are probably going to be
a) confuzzling
b) heavily licensed with patents and such.
This will be good for Crossover and Cedega, but not for WINE, because chances are the API will have non-OSS sections, which will mean that WINE won't be able to incorporate it.

From the Washington Post article:

It also should mean the end of Microsoft's patent threats against Linux
Can someone please explain how that would happen?
It seems like they'd just sue more when a poor dev misreads the lisence and accidentally includes code they shouldn't of.

[laxmanb]

Well... since it says free for NONCOMMERCIAL use, they might still pressure Red Hat which charges support fees for its distro to pay a a royalty. And I for one, do believe linux infringes on Microsofts patents, mainly because even MS pays royalties for stuff as simple as the tabs in its GUI to a third party, So I'm sure even the smallest innovation in Windows must be patented.

[k2t0f12d]

Its perfectly clear that everything Microsoft claims they are going to do here is only because they have been forced to, and that what they have done isn't even on the same planet as the open source defination or free software. As the community grows, so will the politcal and legal difficulties. I personally don't tend to replace the "s" in Microsoft with "$", but see absolutely nothing wrong with those who want to express their contempt for Microsoft's business practices by doing so.

[Riffer]

Its perfectly clear that everything Microsoft claims they are going to do here is only because they have been forced to, and that what they have done isn't even on the same planet as the open source defination or free software. As the community grows, so will the politcal and legal difficulties. I personally don't tend to replace the "s" in Microsoft with "$", but see absolutely nothing wrong with those who want to express their contempt for Microsoft's business practices by doing so.

Agreed. They may bluster and bully and threaten to sue but they know at the end of the day they would lose. Can you imagine them sueing some OSS programmer for some so called infringement. OMG not only would they lose legally, how would it look, the giant behemoth after a poor schmoo who is doing something for free!!!

[Methuselah]

Microsoft has patented many things but if there is "prior art" those patents are null and void. IMO, microsoft really does not want to get into a patent battle with open source (esp linux); they might lose more than they gain (remember there are open source backers such as Sun and IBM with extensive patent portfolios and the existence of Open source as prior art)

So they probably realised it's futile to try to threaten open source with patents but they want to reserve to right to battle other companies on that front. Hence, the patient 'covenant' only applies to 'non-commercial' software.

I think this is about microsoft responding to the pressures and realities of the current software landscape. Open source is convenient for the end user but it is also big business these days. Many products are built around it. Java is now open source! The sum total of this world is huge and getting bigger. MS would be the one to suffer from isolating itself and refusing to engage with it or, worse yet, taking it on in battle.

So I don't know if there is any ulterior motive here other than the need to stay relevant. They have only surprised me by making such a move earlier than I thought. I was expecting MS to hold its position longer and maybe take a few more bruises.

[k2t0f12d]

Click here for a short video showing why Microsoft doesn't really want to sue over patents. (www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YExl9ojclo)

[Methuselah]

Thanks for the link.
Following the related videos brought up one that I totally agree with and echoes my post:

It's not easy being a monopoly
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hb_beDIaa1w&feature=related

[mivo]

And I for one, do believe linux infringes on Microsofts patents, mainly because even MS pays royalties for stuff as simple as the tabs in its GUI to a third party, So I'm sure even the smallest innovation in Windows must be patented.

Software patents are not recognized everywhere in the world, and Microsoft's legal situation in Europe is already extremely uncomfortable for the company. Unless absolutely necessary, and unless there is a lot of money or "power" to win, MS won't sue anyone over patents. The risk of failure (especially world.wide), of drawing unwanted, negative attention, and of looking foolish, is too high (see SCO). They don't have to prove anything to anyone presently. MS is also not in such a good position when it comes to patents.

Now, it's of course different for smaller (than MS) companies or entities in the US to sue MS or try to otherwise get money from them. It isn't the other way around, though, in my opinion.

[bash]

It said in the reports that commercial applications will have to pay a "reasonable" usage fee. This will probably upset quite few people here in the open-source community, but this is nothing specifically MS evil. This is standard business practice. The difference to before is that now everyone has access to the docs online. If they want to use them commercially they just have pay MS the fee. Again standard business practice, not someone MS thought up evil strategy. The advantage is here, that developers can freely access the documentation, see what they and use that. This is clearly better than before where access to docs was complicated and time consuming. Also as far as I understand from the reports the usage fee that MS demands will be drastically lowered to something around the level of the industry standard of a "resonable/fair" fee.

[mivo]

The issue, really, is what is commercial and what is not, in Microsoft's eyes. Let's say a future version of OpenOffice uses the MS spec to read MS Office documents. Now, downloading OpenOffice would probably be fine, but what if a vendor sells Linux CDs with OpenOffice on it? Does that make it commercial? What if Dell sells Ubuntu PCs or notebooks with OpenOffice pre-installed? Or is a product already then commercial if it has company backing?

[Methuselah]

The commercial part is an issue. If I write something and give it away with absolutely no strings attached and somebody else chooses to redistribute and charge for it, how does that work?

[fatality_uk]

The issue, really, is what is commercial and what is not, in Microsoft's eyes. Let's say a future version of OpenOffice uses the MS spec to read MS Office documents. Now, downloading OpenOffice would probably be fine, but what if a vendor sells Linux CDs with OpenOffice on it? Does that make it commercial? What if Dell sells Ubuntu PCs or notebooks with OpenOffice pre-installed? Or is a product already then commercial if it has company backing?

As soon as OOo has docx filters and will read / write all MS office files, I am going to release a DVD with it on and the filters and charge costs + $1 for it, I would LOVE to see MS try and sue me. ;)

[k2t0f12d]

The commercial part is an issue. If I write something and give it away with absolutely no strings attached and somebody else chooses to redistribute and charge for it, how does that work?

In the case of free software, either party may distribute gratis or for a fee. The distributor that charges a fee for their copy would have to convince the market that there was an advantage in purchasing their copy, even if that were as simle as being able to avoid download the software, burning to disc, etc.

In the case of patent, the patent holder would have to threaten you, and if you did not comply with their demands, they could sue you, in which case they would have to prove that your invention violates their patent to which you would be able to either disprove that you are violating their patent or prove their patent is invalid. In many cases, software patent threats kill development without ever seeing the light of day in a courtroom, because single and small team developer have absolutely no way financially to see such an argument through in court.

In the case of copyright, what you were distributing and what the other person who was charging a fee was distributing would have to be work of the same expression or a derivative work, in which case the person who held copyright decides (unless fair use applies). If they are not from the same expression or derivative work there is no legal dispute to be had.

[Methuselah]

In the case of free software, either party may distribute gratis or for a fee. The distributor that charges a fee for their copy would have to convince the market that there was an advantage in purchasing their copy, even if that were as simle as being able to avoid download the software, burning to disc, etc.

In the case of patent, the patent holder would have to threaten you, and if you did not comply with their demands, they could sue you, in which case they would have to prove that your invention violates their patent to which you would be able to either disprove that you are violating their patent or prove their patent is invalid. In many cases, software patent threats kill development without ever seeing the light of day in a courtroom, because single and small team developer have absolutely no way financially to see such an argument through in court.

In the case of copyright, what you were distributing and what the other person who was charging a fee was distributing would have to be work of the same expression or a derivative work, in which case the person who held copyright decides (unless fair use applies). If they are not from the same expression or derivative work there is no legal dispute to be had.

All true, but I was talking specifically of the microsoft 'patent covenant' as it applies to 'non-commercial' software. I was wondering about what could be classified as non-commercial.

[bruce89]

As soon as OOo has docx filters and will read / write all MS office files, I am going to release a DVD with it on and the filters and charge costs + $1 for it, I would LOVE to see MS try and sue me. ;)

As I have said before, try Gutsy or later's OO.o open dialogue. (look just below Office 2003 XML)

[laxmanb]

Actually, MS wants OOXML to be an open standard and has vowed to not enforce its IP rights. So no, they won't sue you for the filters.

[fatality_uk]

As I have said before, try Gutsy or later's OO.o open dialogue. (look just below Office 2003 XML)

Doesn't work for me :|

Just realised that BuzzWord works ;)
Run it and boom, instant convertion :D

[Borbus]

Doesn't work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_through_obscurity

I was being sarcastic. I know open source software is more secure than closed source.

[jrusso2]

I am thinking if you give software away for free it is not commercial. However take the case of Open Office. This is given away free and not sold. But Star Office builds and the same code and is sold.

So would Microsoft try to take on Sun over their sales of Star Office?

They have mentioned they believe that Open Office does violate their patents.

[FranMichaels]

Actually, MS wants OOXML to be an open standard and has vowed to not enforce its IP rights. So no, they won't sue you for the filters.

There a are ambiguities in the legal language especially in regard to patent coverage in Microsoft's promise. It really depends (http://www.zdnetasia.com/news/software/0,39044164,62037862,00.htm).

[EdThaSlayer]

Microsoft might act nicer, but deep inside their evil lair, they are planning the grand OS war and are piling up all their resources. Yes, they are trying to convert us back. :P

[zmjjmz]

Just realised that BuzzWord works ;)

/me is not signing up.
Also, it won't support Opera.

[LaRoza]

I was being sarcastic. I know open source software is more secure than closed source.

I know, just a reference to it.

[kaginken]

I'll believe it when I see it. Steve Ball* is always talking from both sides of his big mouth...

[smartboyathome]

I just read in the paper today that Microsoft won't sue open source for patent infringes, and that open source may use the code they released, but commercial use must pay a fee.