4 ms·
>Open source for most people means whether you can see and modify the source code. Do you mean legally? If not, Windows 2000 is open source. If so, then that's
by Intermernet 8y ago
>Open source for most people means whether you can see and modify the source code.
Do you mean legally? If not, Windows 2000 is open source. If so, then that's what the OSI tries to ensure.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- icebraining 8y agoNo, the OSD according to the OSI requires much more than seeing and modifying.
- Intermernet 8y agoYes, the OSD tries to include legality in "seeing and modifying". If you regard Open Source as just "seeing and modifying" the source then anything that you can get the source code for is Open Source. This is most definitely not the case, as illustrated by my previous example of Windows 2000. Please see [0] and [1] for more info. Confusingly, there are still copies of the W2K source on github which have an MIT license in the root which is, I assume, false and unauthorized by MS [2]. [0]: https://news.microsoft.com/2004/02/12/statement-from-microsoft-regarding-illegal-posting-of-windows-2000-source-code/ https://news.microsoft.com/2004/02/12/statement-from-microso... [1]: https://torrentfreak.com/microsoft-takes-pirated-windows-nt-4-0-source-code-offline-150415/ https://torrentfreak.com/microsoft-takes-pirated-windows-nt-... [2]: https://github.com/pustladi/Windows-2000/blob/master/LICENSE https://github.com/pustladi/Windows-2000/blob/master/LICENSE