5 ms·

I always thought the reason they charged for their OS was due to their anti-trust lawsuit so as to state that they weren't actively trying to dominate the marke

I always thought the reason they charged for their OS was due to their anti-trust lawsuit so as to state that they weren't actively trying to dominate the market or something along those lines? Also, OEM operating systems are kind of circumventing that.

easton 6y ago
The reason I always heard was that there’s tons of binary blobs in Windows they bought from vendors that’d have to be reimplemented (the zip library is the most notable example). Russinovich said never say never though, so I don’t know. https://www.wired.com/2015/04/microsoft-open-source-windows-definitely-possible/ https://www.wired.com/2015/04/microsoft-open-source-windows-...
acct776 6y ago
Being open source is not correlated with charging licensing fees. It just means you can read the source.
- Jestar342 6y ago
  Some licenses very explicitly prohibit source distribution/publication.