3 responses to “Microsoft drops the ball on its open license promise”

1. 

   johninpa December 1st, 2009 at 08:06

   For all the money microsoft charges for every little add-on and upgrade they should be forced to pay and pay dearly!

2. 

   Anton December 2nd, 2009 at 08:03

   I have to say I’m not exactly seeing a “no-bull” approach on this site at large, but rather an anti-Microsoft leaning attitude in general.

   This case is definitely a mess-up on Microsoft’s part and they do need to fix it, but it’s being sensationalized and blown out of proportion here. Considering the incredible portfolio of software Microsoft has, does anybody seriously think somebody hatched up some evil plot to steal code to produce a tool this trivial in the grand scheme of things? Also, the term “ripped off” is a bit strong here, I don’t think anybody’s been financially or otherwise harmed here (Microsoft’s tool itself was free..).

   Except maybe the community who has so far not benefited from the returned contribution of modified code, which is exactly the part Microsoft needs to make right.

   It’s ironic (though probably not relevant) that ImageMaster reportedly contains code made available by Microsoft in the first place.

   Again, I’m not trying to give Microsoft a pass, but I’m pointing out that things are not reported without bias here. And that’s something that irks *me*.

3. 

   woody December 2nd, 2009 at 08:44

   Anton -

   Interesting. I just got a blistering email from a Windows Secrets reader who accused me of being on Microsoft’s payroll.

   Ah well. I think “ripped off” and “stolen” describe precisely what Microsoft did. I think that Microsoft’s promise to make things right by releasing the code (which was good), followed by a lengthy delay (apparently to re-write the program) sucks.

   It doesn’t matter one whit whether ImageMaster’s program contains code made available by Microsoft.

   More on this topic in the Thursday Windows Secrets Newsletter.