Hahaha

So I guess I've been bored and reading too many articles today. I thought this was funny (this Martin Taylor from Microsoft talking here):

"And what is open source? It is interesting in how you define it. Is it in terms of source visibility? Then, OK, in Microsoft's Shared Source program, people can access up to 65 percent of source codes for our core products. And through the government security program around the world, governments can access even more of our source codes, if they choose to. So we're not an open-source company, and yet people can do that.

And when we talk about projects, things where you build technology and give to the community, with our Windows Install and Template Library, we have projects available today that make Microsoft technology open source. So is that what it means to be an open-source company? Or does it mean that you have technology licensed under the GPL (GNU Public License)? If that's the only definition, then I see a lot of companies that people call open source but aren't, because they're not licensed under the GPL."

I'm thinking, "No, asshole, open source means the source is open. Anyone can look at it. You can print it out and shit on it if you want." This really shouldn't be that confusing of an issue. Their shared source program doesn't make it open source not because he says so, but because I cannot see the source. Quite clearly this is cut and dry.