[Crinus]

> And one other suggestion, which I made to a vice president but perhaps not in my talk.

>

> Release the source code of Windows under the GNU GPL.

>

> I know that is a stretch, but from what I heard there. it isn't totally impossible.

I do not remember who or where exactly it was, but i remember someone influential from Microsoft that was asked about open sourcing Windows (not necessarily under GPL) and they also said that it isn't totally impossible.

[meddlepal]

I don't know why anyone would think it is impossible, but it would take significant money and time to do it and it is unclear what benefit there would be except some small good will gained from developers that care about the FSF mission.

[wyldfire]

I think the benefit is unclear but it's almost certainly not limited to good will.

There's lots of developers who are working on products targeting Windows today (for momentum, their customer's requirements, etc). Those devs encounter Windows bugs and generally workaround them. But if instead they could patch them and/or provide patches upstream, it would be a huge benefit to them and likely some benefit to Microsoft as well.

[Crinus]

I know one of the first things i'd do if i had the code would be to improve the practically abandoned MDIClient.

The second would be to bring classic theme back :-P

[bubblethink]

>it is unclear what benefit there would be

You can run windows software elsewhere. What more do you need ?

[arthurcolle]

The source code.

[nvrspyx]

Which you would have if it was open source. I don't understand your point.

[cameronbrown]

If Windows was open sourced it'd easily reach mainstream media awareness.

[squarefoot]

I also don't think it's impossible, but I am also sure they're not going to open any significant part of Windows until they have full control of Linux in corporate environments, which is probably going to happen in less than 10 years, or a lot less should they buy a well known popular distro then turn it into Microsoft Linux.

[dimitar]

Given that Windows is a considered a "service" it makes sense unless there is something to hide (some odious telemetrics, perhaps). No one is going to replace Microsoft in selling Support and Updates, unless it isn't some niche that it doesn't care about anyway, just like Oracle didn't destroy the RHEL market with their own Linux.

I'm thinking it can help them win some government contracts outside the USA (by saying "you, and anyone else can see that there aren't any backdoors"). The potential open-source community can expand Windows markets the same way it did for Linux, making sure Microsoft remains relevant.

[ChrisSD]

When I asked HN about the licensing for windows.h and similar header files, there was some incredulity that MS could ever give them a permissive license (or even a slightly less restrictive one). And this was just for the public header files that define a public interface!

So I think it unlikely because Windows developers aren't calling for it and Linux developers don't care about it. Sure they'll open source particularly services and applications, especially as they move to more platforms. But I doubt they'd open source Windows itself.