Penguinisto: Let me put this to you simply - YOU ARE WRONG, my dear. As I KEEP repeating, Open Source means that one CAN redistribute original code & any derivatives - not that one MUST. As such, Microsoft is well within their rights to restrict the redistribution of the networks stack "as is", due to the fact that they didn't license their derivative work under BSD. Want to know why I am so confident? Because I did my research. My quote was directly from the Open Source Initiative's website. Given that to be accepted as "Open Source" in the industry, a license must follow the conditions on their website - I think it is safe to say, BSD is "open source". Like it or not. For those that are confused by Pengy's twist and spin. Here are a couple of links: The Definition of "Open Source". Please note the quote I took regarding derived works was directly from Section 3 - "Derived Works" (funnily enough). The BSD license on OSI. That is, BSD is accepted as Open Source - regardless of what Penguinisto would like. The list of officially accepted Open Source licenses. Note that you will find MANY that do not need you to redistribute or license your derivatives under same said license. But you are ALWAYS allowed to. Now - Pengy may not AGREE with this information, doesn't make him in any way "right". Just as disagreeing with a law does not make breaking it "right". EK