Microsoft's non-open source attempt at open source
(Credit: Microsoft)     1. You must choose a license for your
project (license resources: Open Source License page on
Wikipedia)   2. It must be an ongoing project (no "abandoned"
projects)   3. It must have source code (no non-software
projects)  In the case of Sandcastle, it fails items one and
three. No source, at least as of 2:54 PM PDT today, and
therefore not open.  Does Microsoft care? Well, the CodePlex
front page declares:  Microsoft does not control, review,
revise, endorse or distribute the third party projects on
[CodePlex]. Microsoft is hosting the CodePlex site solely as a
web storage site as a service to the developer community.  Fine.
But why then stipulate requirements for the site that are
apparently meaningless? And why pretend that it's an open-source
code repository if, in fact, it may not be?  Microsoft built
CodePlex. It can do with it what it wants. But what it can't do
is borrow the term "open source" for marketing purposes and