Craig,

I understand what you're saying. But I regret that you're not reflecting to the main point that I'm trying to make here. Certain MVP's get access to more basic information than other MVP's and non-MVP's. This might make the competition unfair. As I now understand, this is in fact already happening, since MVP's already get additional info about products. I wonder, do you and other MVP's get info that I cannot get in any way?



>I think you're missing the point of the program. It is not open source, it is shared source. Microsoft already shares the Windows source with other parties. They are not allowed to change, use, or distribute the code. To allow that would make Windows open source.
>
>The reason for sharing the source is to give the MVPs additional tools to support MS end users.
>
>>I've red that certain MVPs will gonna get insight in certain OSs. And these MVPs are chosen for their great expertise in one or more Microsoft products and a willingness to share their expertise with peers.
>>
>>I suspect however that these MVPs will not be allowed to disclose the source code to others. Two thoughts come to my mind:
>>
>>1 This is not my idea of what Open Source should be.
>>
>>2 These MVPs will in the end be the untouchable elite amongst the professionals.
>>
>>Being better and/or more indispensable than others is fine with me, if it's based on qualities such as a preparedness to do more research on topics than others, or just being smarter. But the basic sources/resources should be the same for every developer! If that's not the case, then there's not a fair competition!