14 ms·
Microsoft: No GPLv3 Software for Windows Phone and Xbox Apps.
- winestock 16y agoThe license in question forbids GPLv3 by name. It does not appear to forbid the BSD, MIT, and similar permissive licenses.
- praptak 16y agoWell, it is quite clear that the "share alike" clause is the bone of contention here: "“Excluded License” means any license requiring, as a condition of use [...] that the software or other software combined and/or distributed with it be (i) disclosed or distributed in source code form (ii) licensed for the purpose of making derivative works; or (iii) redistributable at no charge."
- tzs 16y agoSo, BSD, MIT, Apache, and similar are OK.
- dagw 16y agoLooks like they're trying to preempt the whole "can you distribute GPLed programs via the app store" problem that Apple's been facing.
- cosgroveb 16y agoAgreed. I kind of doubt this is an ideological decision. Just like the app store, there is no mechanism for someone who has downloaded an app to redistribute it to others.
- rmc 16y agoSo it's the same as Apple then. "Can you distribute GPL?" "No."
- technomancy 16y agoActually, it's better than Apple. Apple will let you distribute GPL'd applications until a takedown notice is issued even though doing so is illegal; Microsoft is clear about it up-front.
- dagw 16y agoWhere has Apple said "No"? I seem to recall a whole bunch of speculation and uncertainty surrounding Apple not making a clear statement one way or the other.
- originalgeek 16y agoCite a source, please. Apple has said nothing about GPL software. They did however respond to a takedown request by a copyright holder.
- randint 16y agoIt's a pragmatic choice by Microsoft, but I'm amazed by their ability to piss off developers almost every time they make a decision.
- statictype 16y agoshrug It sometimes feels like almost every new policy introduced by Apple for their AppStore was specially crafted to piss off and offend developers. Yet, they can get away with it because end-users are satisfied. I guess same applies here. Microsoft has just gone out and explicitly said what Apple has not (yet) .
- stcredzero 16y agoI'm amazed by their ability to piss off developers almost every time they make a decision. Yes, but you can't even publish an API without pissing off a developer somewhere. Folks like Guido Van Rossum even say things to the effect: if someone somewhere isn't pissed off, you're probably not doing it right.
- flomo 16y agoWouldn't this be more accurately described as the choice of the Free Software Foundation, rather than Microsoft? The major feature of GPL3 was to prevent use in these type of "tivoized" applications. Seems that Microsoft is taking heat for respecting the wishes of the GPL. Talk about a can't win situation.
- mithaler 16y agoWell, one who thinks that the GPL's wishes are a good idea could certainly feel that they deserve heat for being what the GPL was meant to prevent in the first place. But, that's no comfort to less ideologically zealous developers who want to use a [AL]GPL-licensed library they're used to using and can't.
- bowmande 16y agoI think they are trying to prevent people from redistributing others source. Like what occurred with Lugaru HD.
- forgotAgain 16y agoIf they distribute GPL software aren't they also responsible for making the source available. Why would they want to open themselves to that headache?
- Herring 16y agoIf the free linuxes can do it, im sure MS can handle it. It's not much of a hassle to add an extra menu item. I think the real problem is unlocking & GPLv3. MS was never GPL friendly either.
- rmc 16y agoNo, Section2 (of the GPLv2) allows you to either distribute the source code along with it, or written offer to where to get the source code.
- hasenj 16y agoDoesn't the Apple App Store have the same problem? The only difference being that Microsoft actually mentions the GPL explicitly.
- ryanelkins 16y agoThis actually has been an issue for the App Store recently, primarily concerning VLC. See http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/no-gpl-apps-for-apples-app-store/8046 http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/no-gpl-apps-for-apples...
- ItarPeyo 16y agoThis makes it sound like the GPL and similar licenses are the one true free software licenses out there. As others here pointed it still seems to be OK with BSD, MIT and other OSI licenses. In my opinion allowing something with a GPL license would just cause complications for them and the people who build the app.
- SimonPStevens 16y agoThey aren't prohibiting "Free Software", they are prohibiting software that is under a license that requires the distributor to pass certain rights along to the recipient. Hence GPL like licenses that require distribution of source code, and that you grant redistribution rights to everyone you distribute it to are being explicitly prohibited. (And in fairness I can see why those licenses would cause problems for Microsoft as distributors) On the other hand BSD like licenses that allow you to repackage and distribute without source and without passing rights forward are acceptable.
- btipling 16y agoExactly. Also GPL style licenses are a virus that while they promote freedom, in reality they take it away. It assumes that people are naturally untrustworthy and thus forces them to act in a way the creators of GPL see as the right way. Because of how the GPL licenses are worded, especially insane versions like the AGPL, everything they touch may be affected negatively. MIT and BSD style licenses on the other hand assume the best in people, and gives them the real freedom to do with code whatever they want.
- skore 16y agoYou're probably just trolling, but it needs to be said every time: The freedom that the GPL takes away is the freedom to bring down the system. It keeps people in check and prevents corruption. If you enjoy the freedoms of MIT and BSD style licenses - why do you complain about the GPL? It seems that it only takes "freedoms" away that you don't appear to be interested in anyways?
- tzs 16y agoCould you rephrase that in terms that aren't nonsensical in the context of software licensing, such as "bring down the system" and "prevents corruption"?
- samatman 16y agoPossibly for the same reason GPL advocates complain about more restrictive licensing than the GPL. "Hey, why can't I view and improve your source code? No fair!" "Hey, why can't I improve, compile, and sell your program? No fair!" disclaimer: I'm fairly license-neutral and think people should choose based on what's good for their project.
- motters 16y agoThis is amusing in the light of Microsoft's attempts in recent years to cosy up to open source and pretend that they're embracing it via Codeplex, Mono, MPL, etc. I think this shows what their true values are.
- evilduck 16y agoI think the Microsoft hydra is too large to have any single set of core values anymore. Every project is pulling in a different direction.
- silversmith 16y agoWhat it shows is they do not wish to run a code distribution network (that would be required in case of GPLv3 licensed applications) alongside their app store. Perfectly reasonable, in my opinion.
- ericbrunstad 16y agoGood riddance. I am tired of GPL software. It claims freedom but restricts the right of developers to choose license terms for their own software. Further, it sucks in code licensed under permissive terms but prevents open source projects under the BSD license from doing likewise with GPL code.
- wladimir 16y agoI don't want my platform to restrict what software I can run, especially not based on license. Is there any mobile platform these days that doesn't try to be your nanny as well?
- elehack 16y agoMaemo/MeeGo, but its future is, err, uncertain. WebOS might be good in that regard, but its supported development model is limited to web apps so far as I know.
- dagw 16y agoDepends on what you mean by web apps. Yes, you write your apps in javascript, and build your UI in HTML5 and css, but the apps are installed and run natively on the device and there is no 'web' involved. You can also write your own plug-ins in C/C++ which you can call from javascript.
- bitwize 16y agoYou haven't cracked root on your Android phone yet?
- jancona 16y agoThere's no need to root most Android phones to install any software you want. Just go to Settings/Applications and check "Unknown sources Allow installation of non-Market applications" AT&T (and perhaps other carriers) disable that option, but even in that case, there's a workaround that doesn't require rooting. (Google "android non-market adb".)
- bitwize 16y agoIt's still a brass bitch to run anything that isn't a simple apk with restricted permissions on a non-rooted phone. This is useful, and I think more of what the OP was looking for.
- wladimir 16y ago
- jonny_eh 16y agoThey're only preventing GPLv3 (and its ilk). There's a reason they mention GPLv3 and not GPLv2. GPLv2 just requires the sharing of source code for a given binary. GPLv3 takes it a lot farther and requires that a mechanism also be provided to use derivative works. So if a car manufacturer uses GPLv3 code, they not only have to distribute the source code (which may or not be an issue), they also have to allow people to flash their own code onto the car's embedded computers. This problem stemmed from TiVo, they used GPL code on their set-tops but signed their binaries. People could make derivative works, but couldn't use them. In the embedded space, you can imagine that GPLv3 is very much hated. It's a big reason why a lot of projects haven't switched to v3.
- dubious_1 16y agoYou are the first to actually hit that point, and I believe rightly so. I don't see how you could actually comply with V3 and release your software on any of these stores. The obtaining of a developer signing key is not free, and there is no guarantee that the derived work would actually be accepted.
- nl 16y agoI think you could on the Android store. Android phones have a setting to "allow installation from non-Market sources", which means there is no restriction on distribution.
- sedachv 16y agoThis is why everyone should be switching to GPLv3. Software isn't just there to be looked at.
- zem 16y agoas long as they don't require all software to come from the marketplace (a la apple), i have no problem with that.
- unfasten 16y agoAs best as I can tell, they are requiring everything to come from Windows Marketplace. Developers can side load up to 10 applications on their phone, but it seems Microsoft even borrowed Apple's $99 yearly developer fee model. Developer side loading: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff769512(v=VS.92).aspx http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff769512(v=VS.92).as... $99 Annual fee: http://create.msdn.com/en-us/home/membership http://create.msdn.com/en-us/home/membership
- zem 16y agothat's sad. they might make some money in the short term, but i think they'll bleed mindshare in the long term. of course, it might work out the other way, where developers flock to them the way they did to the apple store, because there's a chance they'll make more money that way.
- kaze1 16y agoI can see a certain competitor rubbing their hands in glee that an entire class of applications will be unavailable on Windows Phone 7.
- unsigner 16y agoWhat "entire class of applications" has a hard dependency on GPLv3? Emacses?
- soofaloofa 16y agoThere is no issue here, only fear-mongering. To me it seems like a pragmatic choice. I'm not sure if the perception of Microsoft will ever change in the eyes of developers.
- stuhacking 16y agoDoes warranty come into this at all? There are terms in a lot of Free Software licenses that remove the obligation to provide support, accept liability for the product or even to guarantee its fitness for purpose. It seems to me that these aspects introduce a gap in the level of support Microsoft can offer for a product distributed on its platform since it doesn't necessarily have a way to delegate responsibility back up the chain.
- mkr-hn 16y agoI think that's standard for both EULAs and free software licenses.
- stuhacking 16y agoThanks, maybe I should read a EULA sometime. ;-)
- mkr-hn 16y agoRead one, and you've read most of the rest. I've thought about reading one carefully, making notes, and running a diff on new ones. Saves time and avoids risk.
- ww 16y agoMicrosoft's strategy is to build/own the platform and then add value to the platform by harvesting what is on top (buying software/copying ideas etc). From a game-theoretic view point, GPL is a strategy that works well vs harvesting and should be kept 'on the table'. For more on this and Microsoft read: http://www.amazon.com/Keystone-Advantage-Ecosystems-Innovation-Sustainability/dp/1591393078/ref=sr_1_fkmr2_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1297874874&sr=1-1-fkmr2 http://www.amazon.com/Keystone-Advantage-Ecosystems-Innovati...
- wmf 16y agoAFAIK the Wii and PS3 have similar terms (although there's no uproar because the terms themselves are secret). I get the impression that console APIs are generally NDAd and so releasing the source of a console game would indirectly expose the APIs.
- chopsueyar 16y agoWhere did my DB server go?
- aagnihot 16y agoIt seems that the site is down
- fleitz 16y agoThey don't want to put in place the infrastructure to distribute source code, nor do they want the legal requirements to do so. Thus GPLv3 prevents Microsoft from exercising its freedom to not put in place a source code distribution system that will appeal to exactly none of its customers.