4 ms·

Microsoft burning the Open Source bridge

8 points by boh 16y ago

bradleyland 16y ago
There is a big difference between open source and the GPL. Open source is loosely defined as allowing access to the source. GPL is a license designed to force openness in a viral fashion. I'm not opposed to the GPL philosophy, but anyone who is surprised that someone like Microsoft would want to avoid GPL'd software on their platform is kidding themselves. This is especially true with regard to the GPL v3. The goal of the GPL is to aggressively expand the protection of "free" software. We're talking the RMS definition of free, which is threatening to lots of companies; not just Microsoft.
- tbrownaw 16y ago
  > anyone who is surprised that someone like Microsoft would want to avoid GPL'd software on their platform is kidding themselves It probably isn't even that they particularly care about avoiding the GPL, so much as that GPLv3 intentionally forbids distribution for use in locked-down devices (which, contrary to all reason, apparently is not considered to count as discriminating against a field of endeavor...).
- jzoidberg 16y ago
  The problem here is that the language in the agreement is much broader than just GPLv3 or even GPL.
sukuriant 16y ago
The FreeBSD and CC licenses are still very well available. Personally, for most things, I would open source via the FreeBSD license, anyway. The GPL may be the most well known, but there are plenty others.
brudgers 16y ago
>"Microsoft has a deep history of trying to undermine open source software, and companies that use open source software" Some examples would make for a better argument. >"I would only have to assume that Microsoft extends these same feelings to their Windows operating systems on PC hardware as well." Why would the author have to assume that?
- pohl 16y ago
  Some examples would make for a better argument. Funding an $86M proxy war through SCO is the only example one needs, really. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_Documents http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_Documents
  - brudgers 16y ago
    Vinod Valloppillil was not exactly a senior manager at Microsoft (and has been gone for over a decade as best I can tell) so it's hard to tie him to the alleged funding of SCO's lawsuit...which was debunked in 2006. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/11/sco_microsoft_black_helicopters/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/11/sco_microsoft_black_...
    - pohl 16y ago
      Thank you for that link, I hadn't seen that. It sounds kind of funny to read it, though. Essentially, they admit to wanting to support the suit, and they admit to not wanting to appear to be attacking the defendants, and the admit to large sums of money changing hands to "ensure IT interoperability for UNIX migration technology". Sounds legit. :-)
      - brudgers 16y ago
        If one follows the history of the relationship between Microsoft and SCO in all it's previous incarnations it's a tangle of licensing agreements going all the way back to DR-DOS. On the Unix side, it involves ATT providing Microsoft with a license which was then provided to SCO and then licensed back after their improvements - and one should not forget that the one-time powerhouse that was Novell was wrapped up in the mess along with IBM. To characterize all of that as Microsoft trying to kill off Linux might be deemed a bit of oversimplification.
        pohl 16y ago
        Of course, that's why I lauged: it's so perfectly banal with respect to their history. The key concept behind plausible deniability is plausibility, after all. So the most one can say is that this tells us nothing. Well, no, actually there is enough in that article to demonstrate that plausible deniability is exactly what they needed to bridge their admitted desire to help with their admitted reluctance to be perceived as helping. But no more than that.
marshray 16y ago
If you license your code under GPL, you're simply saying that you don't want to be a product in this particular "app store" business model. GPLv3 in particular seems to be hostile to this type of thing. If you're the author of the code there's nothing wrong with that. But people are getting upset with Microsoft basically for respecting the intent of the license agreement. Obviously MS doesn't want to fall into the trap of distributing GPL code and thus being infected at some level of their codebase.
- masklinn 16y ago
  > If you license your code under GPL, you're simply saying that you don't want to be a product in this particular "app store" business model. GPLv3 in particular seems to be hostile to this type of thing. Indeed. And even more so, GPLv3 is hostile to that kind of schemes on purpose.
- brudgers 16y ago
  What it allows Microsoft to do is to solve any administrative issues relating to GPL by simply deleting the application from the store rather than trying to assure compliance. It's faster easier and cheaper.
diego_moita 16y ago
Actually, the most interesting part of this post is in the first comment, that leads to this post: http://www.arktronic.com/cms/blog-entries/2011-02-17/relax-microsoft-has-not-banned-open-source-from-marketplace http://www.arktronic.com/cms/blog-entries/2011-02-17/relax-m... TL;DR: Microsoft excludes only GPLv3 software because it forces them to open all their source code in Windows Phones. All other Open Source licenses are still valid.
- tbrownaw 16y ago
  > TL;DR: Microsoft excludes only GPLv3 software because it forces them to open all their source code in Windows Phones. Um, no. That is entirely incorrect and is not at all what your link says.

8 points by boh 16y ago

There is a big difference between open source and the GPL. Open source is loosely defined as allowing access to the source. GPL is a license designed to force openness in a viral fashion. I'm not opposed to the GPL philosophy, but anyone who is surprised that someone like Microsoft would want to avoid GPL'd software on their platform is kidding themselves. This is especially true with regard to the GPL v3. The goal of the GPL is to aggressively expand the protection of "free" software. We're talking the RMS definition of free, which is threatening to lots of companies; not just Microsoft.

tbrownaw 16y ago
> anyone who is surprised that someone like Microsoft would want to avoid GPL'd software on their platform is kidding themselves It probably isn't even that they particularly care about avoiding the GPL, so much as that GPLv3 intentionally forbids distribution for use in locked-down devices (which, contrary to all reason, apparently is not considered to count as discriminating against a field of endeavor...).
jzoidberg 16y ago
The problem here is that the language in the agreement is much broader than just GPLv3 or even GPL.

sukuriant 16y ago

The FreeBSD and CC licenses are still very well available. Personally, for most things, I would open source via the FreeBSD license, anyway. The GPL may be the most well known, but there are plenty others.

brudgers 16y ago

>"Microsoft has a deep history of trying to undermine open source software, and companies that use open source software" Some examples would make for a better argument. >"I would only have to assume that Microsoft extends these same feelings to their Windows operating systems on PC hardware as well." Why would the author have to assume that?

pohl 16y ago
Some examples would make for a better argument. Funding an $86M proxy war through SCO is the only example one needs, really. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_Documents http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_Documents
- brudgers 16y ago
  Vinod Valloppillil was not exactly a senior manager at Microsoft (and has been gone for over a decade as best I can tell) so it's hard to tie him to the alleged funding of SCO's lawsuit...which was debunked in 2006. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/11/sco_microsoft_black_helicopters/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/11/sco_microsoft_black_...
  - pohl 16y ago
    Thank you for that link, I hadn't seen that. It sounds kind of funny to read it, though. Essentially, they admit to wanting to support the suit, and they admit to not wanting to appear to be attacking the defendants, and the admit to large sums of money changing hands to "ensure IT interoperability for UNIX migration technology". Sounds legit. :-)
    - brudgers 16y ago
      If one follows the history of the relationship between Microsoft and SCO in all it's previous incarnations it's a tangle of licensing agreements going all the way back to DR-DOS. On the Unix side, it involves ATT providing Microsoft with a license which was then provided to SCO and then licensed back after their improvements - and one should not forget that the one-time powerhouse that was Novell was wrapped up in the mess along with IBM. To characterize all of that as Microsoft trying to kill off Linux might be deemed a bit of oversimplification.
      - pohl 16y ago
        Of course, that's why I lauged: it's so perfectly banal with respect to their history. The key concept behind plausible deniability is plausibility, after all. So the most one can say is that this tells us nothing. Well, no, actually there is enough in that article to demonstrate that plausible deniability is exactly what they needed to bridge their admitted desire to help with their admitted reluctance to be perceived as helping. But no more than that.

marshray 16y ago

If you license your code under GPL, you're simply saying that you don't want to be a product in this particular "app store" business model. GPLv3 in particular seems to be hostile to this type of thing. If you're the author of the code there's nothing wrong with that. But people are getting upset with Microsoft basically for respecting the intent of the license agreement. Obviously MS doesn't want to fall into the trap of distributing GPL code and thus being infected at some level of their codebase.

masklinn 16y ago
> If you license your code under GPL, you're simply saying that you don't want to be a product in this particular "app store" business model. GPLv3 in particular seems to be hostile to this type of thing. Indeed. And even more so, GPLv3 is hostile to that kind of schemes on purpose.
brudgers 16y ago
What it allows Microsoft to do is to solve any administrative issues relating to GPL by simply deleting the application from the store rather than trying to assure compliance. It's faster easier and cheaper.

diego_moita 16y ago

Actually, the most interesting part of this post is in the first comment, that leads to this post: http://www.arktronic.com/cms/blog-entries/2011-02-17/relax-microsoft-has-not-banned-open-source-from-marketplace http://www.arktronic.com/cms/blog-entries/2011-02-17/relax-m... TL;DR: Microsoft excludes only GPLv3 software because it forces them to open all their source code in Windows Phones. All other Open Source licenses are still valid.

tbrownaw 16y ago
> TL;DR: Microsoft excludes only GPLv3 software because it forces them to open all their source code in Windows Phones. Um, no. That is entirely incorrect and is not at all what your link says.