9 ms·

No, in the 1990s when the "free software" part of the movement was far stronger and trying to build an entire alternative computing stack on strongly copyleft p

No, in the 1990s when the "free software" part of the movement was far stronger and trying to build an entire alternative computing stack on strongly copyleft principles, it was certainly not in Microsoft's interest. From a corporate shareholder perspective, it was a massive threat and risk. The GPL was originally intentionally written to be the kind of "cancer" that Balmer feared, spreading to anything that used components of it. In the past few decades, the part of the movement that has become far more popular is the very corporate-friendly, weakly-licensed side. Especially in an era of cloud computing, you can take whatever volunteers from an MIT-licensed open source product make, build whatever you want to with it, and not release the modifications or give back to the project's developers in any way. From a corporate shareholder perspective, what's not to love?

aNoob7000 6y ago
Microsoft is only open source friendly right now because Satya Nadella thinks the future is the cloud, and I would guess that the majority of software running in Azure is open-source. You have to look no further than .Net Core. Microsoft's attempt at allowing their developers to write code that runs on something other than a Windows server/PC. I would guess they still don't like open-source; they are just doing whatever they can to support their cloud business.
- jacquesm 6y ago
  It's simpler than that: the desktop OS has become irrelevant, Google is a big threat to Office (assuming they will finally get their heads down, iron out the kinks and invest heavily into Sheets). The bulk of the home users out there now run their OS with one goal: to start up their browser. Desktop software is a thing that still exists in the business realm but there too cloud based services are making huge inroads. So the future is the cloud, but not Azure, that's just a hosting facility which MS can't complete concede to Google and AWS from a paranoia perspective. But Docs hits them where it hurts, and if it gets any better then outlook->gmail and office->gsuite becomes a real threat.
  - scarface74 6y ago
    Office is still making MS billions. Even home users are buying O365. Besides that, Azure has three times the market share of GCP and most major enterprises don’t trust Google’s competence enough to trust their infrastructure to GCP.
    - bayindirh 6y ago
      Actually it's not as simple as that. Office is still making billions because of inertia in some cases. I have 5 Office 2019 licenses at home because my family is used to it, they're using it and happy; however I work in a big, continent-wide project and everything is done (spreadsheets to reports to slide decks to coffee) on Google Docs & Google Drive. No one is using Microsoft Office or any other desktop office software and, it works. Lines are not that clear cut anymore.
      - dvfjsdhgfv 6y ago
        > continent-wide project and everything is done (spreadsheets to reports to slide decks to coffee) on Google Docs & Google Drive Are you happy with the responsiveness of Google Docs? For me once the spreadsheet exceeds a certain level of complexity, it feels really sluggish, and I feel like I'm constantly wasting microseconds while in the desktop counterpart I could have it done already. Sure, the sharing function is great, but as someone accustomed to working quickly, I'm sorry to say GD still doesn't offer a smooth experience on more complex sheets.
        bayindirh 6y ago
        I'm generally working with docs and in some meetings the time difference is 8 hours we (from nearly every country from US to Greece) connect to the same doc as 10+ people and change small details continuously and it works. I also use some sheets designed as multi-page input forms and it works well though, we don't collaborate on them real time. I'm using Firefox with a 16M/1M ADSL connection BTW.
      - scarface74 6y ago
- scarface74 6y ago
  No for profit “likes” open source. They just open source the parts that don’t put them at a competitive disadvantage. You don’t see sang major corporation open sourcing their core software.
iforgotpassword 6y ago
Can't you even do this with GPL code really? Unfortunately they didn't predict the cloud specifically. The GPL seems to only enforce that you cannot distribute modified versions of some software without also publishing the modified source code. If your modified GPL software only ever runs on your cloud infra and you don't share the binary, did you break the GPL?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- baylessj 6y ago
  You're correct, this scenario is why the AGPL was written. A lot of companies allow the use of GPL software but forbid the use of AGPL software.
- Gollapalli 6y ago
  Yeah, fixing that issue is what's good about the SSPL.
  - pritambaral 6y ago
    You misspelled AGPL, which is an actual open source license, not a legally-unenforceable minefield.
    - Gollapalli 6y ago
      The SSPL is probably the strongest copyleft license in existence. The GPL was viewed much the same way the SSPL is now. I think the common consensus on the SSPL is utterly incorrect, and MongoDB was right to use it.
      - pritambaral 6y ago
        > ... the strongest copyleft license ... So what? That simply means rights are passed down. The problem with the SSPL was never that; it's that the rights that _were_ passed down are _legally impossible_ to fulfill, rendering the whole point of copyleft moot. > The GPL was viewed much the same way the SSPL is now. The criticisms against the GPL-ed works were about collaboration, not use. The problem with the SSPL is that I cannot legally use SSPL-ed works, in any way. In simpler, analogical, terms: the GPL was designed to be "viral", but the SSPL was designed to be a minefield. Viruses can be harmless; minefields deny combatants, civilians, and peaceful inhabitants alike, forever. Any GPL-ed software could be used without any restrictions on _how_ you use it. Whereas the only legally safe way to use MongoDB is to pay MongoDB Inc. to host it. So much for copyleft. ---- http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2018-October/003742.html http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.o... https://www.processmechanics.com/2018/10/18/the-server-side-public-license-is-flawed/ https://www.processmechanics.com/2018/10/18/the-server-side-... https://www.processmechanics.com/2018/10/25/further-comments-on-the-sspl/ https://www.processmechanics.com/2018/10/25/further-comments...

aNoob7000 6y ago

Microsoft is only open source friendly right now because Satya Nadella thinks the future is the cloud, and I would guess that the majority of software running in Azure is open-source. You have to look no further than .Net Core. Microsoft's attempt at allowing their developers to write code that runs on something other than a Windows server/PC. I would guess they still don't like open-source; they are just doing whatever they can to support their cloud business.

jacquesm 6y ago
It's simpler than that: the desktop OS has become irrelevant, Google is a big threat to Office (assuming they will finally get their heads down, iron out the kinks and invest heavily into Sheets). The bulk of the home users out there now run their OS with one goal: to start up their browser. Desktop software is a thing that still exists in the business realm but there too cloud based services are making huge inroads. So the future is the cloud, but not Azure, that's just a hosting facility which MS can't complete concede to Google and AWS from a paranoia perspective. But Docs hits them where it hurts, and if it gets any better then outlook->gmail and office->gsuite becomes a real threat.
- scarface74 6y ago
  Office is still making MS billions. Even home users are buying O365. Besides that, Azure has three times the market share of GCP and most major enterprises don’t trust Google’s competence enough to trust their infrastructure to GCP.
  - bayindirh 6y ago
    Actually it's not as simple as that. Office is still making billions because of inertia in some cases. I have 5 Office 2019 licenses at home because my family is used to it, they're using it and happy; however I work in a big, continent-wide project and everything is done (spreadsheets to reports to slide decks to coffee) on Google Docs & Google Drive. No one is using Microsoft Office or any other desktop office software and, it works. Lines are not that clear cut anymore.
    - dvfjsdhgfv 6y ago
      > continent-wide project and everything is done (spreadsheets to reports to slide decks to coffee) on Google Docs & Google Drive Are you happy with the responsiveness of Google Docs? For me once the spreadsheet exceeds a certain level of complexity, it feels really sluggish, and I feel like I'm constantly wasting microseconds while in the desktop counterpart I could have it done already. Sure, the sharing function is great, but as someone accustomed to working quickly, I'm sorry to say GD still doesn't offer a smooth experience on more complex sheets.
      - bayindirh 6y ago
        I'm generally working with docs and in some meetings the time difference is 8 hours we (from nearly every country from US to Greece) connect to the same doc as 10+ people and change small details continuously and it works. I also use some sheets designed as multi-page input forms and it works well though, we don't collaborate on them real time. I'm using Firefox with a 16M/1M ADSL connection BTW.
    - scarface74 6y ago
scarface74 6y ago
No for profit “likes” open source. They just open source the parts that don’t put them at a competitive disadvantage. You don’t see sang major corporation open sourcing their core software.

iforgotpassword 6y ago

Can't you even do this with GPL code really? Unfortunately they didn't predict the cloud specifically. The GPL seems to only enforce that you cannot distribute modified versions of some software without also publishing the modified source code. If your modified GPL software only ever runs on your cloud infra and you don't share the binary, did you break the GPL?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
baylessj 6y ago
You're correct, this scenario is why the AGPL was written. A lot of companies allow the use of GPL software but forbid the use of AGPL software.
Gollapalli 6y ago
Yeah, fixing that issue is what's good about the SSPL.
- pritambaral 6y ago
  You misspelled AGPL, which is an actual open source license, not a legally-unenforceable minefield.
  - Gollapalli 6y ago
    The SSPL is probably the strongest copyleft license in existence. The GPL was viewed much the same way the SSPL is now. I think the common consensus on the SSPL is utterly incorrect, and MongoDB was right to use it.
    - pritambaral 6y ago
      > ... the strongest copyleft license ... So what? That simply means rights are passed down. The problem with the SSPL was never that; it's that the rights that _were_ passed down are _legally impossible_ to fulfill, rendering the whole point of copyleft moot. > The GPL was viewed much the same way the SSPL is now. The criticisms against the GPL-ed works were about collaboration, not use. The problem with the SSPL is that I cannot legally use SSPL-ed works, in any way. In simpler, analogical, terms: the GPL was designed to be "viral", but the SSPL was designed to be a minefield. Viruses can be harmless; minefields deny combatants, civilians, and peaceful inhabitants alike, forever. Any GPL-ed software could be used without any restrictions on _how_ you use it. Whereas the only legally safe way to use MongoDB is to pay MongoDB Inc. to host it. So much for copyleft. ---- http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2018-October/003742.html http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.o... https://www.processmechanics.com/2018/10/18/the-server-side-public-license-is-flawed/ https://www.processmechanics.com/2018/10/18/the-server-side-... https://www.processmechanics.com/2018/10/25/further-comments-on-the-sspl/ https://www.processmechanics.com/2018/10/25/further-comments...