4 ms·

Did anybody actually read the article? It is clear FUD. It's just a minor policy change on the Microsoft Store which says you can't create an "app" for a free

Did anybody actually read the article? It is clear FUD. It's just a minor policy change on the Microsoft Store which says you can't create an "app" for a free open source product as if it's your own. So, you can't create an app of Ubuntu Linux and charge $5 for every download on the Microsoft Store. Reasonable. Sound.

cowtools 4y ago
Who "owns" a free/open source program? Many of these programs are not trademarked.
- qbasic_forever 4y ago
  Trademarks are for names. Copyright is what you're thinking of and it applies to a 'work' that you create like a program, source code, drawing, music, etc: https://www.copyright.gov/what-is-copyright/ https://www.copyright.gov/what-is-copyright/ So the person or people that wrote the code own the copyright to it and can control how it's licensed.
  - cowtools 4y ago
    I know, but if the program is licensed with GPL somewhere, what is legally stopping another person from distributing it on the windows store or whatever (other than trademarks associated with the name, for example the "Ubuntu" trademark)? If there is nothing legally stopping them from doing that, then how is Microsoft going to arbitrarily enforce these new rules?
    - kaba0 4y ago
      In the EU, isn’t it the case that you can’t completely give up your rights as a creator? So in a way, GPL is not even completely compatible with EU-laws? IANAL, just asking the question, I might be super wrong.
    - psandor 4y ago
      Not sure about GPL, but this is one of the very few (2-4) restrictions of a BSD license: "Neither the name of the copyright holder nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission."
      - cowtools 4y ago
        I'm not talking about the names of the copyright holders or contributors. I'm talking about the name of the software.
    - qbasic_forever 4y ago
      There's no legal avenue, if the license allows distribution of the code/binaries then it can be distributed anywhere. But Microsoft's store is a private marketplace (despite costing nothing in dollars to use/view). They can make whatever rules they want for the software they distribute or allow to be distributed there. First amendment, etc. doesn't apply. If Microsoft decided only software with unicorns and bunny rabbits could be distributed on their store, they are pefectly within their rights to mandate and enforce it.
      - cowtools 4y ago
        Okay, but just because they can unfairly discriminate on "their" operating system doesn't mean that they should or that we shouldn't resist/discuss it. I don't care if microsoft's store is a private marketplace. People should have the right to run whatever programs they want on their own hardware.
        init2null 4y ago
        They absolutely should, but that's why we need to retain the ability to download and install outside of the store. As long as we have that ability, this isn't a concern.
        wizofaus 4y ago
        I'm not sure how far that "whatever programs they want" goes - e.g. you can't legally run MacOS apps on non-Apple hardware. If MS decided the store was the only way to install apps into Windows, is that much different? Both platforms of course need to be able to support compiling from source and executing the resulting binary , which is sufficient to ensure OSS software will never be banished entirely.
buggeryorkshire 4y ago
Good idea. There's a tonne of Linux AMIs on AWS that have a support charge even though support is non existent.
Someone 4y ago
Reasonable, maybe, but in conflict with https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMon...: “Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money? Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The right to sell copies is part of the definition of free software. Except in one special situation, there is no limit on what price you can charge. (The one exception is the required written offer to provide source code that must accompany binary-only release.)” On the other hand, there’s https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLRequireAvailabilityToPublic https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLRequireA...: “if someone pays your fee and gets a copy, the GPL gives them the freedom to release it to the public, with or without a fee. For example, someone could pay your fee, and then put her copy on a web site for the general public.” App Store rules may make that difficult to do for the buyer.
- init2null 4y ago
  That's outdated terminology from a time where physical media was needed. Or perhaps we could say that it's in a store's best interest to go beyond that into curation. Just like physical stores do. Consumer protection demands that we don't get OpenerOffice, EasyWords, LetterWriter, etc. as paid forks with no differentiation, generated in bulk by spammers in poorer countries. Meaningful code improvements should be required.
- ViViDboarder 4y ago
  It’s not in conflict at all. The person may have the right to sell it, but not the right for Microsoft to list it.
- kyriakos 4y ago
  Similarly apple gate keeps its own appstore to a much greater extend considering that there is no alternative or way to side load apps. I would agree with the article if the policy was enforced universally in Windows but this is just about selling via its store.

cowtools 4y ago

Who "owns" a free/open source program? Many of these programs are not trademarked.

qbasic_forever 4y ago
Trademarks are for names. Copyright is what you're thinking of and it applies to a 'work' that you create like a program, source code, drawing, music, etc: https://www.copyright.gov/what-is-copyright/ https://www.copyright.gov/what-is-copyright/ So the person or people that wrote the code own the copyright to it and can control how it's licensed.
- cowtools 4y ago
  I know, but if the program is licensed with GPL somewhere, what is legally stopping another person from distributing it on the windows store or whatever (other than trademarks associated with the name, for example the "Ubuntu" trademark)? If there is nothing legally stopping them from doing that, then how is Microsoft going to arbitrarily enforce these new rules?
  - kaba0 4y ago
    In the EU, isn’t it the case that you can’t completely give up your rights as a creator? So in a way, GPL is not even completely compatible with EU-laws? IANAL, just asking the question, I might be super wrong.
  - psandor 4y ago
    Not sure about GPL, but this is one of the very few (2-4) restrictions of a BSD license: "Neither the name of the copyright holder nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission."
    - cowtools 4y ago
      I'm not talking about the names of the copyright holders or contributors. I'm talking about the name of the software.
  - qbasic_forever 4y ago
    There's no legal avenue, if the license allows distribution of the code/binaries then it can be distributed anywhere. But Microsoft's store is a private marketplace (despite costing nothing in dollars to use/view). They can make whatever rules they want for the software they distribute or allow to be distributed there. First amendment, etc. doesn't apply. If Microsoft decided only software with unicorns and bunny rabbits could be distributed on their store, they are pefectly within their rights to mandate and enforce it.
    - cowtools 4y ago
      Okay, but just because they can unfairly discriminate on "their" operating system doesn't mean that they should or that we shouldn't resist/discuss it. I don't care if microsoft's store is a private marketplace. People should have the right to run whatever programs they want on their own hardware.
      - init2null 4y ago
        They absolutely should, but that's why we need to retain the ability to download and install outside of the store. As long as we have that ability, this isn't a concern.
        wizofaus 4y ago
        I'm not sure how far that "whatever programs they want" goes - e.g. you can't legally run MacOS apps on non-Apple hardware. If MS decided the store was the only way to install apps into Windows, is that much different? Both platforms of course need to be able to support compiling from source and executing the resulting binary , which is sufficient to ensure OSS software will never be banished entirely.

buggeryorkshire 4y ago

Good idea. There's a tonne of Linux AMIs on AWS that have a support charge even though support is non existent.

Someone 4y ago

Reasonable, maybe, but in conflict with https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMon...: “Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money? Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The right to sell copies is part of the definition of free software. Except in one special situation, there is no limit on what price you can charge. (The one exception is the required written offer to provide source code that must accompany binary-only release.)” On the other hand, there’s https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLRequireAvailabilityToPublic https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLRequireA...: “if someone pays your fee and gets a copy, the GPL gives them the freedom to release it to the public, with or without a fee. For example, someone could pay your fee, and then put her copy on a web site for the general public.” App Store rules may make that difficult to do for the buyer.

init2null 4y ago
That's outdated terminology from a time where physical media was needed. Or perhaps we could say that it's in a store's best interest to go beyond that into curation. Just like physical stores do. Consumer protection demands that we don't get OpenerOffice, EasyWords, LetterWriter, etc. as paid forks with no differentiation, generated in bulk by spammers in poorer countries. Meaningful code improvements should be required.
ViViDboarder 4y ago
It’s not in conflict at all. The person may have the right to sell it, but not the right for Microsoft to list it.
kyriakos 4y ago
Similarly apple gate keeps its own appstore to a much greater extend considering that there is no alternative or way to side load apps. I would agree with the article if the policy was enforced universally in Windows but this is just about selling via its store.