10 ms·

Windows 8 Store will allow open source apps

61 points by mrsebastian 15y ago

mrcharles 15y ago
Would it be worth it for open source projects to try and distribute on the app store? Given that there are already examples on Android of open source apps being recompiled, name changed, and resubmitted to the store, wouldn't this kind of thing be even more prevalent on a full computing platform? I guess it's kind of a moot point if they are put on the store for free, though.
- cryptoz 15y ago
  Your post confuses me. If a developer builds an open source application, isn't that developer implicitly inviting others to copy the code and do with it whatever they like (depending on the license, of course)? Ignoring app stores, isn't that the way open source has been all along? And including app stores, what difference does it make? I am the sole developer of an open source Android app (pressureNET), but nobody has copied the code and re-uploaded - if they did, isn't that just "forking"? I'd be thrilled if anyone found my project worthwhile enough for that - it's never happened to me before. I guess I'm confused why you think that forking is 'risk'. That's not only the expected behavior, but the hoped-for behavior, isn't it?
  - dagw 15y ago
    Many (not all) open source licenses require attribution and limit to what extent you can change the license. Many apps in the app store violate these requirements. The problem is not forking, but taking open source code and trying to pass it off as your own closed source creation.
    - cryptoz 15y ago
      > Many apps in the app store violate these requirements. Ah. So the problem is that someone may act illegally? That's always been the case, since the dawn of time. If you're going to develop some open source software, of course there is a risk to you that someone may copy it and not follow the license. But there's significantly greater risk to the person copying, correct? If it's a crime (is it?) they risk having a criminal record and all that. So, there's nothing new here, no new risks that open source developers haven't been facing since always, and nothing at all unique about this situation. In fact, it's probably a lot better now since you have a single source to contact (the app store owner) to let them know there is a TOS violation and illegal content on their site. In previous times, there may have been no recourse (say, the copier has hosted the content on a Russian domain; you've got nowhere to turn). All in all, it seems the situation for open source developers is significantly better than it ever has been regarding illegal copying of their software.
  - wmf 15y ago
    Technically this is true, but people are concerned about fairness. It seems unfair if the people who wrote the app are getting nothing while people who did "no work" are making money. (Of course, marketing is work and if it's possible to make money with just a little marketing, the upstream open source projects should be doing that themselves.)
rbanffy 15y ago
IIRC, it's not Apple who forbids GPL-licensed apps, but GPL that forbids distributing apps under Apple's rules. edit: Apparently, I was less than clear. The GPL has always forbidden distributing GPL'ed apps under Apple's (and not only Apple's) rules, since well before their app store existed.
- DannoHung 15y ago
  Yeah, won't readings of the GPL forbid distribution for the same reasons? Or are the apps distributed by Windows 8 going to be unsigned? Or is that not pertinent in this case?
- parfe 15y ago
  Well, you certainly managed to bend your mind to make Apple the good guy. GPL: You have the right to modify and redistribute the application. Apple: No you don't. rbanffy: The GPL forbids redistribution. Apple restricts you to 5 devices, the GPL does not. Apple restricts you to personal, non commercial use, the GPL does not.
  - runjake 15y ago
    When has Apple restricted the right to modify and redistribute a GPL application? Although Apple's app stores don't have provisions for distributing source, they don't do anything to stop the source of a developer's app being posted for modifications or redist. I'd love to see some examples of your claims.
    - parfe 15y ago
      http://www.apple.com/legal/itunes/us/terms.html http://www.apple.com/legal/itunes/us/terms.html (i) If you are an individual acting in your personal capacity, you may download and sync an App Store Product for personal, noncommercial use on any iOS Device you own or control. and it keeps going. Fanboys coming out saying it isn't apple adding restrictions. What a joke. If I acquire an application through the app store then Apple restricts my usage.
click170 15y ago
Well if you asked Apple I'm sure they would say they "will allow" open source apps, but that doesn't mean everyone agrees that the legal terms of their app store do in fact allow FOSS. What are other people saying about the Windows 8 Store TOS?
voidr 15y ago
I stopped reading here: > Microsoft has achieved platform unity across all their devices — something that Google and Apple are still a year or more away from reaching. This alone makes it hard for me to take this article seriously, also it's highly sensationalist.
- sciurus 15y ago
  I would love a way to hide all submissions of extremetech.
- rbanffy 15y ago
  These two are much better: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/microsoft/microsoft-to-allow-open-source-apps-in-windows-8-store/11388 http://www.zdnet.com/blog/microsoft/microsoft-to-allow-open-... http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Windows-Store-agreement-has-open-source-exception-1391749.html http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Windows-Store-agreeme...
- Craiggybear 15y ago
  Precisely what I was thinking.
- freehunter 15y ago
  It is kind of odd considering iOS is a version of OSX, and with the new OSX, they've backported a bunch of iOS stuff into it. There's never been more platform unity. Microsoft won't reach that until next year when Windows 8 is released.
  - dpark 15y ago
    iOS is a version of OSX in the same way that WP7 is a version of W7, or that Android is a version of Linux. It's not a very meaningful statement from the point of view of a user (or a developer, really), because iOS doesn't look or act like OSX, WP7 doesn't look or act like W7, and Android doesn't look or act like "Linux". Sharing parts of a Kernel just doesn't matter. Also, what did Apple "backport" from iOS to OSX? They made a few more pieces of OSX "iOS-like", such as Launchpad, but I'm not aware of any significant pieces that were actually ported from iOS. And to be clear, I work for Microsoft. I don't want it to look like I'm bashing Apple here, because I'm not. Apple makes some very nice stuff. But I don't see them as having platform unity in any meaningful way (nor does Microsoft at this point).
MichaelGG 15y ago
Well, why wouldn't they allow open source apps? Anyways, this is missing the bigger point that Windows 8 is going to restrict how you can deploy applications on your own PC. It's not just the app-store approach, it's that you cannot use the new APIs and UI system unless you are approved. Insane.
- recoiledsnake 15y ago
  >It's not just the app-store approach, it's that you cannot use the new APIs and UI system unless you are approved. Insane. How is that worse than the app-store approach? If anything, it's a lot better because you can still run/develop programs like Steam. Try doing that on the app-store based iPad.
  - narkee 15y ago
    Because on the Mac, applications can be loaded directly, and do not require App Store approval.
sepent 15y ago
Is this right? "Microsoft welcomes OSI open source to Win8 store, GPL blocked at the door" link: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/12/08/open_source_windows_8_windows_store/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/12/08/open_source_windows_...
- wmf 15y ago
  No, it's not right. The GPL cannot "infect" Windows, so it's actually allowed (although I suppose what MS is saying is that if you think your license can infect Windows then it's not allowed, so it all depends on your interpretation).
- recoiledsnake 15y ago
  The GPL certainly is OSI approved. http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical The article does not make any sense, really. Especially this line: >“If your app includes FOSS, it must not cause any non-FOSS Microsoft software to become subject to the terms of any FOSS license.” Although Microsoft didn't name it, it's talking about GPL. Why would a GPL'ed app cause a non-FOSS software made by MS to become subject to the GPL? Does the app using the WinRT API cause the API to go under GPL? Distributing VLC(even if by MS) does not cause the Win32 API used heavily by VLC to go under the GPL.
  - plorkyeran 15y ago
    Distributing VLC(even if by MS) does not cause the Win32 API used heavily by VLC to go under the GPL. There's an explicit exclusion in the GPL to allow linking against non-GPL "System Libraries", which does not include every closed-source library Microsoft has ever released. Even without the clause in question I doubt you'd ever be able to get a court to declare that Microsoft had to release the source to one of their non-Windows products because you tricked them into distributing a GPL application linked against it, but I can't really blame lawyers for being cautious in an untested area.
saturdaysaint 15y ago
"As for Cupertino, Apple’s Mac App Store has not seen the adoption that it would like, especially when compared to the iOS App Store." Published the day that Apple announced the Mac App Store's 100 millionth download...
- mrsebastian 15y ago
  The iOS App Store did something like 200 million downloads in 3 months. Mac App Store was 100 million in 12 months, I think.
beloch 15y ago
The real reason why MS wants open-source applications on their app store is pretty obvious. Windows users are already almost all open-source users, and one major reason for the app-store to exist is so that Windows users can get their software from a trusted source. If you're on a Windows machine, do a quick count of the open-source applications you have installed. Open-source is a juggernaut on the Windows platform. MS knows this very well. They have problems getting users to use their free software (e.g. Internet Explorer) that comes installed on every copy of Windows instead of something that's open source! Of course, while free software does greatly enhance the value users can get out of Windows, it is also a big security problem. For every awesome open source application there is a shady malware reflection, and users sometimes have problems telling the difference. Malware is a big reason why Windows gets flak for not being secure. Enter the MS App store. The only way to sell users on the idea of getting all their software from the app store is for the free software they use to be there waiting for them. That means even the competition must be there. Yes, you can expect Chrome and Firefox to be on the MS App store. Security isn't the only benefit of locking users into an app store though. The platform "unification" MS seems to be striving towards could also benefit from features the app store could have. e.g. Centrally managed install-bases for all your computers. Install VLC on your office computer and it winds up on your mobile and home computer too. Get a new computer? One click (or less) and everything you installed from the app store on your old machine could be waiting for you on the new machine. Of course, Apple has shown that managing an App store is not without its difficulties. Slow review processes irk developers, and malicious software can still slip through. Can MS do better? Only time will tell.
- endersshadow 15y ago
  On top of that, Microsoft has spent years fostering an open source community in CodePlex[1]. Many of their internal engineers have software on CodePlex, so why would they destroy all that they've worked for there? I'm just surprised that this is surprising. [1]: http://www.codeplex.com/ http://www.codeplex.com/

61 points by mrsebastian 15y ago

Would it be worth it for open source projects to try and distribute on the app store? Given that there are already examples on Android of open source apps being recompiled, name changed, and resubmitted to the store, wouldn't this kind of thing be even more prevalent on a full computing platform? I guess it's kind of a moot point if they are put on the store for free, though.

cryptoz 15y ago
Your post confuses me. If a developer builds an open source application, isn't that developer implicitly inviting others to copy the code and do with it whatever they like (depending on the license, of course)? Ignoring app stores, isn't that the way open source has been all along? And including app stores, what difference does it make? I am the sole developer of an open source Android app (pressureNET), but nobody has copied the code and re-uploaded - if they did, isn't that just "forking"? I'd be thrilled if anyone found my project worthwhile enough for that - it's never happened to me before. I guess I'm confused why you think that forking is 'risk'. That's not only the expected behavior, but the hoped-for behavior, isn't it?
- dagw 15y ago
  Many (not all) open source licenses require attribution and limit to what extent you can change the license. Many apps in the app store violate these requirements. The problem is not forking, but taking open source code and trying to pass it off as your own closed source creation.
  - cryptoz 15y ago
    > Many apps in the app store violate these requirements. Ah. So the problem is that someone may act illegally? That's always been the case, since the dawn of time. If you're going to develop some open source software, of course there is a risk to you that someone may copy it and not follow the license. But there's significantly greater risk to the person copying, correct? If it's a crime (is it?) they risk having a criminal record and all that. So, there's nothing new here, no new risks that open source developers haven't been facing since always, and nothing at all unique about this situation. In fact, it's probably a lot better now since you have a single source to contact (the app store owner) to let them know there is a TOS violation and illegal content on their site. In previous times, there may have been no recourse (say, the copier has hosted the content on a Russian domain; you've got nowhere to turn). All in all, it seems the situation for open source developers is significantly better than it ever has been regarding illegal copying of their software.
- wmf 15y ago
  Technically this is true, but people are concerned about fairness. It seems unfair if the people who wrote the app are getting nothing while people who did "no work" are making money. (Of course, marketing is work and if it's possible to make money with just a little marketing, the upstream open source projects should be doing that themselves.)

rbanffy 15y ago

IIRC, it's not Apple who forbids GPL-licensed apps, but GPL that forbids distributing apps under Apple's rules. edit: Apparently, I was less than clear. The GPL has always forbidden distributing GPL'ed apps under Apple's (and not only Apple's) rules, since well before their app store existed.

DannoHung 15y ago
Yeah, won't readings of the GPL forbid distribution for the same reasons? Or are the apps distributed by Windows 8 going to be unsigned? Or is that not pertinent in this case?
parfe 15y ago
Well, you certainly managed to bend your mind to make Apple the good guy. GPL: You have the right to modify and redistribute the application. Apple: No you don't. rbanffy: The GPL forbids redistribution. Apple restricts you to 5 devices, the GPL does not. Apple restricts you to personal, non commercial use, the GPL does not.
- runjake 15y ago
  When has Apple restricted the right to modify and redistribute a GPL application? Although Apple's app stores don't have provisions for distributing source, they don't do anything to stop the source of a developer's app being posted for modifications or redist. I'd love to see some examples of your claims.
  - parfe 15y ago
    http://www.apple.com/legal/itunes/us/terms.html http://www.apple.com/legal/itunes/us/terms.html (i) If you are an individual acting in your personal capacity, you may download and sync an App Store Product for personal, noncommercial use on any iOS Device you own or control. and it keeps going. Fanboys coming out saying it isn't apple adding restrictions. What a joke. If I acquire an application through the app store then Apple restricts my usage.

click170 15y ago

Well if you asked Apple I'm sure they would say they "will allow" open source apps, but that doesn't mean everyone agrees that the legal terms of their app store do in fact allow FOSS. What are other people saying about the Windows 8 Store TOS?

voidr 15y ago

I stopped reading here: > Microsoft has achieved platform unity across all their devices — something that Google and Apple are still a year or more away from reaching. This alone makes it hard for me to take this article seriously, also it's highly sensationalist.

sciurus 15y ago
I would love a way to hide all submissions of extremetech.
rbanffy 15y ago
These two are much better: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/microsoft/microsoft-to-allow-open-source-apps-in-windows-8-store/11388 http://www.zdnet.com/blog/microsoft/microsoft-to-allow-open-... http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Windows-Store-agreement-has-open-source-exception-1391749.html http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Windows-Store-agreeme...
Craiggybear 15y ago
Precisely what I was thinking.
freehunter 15y ago
It is kind of odd considering iOS is a version of OSX, and with the new OSX, they've backported a bunch of iOS stuff into it. There's never been more platform unity. Microsoft won't reach that until next year when Windows 8 is released.
- dpark 15y ago
  iOS is a version of OSX in the same way that WP7 is a version of W7, or that Android is a version of Linux. It's not a very meaningful statement from the point of view of a user (or a developer, really), because iOS doesn't look or act like OSX, WP7 doesn't look or act like W7, and Android doesn't look or act like "Linux". Sharing parts of a Kernel just doesn't matter. Also, what did Apple "backport" from iOS to OSX? They made a few more pieces of OSX "iOS-like", such as Launchpad, but I'm not aware of any significant pieces that were actually ported from iOS. And to be clear, I work for Microsoft. I don't want it to look like I'm bashing Apple here, because I'm not. Apple makes some very nice stuff. But I don't see them as having platform unity in any meaningful way (nor does Microsoft at this point).

MichaelGG 15y ago

Well, why wouldn't they allow open source apps? Anyways, this is missing the bigger point that Windows 8 is going to restrict how you can deploy applications on your own PC. It's not just the app-store approach, it's that you cannot use the new APIs and UI system unless you are approved. Insane.

recoiledsnake 15y ago
>It's not just the app-store approach, it's that you cannot use the new APIs and UI system unless you are approved. Insane. How is that worse than the app-store approach? If anything, it's a lot better because you can still run/develop programs like Steam. Try doing that on the app-store based iPad.
- narkee 15y ago
  Because on the Mac, applications can be loaded directly, and do not require App Store approval.

sepent 15y ago

Is this right? "Microsoft welcomes OSI open source to Win8 store, GPL blocked at the door" link: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/12/08/open_source_windows_8_windows_store/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/12/08/open_source_windows_...

wmf 15y ago
No, it's not right. The GPL cannot "infect" Windows, so it's actually allowed (although I suppose what MS is saying is that if you think your license can infect Windows then it's not allowed, so it all depends on your interpretation).
recoiledsnake 15y ago
The GPL certainly is OSI approved. http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical The article does not make any sense, really. Especially this line: >“If your app includes FOSS, it must not cause any non-FOSS Microsoft software to become subject to the terms of any FOSS license.” Although Microsoft didn't name it, it's talking about GPL. Why would a GPL'ed app cause a non-FOSS software made by MS to become subject to the GPL? Does the app using the WinRT API cause the API to go under GPL? Distributing VLC(even if by MS) does not cause the Win32 API used heavily by VLC to go under the GPL.
- plorkyeran 15y ago
  Distributing VLC(even if by MS) does not cause the Win32 API used heavily by VLC to go under the GPL. There's an explicit exclusion in the GPL to allow linking against non-GPL "System Libraries", which does not include every closed-source library Microsoft has ever released. Even without the clause in question I doubt you'd ever be able to get a court to declare that Microsoft had to release the source to one of their non-Windows products because you tricked them into distributing a GPL application linked against it, but I can't really blame lawyers for being cautious in an untested area.

saturdaysaint 15y ago

"As for Cupertino, Apple’s Mac App Store has not seen the adoption that it would like, especially when compared to the iOS App Store." Published the day that Apple announced the Mac App Store's 100 millionth download...

mrsebastian 15y ago
The iOS App Store did something like 200 million downloads in 3 months. Mac App Store was 100 million in 12 months, I think.

beloch 15y ago

The real reason why MS wants open-source applications on their app store is pretty obvious. Windows users are already almost all open-source users, and one major reason for the app-store to exist is so that Windows users can get their software from a trusted source. If you're on a Windows machine, do a quick count of the open-source applications you have installed. Open-source is a juggernaut on the Windows platform. MS knows this very well. They have problems getting users to use their free software (e.g. Internet Explorer) that comes installed on every copy of Windows instead of something that's open source! Of course, while free software does greatly enhance the value users can get out of Windows, it is also a big security problem. For every awesome open source application there is a shady malware reflection, and users sometimes have problems telling the difference. Malware is a big reason why Windows gets flak for not being secure. Enter the MS App store. The only way to sell users on the idea of getting all their software from the app store is for the free software they use to be there waiting for them. That means even the competition must be there. Yes, you can expect Chrome and Firefox to be on the MS App store. Security isn't the only benefit of locking users into an app store though. The platform "unification" MS seems to be striving towards could also benefit from features the app store could have. e.g. Centrally managed install-bases for all your computers. Install VLC on your office computer and it winds up on your mobile and home computer too. Get a new computer? One click (or less) and everything you installed from the app store on your old machine could be waiting for you on the new machine. Of course, Apple has shown that managing an App store is not without its difficulties. Slow review processes irk developers, and malicious software can still slip through. Can MS do better? Only time will tell.

endersshadow 15y ago
On top of that, Microsoft has spent years fostering an open source community in CodePlex[1]. Many of their internal engineers have software on CodePlex, so why would they destroy all that they've worked for there? I'm just surprised that this is surprising. [1]: http://www.codeplex.com/ http://www.codeplex.com/