3 ms·

This is an amazing idea. I am sure there is a way to charge for licenses for completely open source software. Will Satya do this? Can he do this?

by anoncow 13y ago

marcosdumay 13y ago
Microsoft won't be able to charge much for Windows anymore. They are already squeezing the price, and losing market share at the same time. Maybe open sourcing Windows will keep their other products at the positive for longer.
cookiecaper 13y ago
It's pretty hard to do it with a conventional OSI certified license. Anyone can rebuild your product and resell it or give it away. Red Hat tried something similar but CentOS still existed. Microsoft could come up with their own license that was "open source" but not "free software" by Stallman's definitions (ignoring here the people who've attempted to make these terms synonymous), which would allow people to change code and distribute freely among license holders, but not allow people to resell or just give out copies of Windows. I'd actually be really excited about this, because I think the FSF is overboard with their demand that everyone essentially make their software unsellable. They could go the Red Hat route, go GPL, accept that they'll no longer get money for software licenses but instead support contracts (they could even try selling these to consumers; Dell would pay MS $50/PC not for a copy of Windows, but for a subscription to Windows Update). This would shift the dynamics of the company a bit, but probably not as much as one may think, since enterprise keeps MS afloat anyway, and it may be a good solution.
- yuhong 13y ago
  This remind me of Unix source licenses.
- fredgrott 13y ago
  a FSF licensed product is not unsellable..RMS sold copies of GNU software for years to pay for his living expense
  - snambi 13y ago
    He still does. GO to one of his meetings in berkeley, he sells emacs, linux CDs. RMS is not against selling software. He just doesn't like restrictions that all. btw, who likes restrictions?
- Tmmrn 13y ago
  > Microsoft could come up with their own license that was "open source" but not "free software" The important question then would be: Could you legally port directx to *nix from this? If not, then what'd be the point?
  - cookiecaper 13y ago
    Yes, and you could distribute it, as long as you had a checkbox prior to the download that said, "I assert I am a Windows license holder and entitled to utilize derivatives of its code", or a banner that printed a similar message after installation, instructing you to uninstall if you aren't a license holder.

This is an amazing idea. I am sure there is a way to charge for licenses for completely open source software. Will Satya do this? Can he do this?

by anoncow 13y ago

This is an amazing idea. I am sure there is a way to charge for licenses for completely open source software. Will Satya do this? Can he do this?

marcosdumay 13y ago

Microsoft won't be able to charge much for Windows anymore. They are already squeezing the price, and losing market share at the same time. Maybe open sourcing Windows will keep their other products at the positive for longer.

cookiecaper 13y ago

It's pretty hard to do it with a conventional OSI certified license. Anyone can rebuild your product and resell it or give it away. Red Hat tried something similar but CentOS still existed. Microsoft could come up with their own license that was "open source" but not "free software" by Stallman's definitions (ignoring here the people who've attempted to make these terms synonymous), which would allow people to change code and distribute freely among license holders, but not allow people to resell or just give out copies of Windows. I'd actually be really excited about this, because I think the FSF is overboard with their demand that everyone essentially make their software unsellable. They could go the Red Hat route, go GPL, accept that they'll no longer get money for software licenses but instead support contracts (they could even try selling these to consumers; Dell would pay MS $50/PC not for a copy of Windows, but for a subscription to Windows Update). This would shift the dynamics of the company a bit, but probably not as much as one may think, since enterprise keeps MS afloat anyway, and it may be a good solution.

yuhong 13y ago
This remind me of Unix source licenses.
fredgrott 13y ago
a FSF licensed product is not unsellable..RMS sold copies of GNU software for years to pay for his living expense
- snambi 13y ago
  He still does. GO to one of his meetings in berkeley, he sells emacs, linux CDs. RMS is not against selling software. He just doesn't like restrictions that all. btw, who likes restrictions?
Tmmrn 13y ago
> Microsoft could come up with their own license that was "open source" but not "free software" The important question then would be: Could you legally port directx to *nix from this? If not, then what'd be the point?
- cookiecaper 13y ago
  Yes, and you could distribute it, as long as you had a checkbox prior to the download that said, "I assert I am a Windows license holder and entitled to utilize derivatives of its code", or a banner that printed a similar message after installation, instructing you to uninstall if you aren't a license holder.