3 ms·

Even though Microsoft have embraced open source, they are not happy about the GPL license, and have actively replaced GPL code in their previous takeovers.

by finenad 12y ago

brudgers 12y ago
[IANAL] My impression is that GPL (or another copyleft style licence) would create incompatibilities with the business models of many of their customers. Taking contributions would also be problematic since Microsoft may wish to dogfood their opensource for proprietary products. For better or worse many of their products incorporate licensed technology from other companies under terms incompatible with GPL. So GPL's strong terms don't seem a viable and reasoned alternative. GPL might be seen as a strong option for companies whose business is built around dual licensing their technology and when all that technology was built in house or licenced under different less stringent terms.
- bunderbunder 12y ago
  This. GPL is just really really hard to work around if you're selling non-SAAS products. In general, it's not something you try to do if you have any alternative. And nowadays, you almost always have an alternative. Increasingly often it's a more capable, more actively maintained, and better supported option that comes with the added bonus of not needing to take the time to get special approval from your legal department.
  - woodman 12y ago
    > if you're selling non-SAAS products Pretty funny, considering how much RMS dislikes SAAS.
    - s-phi-nl 12y ago
      I do not know, but I suspect this is exactly why RMS dislikes SAAS: because it can technically obey a license without having to give users the freedoms he designed the GPL to give.
      - bunderbunder 12y ago
        It's deeper than that. By its very nature, SAAS precludes every single one of the freedoms that the GPL is designed to give. The GPL isn't really about sharing source code; that's just a means to an end. The GPL is about being able to exercise complete control over - and having complete knowledge of - all the software that you use. To an approximation, SAAS is about the opposite of that.
tiernano 12y ago
Microsoft might not be happy with the GPL itself, but given they are working on LibGit, and not all of GitHub (or any?) of their main software they "sell" (github enterprise, their client apps like GitHub for Windows and OSX) are open source, Microsoft would probably have no issues with the GPL. It would also be interesting if MS did buy GitHub. Wasent one of the GitHub founders an employee of a company who was bought by Microsoft and he either dident move over or left after a minimum time?
nbevans 12y ago
I think most people have issue with GPL to be honest. So they aren't alone there.

Even though Microsoft have embraced open source, they are not happy about the GPL license, and have actively replaced GPL code in their previous takeovers.

by finenad 12y ago

Even though Microsoft have embraced open source, they are not happy about the GPL license, and have actively replaced GPL code in their previous takeovers.

brudgers 12y ago

[IANAL] My impression is that GPL (or another copyleft style licence) would create incompatibilities with the business models of many of their customers. Taking contributions would also be problematic since Microsoft may wish to dogfood their opensource for proprietary products. For better or worse many of their products incorporate licensed technology from other companies under terms incompatible with GPL. So GPL's strong terms don't seem a viable and reasoned alternative. GPL might be seen as a strong option for companies whose business is built around dual licensing their technology and when all that technology was built in house or licenced under different less stringent terms.

bunderbunder 12y ago
This. GPL is just really really hard to work around if you're selling non-SAAS products. In general, it's not something you try to do if you have any alternative. And nowadays, you almost always have an alternative. Increasingly often it's a more capable, more actively maintained, and better supported option that comes with the added bonus of not needing to take the time to get special approval from your legal department.
- woodman 12y ago
  > if you're selling non-SAAS products Pretty funny, considering how much RMS dislikes SAAS.
  - s-phi-nl 12y ago
    I do not know, but I suspect this is exactly why RMS dislikes SAAS: because it can technically obey a license without having to give users the freedoms he designed the GPL to give.
    - bunderbunder 12y ago
      It's deeper than that. By its very nature, SAAS precludes every single one of the freedoms that the GPL is designed to give. The GPL isn't really about sharing source code; that's just a means to an end. The GPL is about being able to exercise complete control over - and having complete knowledge of - all the software that you use. To an approximation, SAAS is about the opposite of that.

tiernano 12y ago

Microsoft might not be happy with the GPL itself, but given they are working on LibGit, and not all of GitHub (or any?) of their main software they "sell" (github enterprise, their client apps like GitHub for Windows and OSX) are open source, Microsoft would probably have no issues with the GPL. It would also be interesting if MS did buy GitHub. Wasent one of the GitHub founders an employee of a company who was bought by Microsoft and he either dident move over or left after a minimum time?

nbevans 12y ago

I think most people have issue with GPL to be honest. So they aren't alone there.