Slashdot Mirror
A Slightly-Softer Microsoft Shared Source License
RadBlock writes "Microsoft Watch has a story on a recent change in Microsoft's shared-source licensing... I guess the main difference is that programmers do not have to send back any changes made to the source code. But they can't combine any of the Microsoft code with other software. Here's the full text of their new license agreement." The article claims that Microsoft is "inching closer -- at least in spirit -- to the GNU GPL" with these license tweaks, but it doesn't look that way to me.
What is an inch, when you are light years apart?
Ola Sundell
Modifying code without having to give it back seems more like a move sideways in relation to GPL and a move towards the BSD license.
Some Questions Every Business Should Ask About the GNU General Public License (GPL)
Within the software industry, the recent clash of source-code licensing philosophies has proponents of commercial software and open-source advocates frequently at loggerheads. Both commercial and open-source software models, however, have demonstrated value for various sectors of the software market, which has determined that multiple licensing and distribution models should coexist in healthy competition. The market, in fact, is driving both camps toward a middle ground where the most beneficial aspects of both philosophies are embraced.
In May 2001, Microsoft® responded with a Shared Source Initiative (SSI) to provide source access to a broad range of customers, partners, independent developers, researchers and other interested individuals, while preserving the intellectual property rights that have sustained innovation throughout the industry over the past quarter-century. The SSI framework supports a spectrum of licensing programs, each tailored to the source-access needs of a specific constituent community. Meanwhile, prominent open-source developers began to adopt certain commercial distribution methods in their own pragmatic migration toward the middle. These developers commonly rely on open-source licenses, like those based on the Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) license, that place few if any restrictions on licensees' subsequent use of licensed source code, including its use in commercial software development.
Free software distributors, by contrast, use the highly restrictive GPL, which was created by the Free Software Foundation (FSF) in furtherance of its philosophy that software should not be subject to ownership, and thus that commercial software is inherently immoral. The GPL governs distribution of some popular free software, including Linux. The GPL may be beneficial to noncommercial developers and certain licensees in other contexts, but several of the license's terms and uncertainties should raise red flags for commercial developers considering its use.
Because many businesses may not understand the GPL and its potential implications, Microsoft offers this document as a checklist and to provide important background information. Most or all of the following questions will be familiar to those who have examined the GPL. Many of them have generated considerable debate even among open-source and free-software advocates. Comments in this document are based on GPL Version 2, Lesser General Public License (LGPL) Version 2.1 and the GNU GPL FAQ page (www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl-faq.html).
The GPL is a complicated agreement. To understand your potential rights and obligations, you must interpret the various provisions of the license and apply them to your particular circumstances. Microsoft recommends that you obtain legal counsel as appropriate. This document does not and cannot offer legal advice.
1. Have your lawyers read the GPL (and the LGPL)? Because the GPL is so frequently misunderstood and because it attempts, under certain circumstances, to impose significant obligations on licensees and their intellectual property rights, no responsible business should use GPL software without ensuring that its lawyers have read the license and explained the business' rights and obligations. They should also review and explain the Lesser General Public License, or LGPL, a related license that is sometimes used with open source libraries.
2. How are you using GPL software and what obligations does it impose? The obligations associated with the GPL vary substantially depending upon the way in which GPL code is used. Even limited or relatively obscure uses (e.g., including a few lines of GPL code in a commercial product or linking directly or indirectly to a GPL library) may have a dramatic effect on your legal rights and obligations. To understand the potential implications of the GPL, you need to have a detailed understanding of your use of
They've claimed that they like BSD, just not Linux's GPL... Soooo... why don't they just use the BSD License?
Oh, because it would be detrimental to their business.
This is really stupid, and their ways are going to fool people - and they already have. It's too bad that we don't really have any powerful marketing pusher for Linux that can expose the truth... Oh well. Some day.
So if you are a ``shared source'' licensee, do you get all the source for whatever app you are playing with? That is, can you compile it into the same application that you buy shrinkwrapped at Best Buy? Or do they leave some things out?
Is it just me or should a license from MS probably have a URL associated with it pointing it to MS.
This EULA doesn't sound like legalease. I really doubt this is a MS license. I've tried to find a shared source ASP.NET distro to verify but to no avail.
Can anyone vouch for this being authentic?
Much the same way as the amoeba is one step closer to mankind than a virus.
fifth sigma, inc.
but it doesn't look that way to me.
You have to learn to crawl before you learn to walk. Think back a few years when Microsoft didn't even let their source out the door at all -- then try to say with a straight face that they're not slowly sliding down the slippery slope towards the gaping maw of Open Source that's eating their lunch.
Look, Microsoft is a company that wants to make money. They will eventually do whatever their customers demand. If that means eventually giving out full source along with their binaries because everyone else is doing it, then that's what they'll do; or they'll become irrelevant in the marketplace, which is something they'll never allow to happen.
NO CARRIER
Take a look at8. That if you sue anyone over patents that you think may apply to the Software for a person's use of the Software, your license to the Software ends automatically.
This is interesting, could this be an statement on software patents? Or do they want to know if the software is patentable, then they want to be able to take patent action?
Fight Spammers!
Timothy, I have a question. It's not a troll, and it's not flamebait; it's just a simple question, one that could be addressed with a simple answer.
What does this have to do with "your rights online?"
I have come to accept, over the past several years, that the Slashdot idea of "rights" is wildly different from my own. This bothers me deeply, but I see little point in arguing about it in broad strokes. But I fail to see how this story fits in with even the Slashdot-standard idea of "rights."
Can you-- indeed, can anyone-- clear this up for me, please?
I write in my journal
Typical Microsoft embrace and extend strategy? Or perhaps a tainted gift for RMS on his recent birthday? The EULA can not be decompiled by any craft that we here possess, Gimli son of Gloin, the source must be returned to Redmond and cast back in to the fiery chasm from whence it came . . .
MS doesn't want to have to spend the money checking over code every time somebody anywheres in the world opens up one of their source files?
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
Haha, Micro So Soft... is the title a joke, or did you guys not realize someone would bring up that reference when you posted this? Hahaha...
It is just too restrictive for a business entity. How many companies that you know of that can claim to have profitted from GPL-based software? Redhat (please, they're virtually unheard of outside of the OS markets), IBM (they've been a gigantic conglomerate long before Linux became mainstream).
Windows on the other hand, like it or not, is a catalyst of profitable software firms. Where would Adobe, Veritas, heck even Electronic Arts be without MS? Sure the OS is buggy, and fixes aren't released lightning fast... But who can say that without Windows, these company would be just as successful today?
Microsoft sure does a lot of wrong things when it comes to Windows... but one thing it got right from the beginning was how to drive the market to complement their invention, and without opening up their source code at that. In some cases, the related SDK will do just fine.
Welley Corporation - SLM Scammers
Is The 'Soft Going Soft on Open Source?
By Mary Jo Foley
Microsoft's newest shared source license seems to be inching closer -- at least in spirit -- to the GNU GPL.
The open-source faithful have been harsh critics of Microsoft's shared source licensing plan and justifiably so. They have claimed that Microsoft has attempted to ride the coattails of the GNU General Public License (GPL), while simultaneously slamming the GPL as contaminating everything in its path.
Even some of Microsoft's own employees, such as David Stutz, the former Microsoft manager in charge of Microsoft's Common Language Infrastructure (CLI) Shared Source program, have expressed frustration with Microsoft's licensing rhetoric.
One More Time: Stutz's 'Sanitized' Goodbye Note
But is there a case to be made that Redmond is slowly but surely learning from its past mistakes?
Exhibit No. 1: Instead of trying to blur the lines between open source and shared source, this week, Microsoft is presenting (against a back drop of open-source protest) its shared source program as an "alternative" to the GPL at the Washington, D.C. e-Government pow-wow on open standards and open source.
Check Out the e-Government Agenda Here
Exhibit No. 2: With no fanfare, the company recently has added a new shared source licensing option to its stable that removes some (but definitely not all of the more onerous licensing clauses from Microsoft's contracts.
The new license -- called simply, the "ASP .Net Starter Kit License" -- is much streamlined and simplified, weighing in at a single page in length. Under the licensing terms, developers and users are permitted to download the ASP .Net Starter Kit source code for free, to develop on and around the code and redistribute it, commercially or internally, without paying Microsoft any royalties.
ASP .Net Starter Kit licensees do not need to return to Microsoft any changes they make to the code, Microsoft execs say. Under the GPL license, developers are obligated to submit back to the community any changes they make to the code base.
But don't start thinking that The 'Soft has gone soft on open source. There is wording in the ASP .Net Starter Kit license that prevents developers or customers from GPLing the Microsoft code, according to Microsoft execs.
"You are not allowed to combine or distribute the (ASP .Net Starter Kit) Software with other software that is licensed under terms that seek to require that the Software (or any intellectual property in it) be provided in source code form, licensed to others to allow the creation or distribution of derivative works, or distributed without charge," reads Microsoft's new license.
For the Whole Text of the New License, Click Here
What's your take? Do you think Microsoft is genuinely interested in adopting some of the positives from the open source model? Or is the company hiding behind seemingly more liberal terms and conditions? Write me at mswatch@ziffdavis.com and give me your two cents.
-- Bill "Houdini" Weiss
guess the main difference is that programmers do not have to send back any changes made to the source code.
Surely that means it's moving away from GPL...
It is just a BSDish license with a GNU-incompatible clause tacked on. Perfectly reasonable for a commercial company to do.
By the way, MS developer licenses (unlike their end user licenses) are usually rather reasonable anyway. The number of examples they provide in the DDK is quite good. MSDN is also better written then most man pages.
"Microsoft is 'inching closer -- at least in spirit -- to the GNU GPL'"
They have this exactly backwards. If anything, Microsoft has inched closer to the letter of the GNU GPL. Nearly every other action they have taken as a company has shown contempt for the spirit of the GPL.
---------
Believe me, I'm as surprised by my comment as you are.
I know
- SMJ - (It's not just a name: it's a bad aftertaste.)
Parent post was modded as flamebait. How is this so? Because slashdot readers are supposed to accept the GPL without question?
If anything it's offtopic, but that's questionable given that we're talking about software licenses.
The licenses for most open-source software are designed to grant you the freedom to share and change it. By contrast, the MSFT Shared Source License is intended to guarantee the illusion that you have any freedom to share and change Microsoft software software, and to make sure Microsoft can control any user of the software. This Shared Source License applies to a small portion of Microsoft's software, and not to any other software. (Most other Microsoft software is covered by an eight-page EULA instead.) You can apply it to your programs, too -- unless you don't like lawsuits!
When we speak of free software, we are referring to price, not freedom. Our Shared Source Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to use our software, provided you only use it under our terms, and that you have freedom to distribute verbatim copies of the software under our terms (and charging for this service if you wish, provided that the proceeds are returned to Microsoft), that you don't receive source code unless we give it to you, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new programs, provided that you give the changes back to Microsoft; and that you know you can't do these things, when you see the successful high-profile lawsuits against small defenseless companies.
To deny your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to provide you these rights or to ask you to act as if you had the rights. These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you are anyone who owns a computer capable of running Microsoft software.
An inch is how much of a stride? How many strides is Shared Source Initiative/License from GNU/GPL?
This is a pretty big step for Microsoft. They are, to a legal extent, relinquishing complete control of the source. Now you can maintain a private fork of the SSL source. (isn't that a nice abbreviation?) You won't have to report every little tweak you make to Microsoft.
On the other hand, MS could be bowing to simple reality: they don't have or want the resources to administer 900,000,000 variations on patches, developers keep private trees anyway, companies do not like dishing out their private modifications to potential competitors. Even so, they've bowed to reality. If they keep bowing to reality, they'll eventually hit something near the BSD license, and do a lot of good when they start getting close.
I'm as mimsy as the next borogove but your mome raths are completely outgrabe.
"Shared source" is just a marketing ploy.
One day, Linux will take over the desktop. This is because the ease of use and the cost saving are great, and also common application such as web browser, office suit, multimedia are start to show maturity.
What does this mean? Microsoft one day will no longer be a big OS and Office company. They will struggle to make money else where, and on the shrinking legacy window market.
One day, the cost of building M$ Office and XP Desktop are too high, but users doesn't want to upgrade because they don't need those extra features, and don't way to pay for the copies. This means Microsoft will either throw the product away (bury it), or open source it.
By then, it'll be too late. But's who say it's not too late now. Now, if they make it open source like Linux, they can not make much money out of it and people start to copy it like crazy.
So, it's already too late now, and in the future for M$.
When they go open source (if they ever will), there will be many programmers start working on it. No question about this. Why? because despite the bad DOS, and people still work on it, then the M$ monopoly, and people still create Mono project. So, no doubt, there will be followers.
What does this means to the future of Linux and Windows?
Linux will still dominates due to the fact that most people are using it, and it's free, and it'll be very fast and very easy to use by then.
Because the large installed base of windows, many company still use it, and many personal computer still use, but that number is low (because that's along time in the future, and if the number is high, then why would M$ give it out for free). The open source nature of it also make it much more attractive to users and developers.
So, would one of them eventually win out, or both exist? It's hard to predict too far. But in the next 15 years, both will exist, and Linux will gradually become the main stream, while windows will fade way slowly.
with a provision that prevents it from being used with GPL software. This is a divide and conquer tactic, plain and simple.
I just heard -- Slashdot troll was found dead in his parent's basement. There weren't any more details. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss him - even if you didn't enjoy his work, there's no denying his contributions to popular culture. Truly an American icon.
Always re-inventing the wheel but failing to make it circular. Look at all the "inventions" brought in by MS, always there has to be an "innovation" and somehow things go wrong.
is inching closer to GPL... hey! that means MS is dead already. Wow!!
How much does an 800lb gorilla weigh? In spirit, I mean....
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
Your post was moderated down-- twice-- by an editor. Editors get unlimited mod points. Alas, you have accomplished nothing here.
* If the licensee includes any amount of GPL code in another program, that entire program becomes subject to the terms of the GPL.
This third restriction often is called a "viral" clause, because it causes the GPL to "infect" any future software that incorporates GPL code, whether or not the developer intended that result. This even applies to software not in existence at the time the license was drafted. It should be pointed out that there are many OSS licenses, most of which do not include GPL-style restrictions and do not tell licensees how they must license their own innovations. This anti-commercial philosophy is rejected by much of the OSS community.
Interesting. I thought that the 'OSS community' was all about an 'anti-commercial philosophy'.
But I just want a cool OS....
this is only a test
Since you bought up Adobe, they've always been very Mac-friendly. It was Apple that enabled Adobe to make lots of money licensing PostScript interpreters in every Apple LaserWriter sold that started desktop publishing. And now Mac OS X incorporates PDF into the core of the OS.
If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
if you distribute the Software in source code form you do so only under this license (i.e. you must include a complete copy of this license with your distribution),
Hey that sounds awful lot like GPL!!
screw some license the moment I get my hands
on Windows Source Code I am hacking up and down,
left and right!
I am going to do what I always do and defy
MicroSoft!
I am certain even if they don't let the public
get their grubby hands on it that with in days
of release you be able to pick it off your P2P
network of choice
Hey, thats what happened to XP the moment the gold
OEM discs where send out
Life is like a jar of jalapeños, what you do today may burn your ass tomorrow.
Hey, way to make your post look legetimate by using M$! That'll really stick it to the man, won't it? Bill Gates probably has a single tear rolling down his cheek right now. Of course, that tear falls onto a huge pile of a cash because he's a fucking billionaire (and you're a halfwit living in your parents' basement).
kthxbye
And all Iraqi military and civilian personnel should listen carefully to this warning: In any conflict, your fate will depend on your actions. Do not destroy oil wells, a source of wealth that belongs to US corporations.
The real question, however, is whether any interesting software will be shipped under this license. Rotor, for example, still comes with the "non-commercial-only" license (here).
If this is one of several shared source licenses they have but they don't use it for anything interesting, then it's just a PR ploy. Of course, I have a hard time thinking of what kind of open source software I would want from Microsoft anyway: none of the stuff they have is of much interest to me.
Where would Adobe, Veritas, heck even Electronic Arts be without MS?
They'd be running on the Mac. What's more, Apple would have not only a big marketshare of the software, but they'd have the hardware, too. And everything would Just Work(tm), for that very reason. At least, until Apple started screwing with its APIs the way M$ has been...
Sure the OS is buggy, and fixes aren't released lightning fast... But who can say that without Windows, these company would be just as successful today?
All of them, and for the most part, they'd be right. The only reason anyone needs Windows now is because it's what everybody is using. Had Apple done any number of things differently, all the Windows users could very easily be Mac users, and Microsoft would just be a bad dream.
If you think about it, the only reason people "need" Windows now as a platform is because that's what they have been using all along. Windows didn't come along "by default", it was actively adopted back in the day by people who didn't want to pay the price for Mac hardware, or deal with their chicken-simple UI.
"I haven't lost my mind -- it's just backed up on tape somewhere."
Contrary to such atrocities against humanity and the larger population of the world, the Microsoft license liberates every person by empowering them to use high quality tools for crashing computers at ten times the price, while simultaneously giving them the power to do almost as much as nothing in terms of repairing problems that arise when the liberation software fails (in other words, when it actually works properly and thus does not fulfill its purpose of crashing the aforementioned computer), thus creating value for the consumer and keeping the economy strong.
If the open source world actually used its brain, every developer of open source software would sign his intellectual property over to Microsoft for free, on the sole condition that Microsoft will also take away everything that person owns and leave them hungry in the streets.
Microsoft is such a noble and ethical entity that most developers would die to defend it.
But it doens't walk like a duck, neither looks like one. Nor like a penguin.
--- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.
1) Give source to users
2) let users mod software
3) any problems, can't blame us, YOU modified it.
yeah, yeah, it's not likely but I just feel really cynical today
Webster says:
Etymology: probably from German Scheisser, literally, defecator
Date: 1844
: one who is professionally unscrupulous especially in the practice of law or politics
Typing "shyster" into google revealed that not a single one of the links on the first page of results (i.e. google's top matches) even contained the word "jew" or "semite/semitic".
I consider myself well-read and socially connected, and I have not picked up on "shyster" as having anything particularly to do with jewish folks.
All of the above suggest to me that your interpretation of shyster is not as widespread as you might think. In my opinion the context of the post's usage makes it clear that it is not intended as ethnic hate language.
Your request was made restrainedly enough that I won't rant.
"M$ future"? - there's no future for M$, I guess I'm even more radical than you are in the assessment of M$. Here's why. The econ is going bad, people spending less and less money, today's released numbers in new housing construction tell that construction is down by 11%, and that's just a starter, or rather the follow up on the downtrend that started in March 2000 in US economy. The coming war with Iraq will deepen the crisis, by far. The time is coming that most people and businesses won't be able to afford M$ upgrades, licenses, etc. So, M$ empire is doomed, he? Well, not so fast, they will fight to "own" your business by implementing .NET, some say .NOT, but the point is that inevitably M$ won't be needed in the next cycle of soft dev when OpenS will rule the world, right? Well, let's hope so, he he.
IP was invented for the sake of lawsuits.
You're missing the point.
First of all, what you say is false. Linking GPL code in with your project does not compel your project to be GPL, unless you distribute the resulting project. It is amazing how often incorrect myths like your statement are perpetuated.
Second of all, you conveniently neglect to mention the fact that if you link MS code in with your project and distribute it, you go to jail.
I would much much much rather work with GPL code than MS code.
Article 2 of the agreement:
2. That you are not allowed to combine or distribute the Software with other software that is licensed under terms that seek to require that the Software (or any intellectual property in it) be provided in source code form, licensed to others to allow the creation or distribution of derivative works, or distributed without charge.
Sheesh...they should have just said, "You can't use our code in any GPL project. Ever. Period." Microsoft is so good at keeping their proprietary monopoly, aren't they?
I don't know what their bottom line looks like, but they seem to have been rapidly expanding and releasing new and improved products over the last few years, so it seems to be working well for them. I also think this is a pretty reasonable model for developers of library software - the benefits of Open Source, and the ability to actually profit off of your labor too. So while I agree that in general the GPL is probably too restrictive for businesses to feel comfortable with (they tend to feel more comfortable with BSD licenses - it's free, use it as you please, give us a nod for giving it to you), there are cases where it has been used successfully by profitable businesses.
What's more, Apple would have not only a big marketshare of the software, but they'd have the hardware, too.
And people whine about the high costs of Apple hardware now...
Hell, what about anti-virus firms? An entire industry has sprouted from Microsoft's role in the computer world.
What about Stacker? What about the fact that they killed Netscape's market? What about the umpteen other markets that were slowly consumed by the ever expanding "OS"?
Obviously a lot of pro-GPL talk goes around here. Duh. I must say I love the fruits of the GPL (poor college student). However, I seem to be confused by the GPL and other "open source" licenses quite a bit. I think this has to do with the fact that I'm not a coder, so I don't think about it in that light. So, is there a site that not only answers a few of the recent FAQs on the GPL (I google'd for one and it was last updated in 2001 and was not very complete)?? Also, what about comparison on some of the finer points of some of the misc. lics?
The ultimate network admin tool needs HELP!
The interesting part is that it seems to allow you do distribute derivative works with a license with an addition like "This software may be used for any purpose but may not be examined or run by any employee of a corporation convicted of monopoly abuse in any juristiction."
Of course, it only looks BSD like, the "all rights reserved" part bans anyone from examining, compiling or using code created under this license. So the fact that you can ban Microsoft from using your derivative is beside the point.
This is all pretty meaningless. The code in question is just sample code that people can modify instead of starting from scratch. Nothing to see here, folks. Please move along.
The shared source license is just an attempt to pull attention away from the GPL because the GPL has Microsoft running scared. They put on a good face, but deep down they are concerned because of how much developer mindshare OSS has.
Microsoft only has a few specific goals here:
1. To distract anyone considering OSS and make them feel like there is a viable alternative from a single accountable entity. (Something that most OSS has a little trouble providing)
2. To disrupt the OSS community and have them focus more on the licenses than the code, which could have a double ended result: code forking and migration of the less "devout" to shared source.
3. To distract people from where they are headed next. I think this is the biggest reason because I think you will see the Windows code base released within the next few years with very few strings attached. Why? I must draw from Neal Stephenson's wonderful essay "In the Beggining, there was Command Line" to explain:
As software technologies progress and functionality expands, older software loses value. To the point where it is eventually worth-less. Hence, it can be free (as in beer and in parts, as in speech). Why would they do this? I think Microsoft is getting ready to transition to many other technology markets as the products they develop have less value and relevance over time.
My bets:
*Data Storage Systems (Not just file systems, but transparent, intelligent data storage devices that do all the work for you: categorizing data in to types automatically, analyzing data usage and optimizing the store for nearly immediate access no matter how big the data set, etc...)
*Big Iron Replacement (Windows Datacenter is just the start. They want this to kill off UNIX, VMS and other OSes like them. The datacenter is where they want to be now.)
*Embedded Devices on a much grander scale than WinCE is capable of. The only thing the OS on these devices will have in common with Windows are the logo and a few graphics, but the code will be vastly different and run on completely new architectures. There wouldn't even be much point in calling it Windows anymore.
*Artificially "better" performing network protocols that embrace, extend and extinguish TCP/IP. They will tune TCP/IP and add new features in it that most users will want. But these features will break the TCP/IP standard. Sure it'll work with non-MS stuff. However, as it's always been, the MS stuff will just work so much better if it's all MS. The gains in performance will likely only be a little network "Reaganomics". Shift a little performance hit here or there to make something else look better. Think about how many people think that Windows XP is a better OS than previous versions of windows only based on boot time and time to load IE. Those are not significant factors folks! The same thing will apply here.
I say, we shouldn't let MS distract us too much, but we SHOULD keep a watchful eye on where we think they might be headed because the desktop isn't going to be enough to keep them alive in a few years.
Personally, I think one of the most important things that OSS should be focussing on is the improvement and extension of input devices, that's where the next technology war will be fought on the embedded device front. Because you sure as hell aren't going to have KB, mouse or even serial port on a computer embedded in you walls, floors and clothing.
Un-news
Mr Software Developer went to the house of the big bad tyrant Micro Soft. He wanted to help develop his applications with him, but Micro Soft was an evil man.
"I'll let you have my source code" he said, out of character. Mr Software Developer took his source, but before he could leave, Micro Soft bent him over and raped him up the ass, stealing money out of his back pocket with every thrust.
-
The moral, boys and girls, is somewhat simple...
Microsoft's definition of Open Source = being assraped by Bill for all eternity. It's not open source, it's closed source with a pinhole leak.
If you're happy and you know it read my blog
Is it just me, or is everybody missing the point that the "open" license is only for their "ASP .Net Starter Kit", which are just a bunch of sample projects to demonstrate .NET?
Why not download one of the ASP.NET Starter Kits and check it out yourself?
Disclaimer: I work at Microsoft but this is not an official endorsement nor rebuttal of the claims in the article. I'm simply pointing people to where they can verify the claims in the article for themselves
Will the sourcecode actually compile?
Can I compile it using Dev-C++?
Open source development is my way of competing with the low-cost programmers in India...
FAIK, this apply to very few softwares ...
MS is giving FUD to the community, because they fear the opensource movement.
-SLK
When the two overlap-- when science is driven by the profit motive-- we see that the commercial model supercedes the academic one.
You seem to be thinking about patents. We are not talking about patentable (or should-be patentable) designs when we talk about computer code. This is for lots of reasons; some purely pragmatic (it's hard to enforce patent law given reverse engineering) and others legal or ethical.
The principal ethical argument for not allowing software patents is that software design is the design of ideas, and is too easy. For example, a patent for water-repellent trousers takes incredible physical resources to acquire, because it involves producing a physical pair of water-repellent trousers. The trousers themselves are likely produced by a novel process, which could not be inferred from the description "water-repellent trousers". A new digital product is no more complex to produce than it is to completely describe. But enough about patents.
Copyrights have historically been used inside both industry and academia to earn money. The copyright is a reward for publishing (not a reward for 'being creative'!). But digital works are distributable and copyable at zero cost. This was not the case before the current era.
For this reason, we should be (and we are) reconsidering copyright and the way it applies to digital or digitisable works. The ownership of source code to a PUBLISHED work is NOT a natural right. In claiming that it is, you are essentially supporting an insane Disney copytight universe, where selling information to people (publishing) doesn't involve selling them the permission to own that information, ever. Sorry, Mr media industry, but that ain't publishing as we know it now, ethically or legally.
The same point rephrased: when information can be published (and marketed and sold) without significant cost, there is no point in significantly burdening the public with copyright obligations. We should make these kinds of information free. By GPL if not by law.
You see what I'm saying? There is a moral case for the GPL. Now I'm with Chomsky, I generally expect companies (e.g. MS) to behave immorally, but not illegally, to make a profit. So in one sense you're right - it's stupid to lay into MS for 'only inching' toward freeing their work. The ultimate solution to profiteering off copyright ('Disneyism') is to rewrite copyright legislation. That's a long hard road.
Is it wrong to want to make money? Microsoft is a corporation, they have a lot of salaries to pay, and they're not nonprofit. Have no illusions; they're out to make money. Is it any surprise that they don't want an anticommercial license like the GPL infecting their own license? Well, it shouldn't be.
/.'ers have complained that MS would not release any of its source code. We've complained that MS steals GPL source code. But now we're complaining that they're out to make money? Er.
Microsoft needs to sell its products. In the past,
I'm against big business as much as the next socialist, but I'm afraid Microsoft isn't my biggest worry right now. They're in the process of reform, cut them some slack and let them still make money, huh? Just be proud - they're afraid of OSS enough to do this whole reform thing.
Yes GPL economics stops profiteering from software/API/platform publishing.
No this isn't bad for the 'IT' industry (software provision), and it definitely isn't bad for the economy as whole.
<devil's advocate>
But making a near-zero-cost instance of information artificially scarce allows for some really great profit margins, and it's only that enforced promise to profit that gives me an incentive to take the time, money, and effort to create an original work at all.
Instead of information, imagine if in a few decades nanotechnology allows people to make cheap copies of cars, clothes and food from infinitely recyclable molecules + sunlight (stored in hydrogen fuel cells). But if the car designers don't get paid, they won't be able to design new cars or clothe their kids! And if the fashion designers don't get paid, they won't be able design new clothes or eat! And if farmers don't get paid, they won't be able to farm ... oh wait, they can make their own food like everybody else ... and clothes ... and machinery ... and have enough free time to contribute their own open source -- s/w & h/w -- back to the community.
</devil>
--
Power to the Peaceful
Shared Source has nothing to do with any new policy or some sudden change in behavior. Its just an attempt in keeping the remaining developers hooked onto MS and stop the massive stampeede onto linux and others.
MS have clearly shown that they will grab for any field in PC they think is profitable. Using their OS as a battering ram into the market they have suceeded with this many times. I am pretty sure that they have misintrepret why developers go to open source. If it wasnt open source it would have been something else. The main point is that they want away from MS. Where they go from that isnt important. Making Shared Source into a license that only benefit MS wont lure many developers back thats for sure. Especielly since MS is knowned for their mumbo jumbo licenses with smallprint in the size of kvarks.
HTTP/1.1 400
Hey i know that one company profits a great deal from software and that's MS. Having $40b in the bank, and with an annual income of around 8B coming from the worldwide IT budgets...
Tell me again, how exactly are other software companies profiting because of MS? Trade MS for linux NOW, the companies would have a whole $8b/year to share. period.
Washington bullets will simply be known as the "Bulle
This is significantly different to the GPL, and important, I think. This talks about prohibiting distribution with GPLed software. Which means that you couldn't even put your software on the same CD as GPLed software. It might also have implications for downloading arrangements. This looks like an attempt to cloud the issue of "linking" - under the GPL this explicitly does not apply to distribution on the same media.
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
Lets all give them much respect.
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,109857,t k,dn031803X,00.asp
AC
Can you replicate a plumber? No? Didn't think so. therefore I will be King Plumber in the kingdom of the lazy.
It is just too restrictive for a business entity. How many companies that you know of that can claim to have profitted from GPL-based software?
If the GPL is too restrictive for closed-source software vendors, but thrives anyway, then their business model is obsolete.
The business proposition for GPL software is not in selling software, it's in selling support. My company could, in theory, self-support on JBoss, PostgreSQL, etc. But it would far cheaper and faster for us to outsource that support to specialists. It's a potential goldmine for service providers.
We outsource our Zope support to a Zope specialist. They make out like bandits per-hour, we spend nil on the software, and only need to fund first-line support in-house. It's worked out so well that we're evaluating replacing our expensive, atrociously badly-supported Oracle with Postgres. So far so good...
think "slouching... "
"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, / Slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?"
If Mocrosoft licensing appears to be relaxed, I claim I haven't understood the consequences of the changes.
When you're at the south pole then any movement (except maybe jumping up) is "inching closer" to the north pole.
I mean: the intention of Microsofts shared source (ensure that MS can make money of the software forever and keep total control) and the GPL (make sure that everyone can use it, change it and even derived versions for free) is as different as can be. So any move of MS that makes shared source a little less restrictive is "inching" towards the GPL, but since they're miles apart an inch doesn't change much in the larger picture.
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
I thought their Shared Source license prevented people from actualy compiling their code both through license restriction and enough missing code to make compiling impossible. Has that changed?
Further Disclaimer: C4L really just does maintenance work on the vending machines. He's affectionately known around the office as "the-lower-than-pond-scum-guy".
slashdot has always had an anti-MS bias, why are you complaining now? If you hate it so much make your own website. Good luck finding intelligent people who like MS
This third restriction often is called a "viral" clause, because it causes the GPL to "infect" any future software that incorporates GPL code, whether or not the developer intended that result.
Is MS saying the GPL code just miracles itself into projects where it isn't wanted? If a developer didn't intend his project to be GPLed then why would he let his code anywhere near it? Oh, so the author didn't read the license on that nifty piece of code that saved some time. Whose fault is that? Anyway, merely using GPLed code as part of a codebase doesn't make it GPLed. The GPL has to be at least implicitly accepted by the author(s).
If GPLed code were inserted into a project where it wasn't wanted or properly considered, the result is a codebase that is illegal to distribute. If the result is distributed then there is copyright violation. This violation has several remedies:
1. The entire codebase becomes GPLed. GPL bashers assume that is the ONLY thing that can happen. It isn't. The project may also link other code with incompatible licenses. The GPL cannot revoke the terms of those licenses. Also, the disputants or the court may come up with a different remedy.
2. Distribution of the offending product ceases until the GPL code is removed. Other penalties may apply. Yes, Virginia, financial penalties are a possibly. Trolltech would probably want some green if GPL QT were used in a proprietary product.
3. A different license is negotiated for the GPLed code. The copyright holder of GPLed software can impose whatever license he wants. The FSF probably wouldn't do this for any of their code but not all GPLed code is owned by the FSF. This distinction is also typically lost on GPL bashers.
Oh well, I doubt Microsoft fails to understand any of this. They distribute Interix themselves....and comply fully with the GPL in that case. It didn't turn magically turn Windows all GPL either. They're just being deliberately obtuse.
What source code are you talking about? Also their source code if you are talking about one of their C++ programs, probably can be compiled by any C++ compiler as long as you have all the libraries to compile it with.
They'd be exactly where they are now, but writing software for some other OS (e.g., Mac OS X).
You're an idiot.
The creation of Windows, or something just like it in market penetration and user ratio, was absolutely required for the industry to thrive the way it has.
People wonder why Windows hit so big when it was nothing special technically? Because the industry demanded a common platform and MS was capable of making it happen.
Do you REALLY think that this all would have happened as fast if programmers had 7 major conflicting API's across incompatible hardware with no significant market leader to carry the load?
Dream on.
But what it's really about is changing the way the industry works, and a philosophical thing. "..It belongs to no-one,anyone can improve it, everyone can use it
Marxism is [or was] fundamentally not what America is [or was] about.
Get in your time machine and go back to Soviet Russia, where you belong to everyone.
For the last few hundred years copyright has meant that you cannot distribute copies of published works without permission. Originally this was to do with censorship but was then changed to provide the author a living, and to encourage him to keep writing. It is not and has never been considered a subsidy to distribution, which is why your zero reproduction cost argument is flawed. However this only applies to published works and as currently applied source code isn't a published work when you buy Windows, only the binaries are published. You are correct, copyright is not a natural right, however it is a government sanctioned monopoly, designed to allow authors not to starve. Unpublished stuff is not protected by copyright, but also you have no right to read unpublished, un-copyrighted works. For example, I cannot demand to read your private emails or letter just because they are not copyrighted. Equally you cannot demand to see draft copies of published works or notes used to generate the complete book. For a book these could be described as source code. You could come to a private agreement with an author to see his notes or draft work so that you could write a sequel, but then he could make you sign a contract that says you cannot give them to anyone else. This is effectively a licence and they are governed by contract law, in which you basically have the power to agree to anything within reason including giving up basic rights. This also brings me to another definition of publish. That is, selling creative content without additional licence restrictions. If you agree to a licence which says you may not disclose the information to anyone, then doing so would leave you open to penalties. As a creator of a work I believe you have the right to do what you want with it, including forcing everone to give you money if someone sells a copy. After all, why should anyone else make money from the fruits of your labor, without giving you some too.
I believe that if anyone wishes to protect their source code then that is their right, as it is anyones right not to disclose private documents, and to make a living. If I choose to release my source code FOC then that is my right, but I shouldn't have the right to demand that all source code everywhere is available.
Actually given this statement of the ease of reproduction I would draw the opposite conclusion. Given the ease and low cost of reproduction (licenced or not) copyright restrictions should be more firmly enforced. OK the big boys may not need too much protection, but the lone programmer in his bedroom should have the right to choose to earn a living from his skills if that is what he wishes. We should respect his choice and abide by it.
You can't win Darth. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
Hang on a minute, it looks to me like this new MS licence is in fact a free software licence! Not a very good one but free software nonetheless.
The clauses about not using Microsoft trademarks, marking modified versions as such, and not suing people over software patents are entirely reasonable. Requiring that the user indemnify Microsoft against lawsuits from third parties relating to the user's distribution of the Microsoft code is a bit iffy (RMS says 'requiring indemnities is highly obnoxious') but again, it just has the general aim of avoiding harassment by lawyers and probably isn't that big a deal.
The only unusual clause is the one that says you may not distribute the software 'with other software other software that is licensed under terms that seek to require that the Software (or any intellectual property in it) be provided in source code form, licensed to others to allow the creation or distribution of derivative works, or distributed without charge'. Now does this 'with' refer to derivative works, or does it include mere aggregation?
If the 'with' refers to creating derivative works, then it isn't really any worse than the GNU GPL, which excludes all other licences except itself.
It's a bit obnoxious and stupid, sure, but not enough to make the software non-free. After all a strong copyleft licence other than the GPL, call it the Stupid Public Licence or SPL, is considered a free software licence, and it doesn't allow combining with _any_ other software unless it happens to also be SPL-licenced. Microsoft's licence is no worse than the putative SPL.
If the 'with' is attempting to restrict mere aggregation, then it probably is enough to make the software non-free. You could not put Microsoft's code and gcc on the same CD. Interestingly, since it forbids distributing 'with' software whose licence requires it to be 'distributed without charge', you might not be able to put the software on the same CD as other code from Microsoft - since I'm sure that many of their programs like Internet Explorer have terms which say you may distribute, but only without charging a fee.
Microsoft should clarify whether clause 2 in their licence refers to creating derivative works, or attempts to restrict distribution that is even within smelling distance of GPLed code.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
Anti-Microsoft bias? Sure, if you call having a memory and using it a bias.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
When I climbing a hill am I inching closer to the moon?
If enithin kan gow rong it whil. (Murfey)
Secure Socket Layer fork? Didn't they just get all their stuff from BSD to begin with? - end joke.
No rights were granted.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
The source being more available will lead to better Windows rootkits.
Rejoice!
If you think M$ is accountable for anything, you must have missed item 6 and 7 varients of which which appear in ALL of their EULAs:
6. That the Software comes "as is", with no warranties. None whatsoever. This means no express, implied or statutory warranty, including without limitation, warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose or any warranty of title or non-infringement. ...
...
7. That neither Microsoft nor its suppliers will be liable for any of those types of damages known as indirect, special, consequential, or incidental related to the Software or this license, to the maximum extent the law permits, no matter what legal theory it's based on.
I just love the arrogance of it. They have demonstrated again and again they don't care about the law, but that "no matter what legal theory it's based on." takes the cake.
No rights were granted
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
But is there any parallel between the shift from
a) professional scribes and illiterate masses to
publishing and literate populations, and
b) the shift from Big Software and general users to Open Source and smarter users?
Clearly, we're in the early stages (even though RMS started the thing decades ago).
Probably take another couple of decades for the clouds to part, but you see where its going.
The Marxism charge is laughable. Making smart transactions is what America is all about.
Starting a business, minimizing software licensing costs maximizes shareholder value.
The millions of shares of MSFT in circulation, like an economic flywheel, will sustain his Majesty Satanic for a good time to come.
But smarter money will keep BeelzeBill's vice grips off its naughty bits.
Thus, all claims that Open Source==Marxism should really read: Open Source threatens my revenue stream.
Even further out in the ozone: does the fact that software fuels disintermediation imply that Big Software, itself, will be disintermediated?
The apocalyptic (in the non-Perl sense), draconian mumblings about Longhorn might well underscore one aspect of Big Software's attempt to avoid disintermediation...
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
Seems to me we're all gettin' too sensitive. So jewish people have eminent domain over the word "shylock" because the related Shakespearean character was jewish? Boo f*ing hoo. It bothers me when there's a presumption of bad intent. People would be much better served to listen to the tone of the speaker; hell, I can make the phrase "nice person picking flowers" sound menacing. If I have to run to the god damned dictionary to figure out whether I said "hieratic" or "heuristic" and then decipher whether the group I offended might have been the blind left-handed dentists without tonsils, I'd rather take the energy so say "suck it up and get on with your life".
I think this new MSFT license is indeed an open source license. However, it isn't a copyleft license. Here's how I see difference licenses:
GPL: You can use this software distribution any way you like. If you decide to distribute this version or any derivative works, the distribution license must be GPL and the software must be made available in source form. Derivate works are not allowed to be distributed in object [a.k.a. binary] form only.
Shared Source License for Microsoft ASP.NET Starter Kit: You can use this software distribution according to the terms specified in the EULA. If you decide to distribute this version or any derivative works you have two choices: (a) distribution is in object form and the distribution license is compatible with this license; or (b) distribution is in source form and it's distributed under this license. Derivate works must be allowed to be distributed in object form only.
BSD: do whatever you want but give credit where credit is due.
_________________________
Spelling and grammar mistakes left as an exercise for the reader.
Leave it to M$ to kill a community proposal.
If anyone can, it would be very useful to see the crippled CSS2 implementation in IE6.
So microsoft is sharing it, eh? Who has seen it? How bad is it? I am curious to know what kind of obsfucation has been crashing my computer for all these years.
Support MS and every law-breaking activity they engage in at all costs. Deny all the facts about what MS does and attack you for pointing out factual statements.
Trying to explain to an MS supporter that every move MS makes is done so that all competition is elminated is like explaining physics to a 2 year old. Essentially MS supporters only believe in one monopoly run now and forever by MS.
Anytime you point out some illegal MS does like faking a video in court, they have no comeback. They simply call you a zealot and won't debate.
There isn't much of a point in talking with or debating MS supporters online, its a losing battle
The Sept. 11th attacks mean nothing to me. USians are the only people who care. Sorry.
The ownership of source code to a PUBLISHED work is NOT a natural right.
Yeah... except it sort of is. Why? For a number of rational, logical reasons, but one very pragmatic reason is overwhelmingly the most important: tradition. Human cultures have, as I said, an intellectual property tradition that goes back at least 60,000 years.
For 2,500 generations, the ownership of intellectual property has been considered a natural, moral right by cultures all over the world. No amount of collectivist revisionism can change that fact, and I'm afraid that no amount of collectivist revisionism can erase that tradition, either.
There is a moral case for the GPL.
There's a moral case for having vanilla ice cream instead of chocolate, too. There's a moral case for everything. But a moral case does not translate into a moral imperative. If a person-- say, me-- were to disagree with your assumptions, or find flaw with your reasoning, your moral case about which you are so strident would evaporate like dew in the morning sun. Poof. Gone.
I write in my journal
Would that be the same Electronic Arts that had so many hot titles for the Commodore 64? Or is that Electronic Arts that published titles for all those pre-Xbox consoles?
Several posters have jumped all over the Mac angle, but EA has had commercial success on many non-MS platforms.
So let me get this straight.
Let's say I download Microsoft's ASP.NET Starter Kit for free. I fix a few bugs, tweak some algorithms, and add my own ingenious extensions. I distribute it in binary form only, charging $1000 a pop, and call it Smegmaware. Despite the unpleasant name, it sells like hotcakes. Microsoft never sees a dime of my earnings, even though they did 80% of the work, nor do they get to see a single line of source code. Microsoft is all right with this. Hell, I might even sue Microsoft at the same time for unrelated matters.
Six months later, I get a personal visit from Richard Stallman. He tells me that software wants to be free. By this time I've already made enough money to send my daughter to college, so I figure, "Why not?" I see the light, and decide to release my software under the GNU GPL. Now Microsoft has two choices, where before they had only one. They can decide to ignore the existence of my modified/enhanced product, treating it for their purposes as if it were still a closed source product, and continue to enhance their original source code and build new products from it. Or they can take my fine product, use it however they like, create some new products with it, and release those new products under the GPL, making as much money as they did when I downloaded their software in the first place, i.e., none. If they go the second route, they can still, at the same time, integrate their original source code into other products and release in under terms of their choosing.
Yet, it's the second scenario Microsoft wants to prevent. Proprietary software that they can't touch is OK; Free Software that they can only handle in certain ways is not. I don't see how this can be seen as anything other than an extremely petty attack on those who choose to release software under the GPL. From Microsoft's financial and legal perspective, my re-releasing their code under the GPL is the same as my distributing it as proprietary software.
I can only think of two reasons for them to do this. One, they believe that anyone who would create a proprietary product from MS's labor is a mammon-worshiper who could be bought for a high enough price, a price that Microsoft will always be able to pay. If this is the case, they effectively still have access to any source code they want. But the Free Software hippies who would write software under the GPL might not render the code unto Caesar for any price.
Two, this clause is there for entirely political reasons. They have already created the myth that the GPL, through the actions of third parties, has the power to force copyright owners to relinquish control of their own works, and they've been trying to spread that myth throughout the business and government worlds. By inserting this clause, they help reinforce the myth, by leading the licensee to believe that there is a license out there that has the power to do that.
It's a really low blow when a licensing term targets one class of users without guaranteeing any benefit for the licensor.
one hundred twenty
is just enough characters
to write a haiku
My program is not a derivative work of the Readline library;
Oh piffle. If your work is not a derivative work, then the GPL is irrelevent, and you can ignore it. The GPL only has power over you through the application of copyright law. If you're not potentially violating copyright, then the GPL is of no concern to you.
On the other hand, if your program is a derivative work (which seems a more plausible interpretation of copyright law to me, though IANAL), then your argument that libraries should be special because code that uses the libraries doesn't constitute a derivative work is, quite simply, wrong.
Those options are exclusive, you can't argue both at once.
Now, if the API is not exclusive to a particular implementation of a library (as, for example, the readline API, now that there is a bsd-licensed version of readline out there), then you can build against the version of the library whose license you prefer, and that's the license that will apply, even if one of your customers replaces the bsd-readline with the API-compatible original gpl'd-readline library. But that's another matter.