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.

Comments

Inching closer?

[slimer]

What is an inch, when you are light years apart?

Re:Inching closer?

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. The western and eastern hemispheres are inching together as well, but they won't come within swimming distance for at least another billion years.

Re:Inching closer?

[munter]

I agree.

The thing is...How many years will it take for the average Microsoft sales/support guy (i.e. people on the ground) to adopt GPL/OpenSource Culture? - Never.

I think that that is what is really important. Culture, Attitude.etc. Sure licensing issues are a big deal. 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 .." - This is fundamentally not what Microsoft is about.

The way I see it is that everything happens in a cycle. We've had a certain kind of methodology for a couple of decades. It's simply natural for things to change, tables to turn etc. It is simply time for a change.

Perhaps it's time for wealth distribution as wel...

Re:Inching closer?

[dicka_j]

a thousand mile journey begins with a single step...

Don't you mean moving closer to a BSD license?

[wuchang]

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.

Re:Don't you mean moving closer to a BSD license?

[j-pimp]

Not at all. One of the freedoms the GPL grants is if you modify software you don't have to give anyone those changes. You are not forced to distribute Free Software. If you do give it out it must be GPL and the source must be included. You can read the
The modern BSD license is oftern called public domain with credit. BSD code may be redistributed under any license as long as credit is given to the developers.
The original apple license required modifications to be submitted to apple. The Apple public license was not an approved as a open source license until this clause was removed. Free Software is about freedom. It attempts to mamimize freedom with a philisophy of "you freedom to punch me in the face ends where my face begins." Forceing submission of changes takes away freedom.

BSD?

[dolson]

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.

Re:BSD?

[Anonymous Coward]

The license isn't as viral as it sounds, it just says you can't release GPL software based off of this license, and if you create a derivative work off of this license you can't release it with a conflicting license. (Mainly a loophole to prevent assignment of MS patent rights, etc.)

The MS license says 'This code is a BSD-Like license, but any derivative works cannot be licensed such that the next person in the chain MUST disclose their code modifications.'

That's all :-)

Absolutely one step closer!

[philovivero]

Much the same way as the amoeba is one step closer to mankind than a virus.

Re:Absolutely one step closer!

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Methinks it might just be possible that you don't understand what "viral" means in this context.

The Microsoft Office document formats are not viral, because they affect nothing other than themselves. If you install Microsoft Word on your computer, all of your SurfWriter documents remain in SurfWriter format; nothing changes.

The GPL, on the other hand, spreads. If you link GPL-licensed code in with your project, poof! Your project is now GPL-licensed as well, for better or for worse. Some people will argue it's better, some worse, but all agree that it's viral.

See the difference?

Re:Absolutely one step closer!

[Fulcrum of Evil]

The Microsoft Office document formats are not viral, because they affect nothing other than themselves. If you install Microsoft Word on your computer, all of your SurfWriter documents remain in SurfWriter format; nothing changes.

Until you need to exchange documents with somebody using MS word. Then, it acts like a virus.

The GPL, on the other hand, spreads. If you link GPL-licensed code in with your project, poof! Your project is now GPL-licensed as well, for better or for worse. Some people will argue it's better, some worse, but all agree that it's viral.

True, true. If you don't like it, feel free to write your own library or negotiate a different license.

See the difference?

I think so. MS word forces me to use MS word so that I can do business with someone else (using MS word, which is the standard), whereas the GPL allows me to save development time if I can deal with the restrictions of the license. Of course, I am still able to use GPL tools with no worries whatsoever.

I think I like the GPL virus better than the MS virus.

Re:Absolutely one step closer!

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Until you need to exchange documents with somebody using MS word. Then, it acts like a virus.

No... the defining characteristic of a virus is that it spreads. If needing to use Microsoft Word for document X (the one you need to share) made it difficult or impossible to use SurfWriter for documents A, B, and C, you might have a point. But since that isn't the case at all... well, you get the picture.

Re:Absolutely one step closer!

[0x0d0a]

The Microsoft Office document formats are not viral, because they affect nothing other than themselves. If you install Microsoft Word on your computer, all of your SurfWriter documents remain in SurfWriter format; nothing changes.

No -- I have to disagree here. There's a two-phase propagation mechanism. It's a pain to deal with other people's Word documents if you don't have Word, and the easiest thing to do when you're working in Word is save in .doc format. Documents take over applications, which then produce more documents. That sounds fairly viral to me.

The GPL, on the other hand, spreads. If you link GPL-licensed code in with your project, poof! Your project is now GPL-licensed as well, for better or for worse.

No. Nothing in the world can force your code to suddenly be relicensed, except for perhaps a document you sign (without reading) or someone who you gave power of attorney to.

You cannot *legally* link GPL code to non-GPL code. The assumption is that, at build time, people implicitly create a derived copy that is GPL-licensed. Most of the time, this is fine -- they follow the rules of the GPL for that binary build, and there's no problem. However, that is simply a convenient assumption. Someone who built a piece of BSD-licensed software for KDE, for instance, could be sued, and the author claim that they did not implicitly relicense the code. Of course, the person would simply say that they had, and the lawsuit would be dead. However, the act of linking is not legally sufficient, in and of itself, to relicense a piece of software.

Compare to a more obvious example -- if you take a piece of code from a GPLed program, and then use that code in a propriatary product, the product does not immediately become GPLed. It *is* infringing on a copyright, but the infringer can pay damages in a cout case and stop using the code.

Anti-Microsoft bias showing through again...

[Chester K]

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.

Re:Anti-Microsoft bias showing through again...

[brad-x]

The main purpose for shared source is to obfuscate the meaning of open-source, to make it less important in the eyes of the customer.

Hey, our source is free for you to browse also, what's the difference?

Big difference. But it won't matter to people. It's buzzword compliant. Make no mistake, this business is NOT about meeting customer demand.

This business is about telling the customer either directly or indirectly what to demand, and lock them into their decisions long term.

You can't accuse a shyster of appealing to your needs because he's interested in them.

Re:Anti-Microsoft bias showing through again...

[dubbreak]

I entirely agree.

Microsoft is about marketing and making money, not about making better software. Right now the term "open source" is a huge buzzword. People hear that open source is good.. but microsoft isn't open source so they are bad.. oh but wait now MS is sharing their source, so they are as good as everyone else now...

This is nothing but a marketing ploy, MS will not gpl or bsd license their software.. it will not happen. (my dying words eh)

Rights?

[Twirlip of the Mists]

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?

Re:Rights?

[ryochiji]

>many of the zealots here think they have the "right" to the fruits of any programmer or company's labor, simply because it's trivial to make copies of the original work.

Now that's a wrong take on Open Source if I'd seen one... I think you've been eating too much of Microsoft's FUD. Open Source isn't about leaching, that is, taking advantage of other people's work. It's about collaboration and freedom, and putting quality in front of profit. If, as you suggest, Open Source was successful only because it was cheap, you wouldn't be seeing the kind of high quality software you see today. The Open Source license works only because the Open Source development model works. You can't talk about one without looking at the other. And that's what M$ doesn't understand (at least IMO).

Re:Rights?

[Twirlip of the Mists]

I mean science has been operating the same way for hundreds of years

Apples and oranges. Progress in the sciences-- at least when it comes to pure research-- is driven by a desire for knowledge for knowledge's sake, and almost always takes place in the context of a university or other funded institution.

Progress in the commercial arts, on the other hand, is driven by the profit motive, and the profit motive only. Take away the profit motive, and the wheels of industry grind to a halt.

When the two overlap-- when science is driven by the profit motive-- we see that the commercial model supercedes the academic one.

I'd say that this new paradigm, that companies have absolute power over their creations, is the one that is new and unusual.

Oh, you'd be wrong about that. The tradition of intellectual property-- albeit divorced from the tradition of commerce-- goes back 60,000 years or more. The aboriginal peoples of Australia, whose culture predates written history by 50 millennia, have a strong tradition of intellectual property; songs and stories are owned things, and taking them without permission is seen as a crime of property tantamount to theft.

The same basic tradition, as near as anybody can tell having evolved independently, is found in the Tlingit and Haida peoples of ancient North America. So not only is the tradition of intellectual property old, it's also something that has arisen independently in different cultures over time.

I'm not going to argue that the keep-the-secrets idea is any more or less valid than the share-what-you-know idea, because in point of fact they're not really comparable. But the tradition of exclusivity goes back many thousands of years before the tradition of collectivism.

Almost exactly wrong. . .

[Fritz Benwalla]

"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.

---------

So what does it look like, timothy?

[tuxedo-steve]

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.

I'd say this is pretty clear-cut. Is not having to send MS any changes made to the code more or less like the GNU GPL? More, you say? Doesn't it follow then that the license could be said to have "inched" closer to the GNU GPL?

I know /. has a vested interest in polarising people around these issues in order to keep people emotionally interested and the readership up, but if you're going to make illogical editorial commentary like this, how about posting it in the comments instead of the article body?

Flamebait?

[tarzan353]

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.

Re:Flamebait?

[eryk]

It is flamebait. Imagine all those nasty GNU Copyright owners coming with lawyers just because someone have used GNU software on linux to produce commercial code. And the opposite, all those peaceful Microsoft representatives coming with flowers just because someone have attempted to use Ms code.

Re:Microsoft would never consider a GPL-like appro

[pauljlucas]

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?

They'd be exactly where they are now, but writing software for some other OS (e.g., Mac OS X).

But who can say that without Windows, these company would be just as successful today?

To those companies, Windows is just the API they have to write to. Windows does nothing to market their product muchless make it better.

... but one thing [Microsoft] got right from the beginning was how to drive the market to complement their invention.

Funny, but Apple has been doing this for years. If they didn't, they wouldn't exist now.

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.

OMFG yu0 r teh FUNNIE!!!1!!11!one!

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Microsoft would never consider a GPL-like appro

[CondorDes]

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.

not gpl friendly at all

[t_pet422]

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?

Re:Microsoft would never consider a GPL-like appro

[JimDabell]

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?

Hell, what about anti-virus firms? An entire industry has sprouted from Microsoft's role in the computer world.

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

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"?

it's only sample code...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:An inch.

[jkrise]

"and do a lot of good when they start getting close."

Excuse me, I haven't heard of a single entity that has benefitted from proximity to MS. You can ask Corel, Intel, Citrix, SAP etc. etc. The very fact that MS has coined a term called the Shared Source License (SSL) to take aim at the GPL betrays their true intentions while moving closer.

True to the naming traditions at MS, SSL is a misnomer. It joins a great list of product names that mean the opposite of their literal meanings. Sharing indicates relinquishing rights. If I've got a couple of candies and I share one of them with you, it shouldn't matter to me what you intend doing with that candy.

Other MS misnomers:
DRM : Digital Restrictions Management.
MS Works : The classic oxymoron.
TCPA : (Un)Trustworthy ....
Service Pack : Silly Promotion.
XP : Xtreme Pain
etc..
and now, SSL : Stealthy Software License

Re:Rights? -- Copyright is not a natural right

[Christ-on-a-bike]

Progress in the commercial arts, on the other hand, is driven by the profit motive, and the profit motive only. Take away the profit motive, and the wheels of industry grind to a halt.

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.

Re:Microsoft would never consider a GPL-like appro

[Christ-on-a-bike]

Windows on the other hand, like it or not, is a catalyst of profitable software firms [...]

Windows is a protection racket. Adobe, Veritas et al are riding the coat-tails of a tyrant.

How many companies that you know of that can claim to have profitted from GPL-based software?

The whole point is that people don't profit from selling it. Enormous numbers of people profit from using it. Think about internet infrastructure companies - telcos, web hosting, ISPs. Linux runs these. Small-to-medium size businesses with Linux servers. Movie studios - Gimp and Linux again. Netscape / AOL. Sony. Sharp. And what about those that 'profit' from GNU+Linux merely through avoiding the MS tax? I'm thinking of private individuals, government agencies, universities and research institutions of all kinds.

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.

Trying to keep developers..

[miffo.swe]

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.

Re:Trying to keep developers..

[Tim C]

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.

What massive stampede? Linux is making strong headway in the server market, but there, it's mostly eating into Unix market share. I don't see any evidence of much more than a trickle of developers migrating as far as client development work is concerned. That will remain true as long as there aren't very many desktops running Linux, which will remain true as long as there aren't many client apps being developed...

Traditionally, the way to break into a market with an incumbent leader is to spend lots and lots of money, essentially buying support. Throw cash at development of your product (OS, console, whatever) and throw cash at developers to persuade them to develop for it. Without this, it takes a lot, lot longer to break into that market. Open source's only real advantage is that it doesn't have to make a profit any time soon (or at all, really), so it can afford to take the long route. That's not true of the companies supporting it, of course - they do need to make money.

I think developers will gradually make the switch, if only because Linux-based systems are cheaper, and offer greater freedom. Once sufficient developers switch that we start getting some high-quality desktop applications and a stable, consistent desktop, then users will start to switch. It's going to be a long, slow process, however - don't expect a migratory stampede any time soon.

As much as I love Linux, right now, I cannot make the switch entirely. There are still too many things that I can't use it for. I use it almost exclusively at work, with XP permanently running under VMWare, but very little at home, and it's the home users that you really need to convince, as they don't have on-tap support for when something breaks.

Isn't this almost exact opposite of GPL?

[mr3038]

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.