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?

[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...

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.

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!

[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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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

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.