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.
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?
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!
Actually MS may be moving RAPIDLY towards GPL. They see it as a huge threat to their continued success.
So, it's right to say they're moving closer. In the same way Dubya's moving closer to Iraq.
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
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
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?
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.