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.
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 . . .
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
"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.
Please see the GPL FAQ.
Ryan T. Sammartino
"Ancora imparo"
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.
* 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....
How about the part where the copyright holder may gain administrative access to your system? Oh wait, that's MS EULA, not GPL.
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
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.
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.
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.
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"?
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?
No, I guess that is really just too complicated...
Congratulations! Now we are the Evil Empire
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
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.
How about just posting a link to the source (The GPL Analysis FAQ original [WORD])?
By this mean, you would also attribute the text to the creator.
"Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
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.
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
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
When I climbing a hill am I inching closer to the moon?
If enithin kan gow rong it whil. (Murfey)
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.