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?

[Fritz Benwalla]

Well, it's about 11.803 pico-seconds per light year.

Oh, maybe I missed your point.

---------

Re:Inching closer?

[jkrise]

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.

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?

[Anonymous Coward]

So "Lindows" seems to be trying to take over the desktop from "MS-Windows".

What will be the name of the MS product that will 'take on' Linux?

Windux? Linows?

Which one: WedHat? Webian? Wackware? Wandrake? Wuse? WurboLinux?

And do they put the source on wourceforge and adhere to WOSIX and the WSB? Add linux support with Line (Line Is Not an Emulator)?

Sendlook? exmail? IIPache? Wnome? IEzilla/Woenix? wonqueror? wautilus? Wamba? WaTeX? MSimian Outvolooktion? win3fs? weiserfs? waid5? werl? wython? msSQL?(oops)

Politically correct WNU/Windows?

Dary I say Lincrosoft? Microsux?

Hope they do. Imitation is the best flattery.

Washdot?

Re:Inching closer?

[Jondor]

Sure, but it helps if you step in the right direction..

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.

Do you get all the source?

[mz001b]

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?

Microsoft?

[m0rph3us0]

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?

Re:Microsoft?

[agentZ]

I don't know about the exact text per se, but the Microsoft speaker today at the Open Source in eGovernment conference in Washington DC did refer to the ASP license, that it was less than one page, and did allow user's more freedom with the code, specifically the ability to use the ASP licensed code in their own projects.

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.

Interesting

[www.sorehands.com]

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?

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?

[nurightshu]

As best I can tell, 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. I've been reading /. myself since '99 or so (I still remember Geeks in Space), and it seems that around here, Richard Stallman's belief that all code should be free for anyone to use or modify somehow reflects actual reality.

Of course, the reality of the situation is that the author of the work has the right (not "right") to release or distribute his work however he sees fit; this of course gives rise to the infantile bawling over how company x (where x usually equals "Microsoft") is the root of all evil, responsible for the Kennedy assassination, the Challenger and Columbia incidents, and just about anything bad that has happened to them personally in their entire lives.

Since Microsoft is only releasing code under the terms of a license the zealots feel is draconian, it is of course an egregious abridgement of the zealots' "right" to get the latest 0day_winXP_hax0r3d.iso.

Hope this helps.

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.

This may foretell the doom of man . . .

[pariahdecss]

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 . . .

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?

An inch.

[DarkVein]

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.

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.

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: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.

Microsoft is noble.

[rice_burners_suck]

I have read each word of the new Microsoft license and firmly believe that it is superior in all ways to the viral GPL license which plagues so much software that is forced onto the modern consumer through the power of monopoly.

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.

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

[Fnkmaster]

Aha, my friend, you've forgotten one very important example. Why do I think it's important? Because they've made a model that's worth following. That company is TrollTech, better known as the authors of the Qt toolkit. They seem to be quite well with their model, which basically amounts to releasing their library code under the GPL, and making it available as a standard commercial library for a fee. That means if you want to write Free Software (err or rather, anything GPL-compatible and Free, I guess) you can use their library under the terms of the GPL. If you want to write commercial software, you can write commercial closed-source (or whatever other commercial model you are using) software, you just have to pay for developer seat licenses. Makes perfect sense.

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.

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.

Microsoft isn't interested in being open

[Trolling4Dollars]

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.

License only for code samples

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Download the ASP.NET Starter Kits and Take A Look

[Carnage4Life]

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

Re:The problem with the "spirit of the GPL"...

[Yokaze]

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.

Making Money

[descil]

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.

Microsoft needs to sell its products. In the past, /.'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.

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.

Re:Making Money

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not a "reform," this is an attack on the GPL. As you say Microsoft are a for-profit organisation. So why are they moving towards releasing source code? They have never done it in the past. They are doing it cause one of the major advantages of a competitor (ie GNU, Linux etc) is that the source code is available. MS are attempting to match a competitors offerings (in public oppion at least not matching in reality) so they can say we are just as good if not better that everyone else.

Now you may say that MS has every right to match competitors, that is the nature of capitalism, but please don't say MS is reforming, as if it is trying to be a more ethical mulit-billion dollar corporation. MS is and always has been driven by crushing competitors, and now it is trying to do the same with GPL and open source.

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.