Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft WiX Code Released to SourceForge.Net
nberardi writes "On Monday, April 5, 2004, as part of the Shared Source Initiative, Microsoft released the source code for the Windows Installer XML (WiX) developer tool to SourceForge under the IBM Common Public License or CPL. The WiX project is the first Shared Source Initiative to go "public" on Source Forge rather than a Microsoft site. It is also the first to use an externally created Open Source license. Microsoft supports the idea that a software developer should be free to choose how they license their work and for the goals of WiX, the CPL was the right fit. Is this another ploy from Microsoft to not look like the bad guy, or do you think they are embracing on the Open Source movement?" Slashdot and SourceForge are both part of OSDN.
They can embrace it all that they want AND extend it... developers and end-users will win in the end when it comes to open source.
This means nothing. MS is simply trying to look good, and it's well worth it to improve their image, which I fear has suffered of late... (funding SCO).
hardly hurts M$ now, does it !
$ strings FTP.EXE | grep Copyright
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
This seems like a bigger deal for SourceForge than Microsoft, does the Forge become a default meeting place for all developers?
Onward to the Aether Sphere!
Of course it's a ploy. But if the Big Bad Wolf, needing to make friends with a few of the forest's other creatures, offers to make you a nice lunch and can prove -- via a reasonable license -- that it's not poisoned, well, then eat up and say thank you.
...
Nothing's changed. But the software is useful and it's nice to know that public opinion can hold some sway over Microsoft, however tenuous
Chr0m0Dr0m!C
Back in the day, way long ago, AT&T was a greedy monopoly. Then, realizing it was a monopoly, AT&T invented lasers, transistors, Unix and a bunch of other stuff. But, they were a greedy monopoly first. Then, they became a benevolent monopoly, which we broke up so that we could have lots more phone ads, calling plans, and more expensive phones than ever.
If MS does morph into a benevolent monopoly like AT&T of old, should we break it up just for market's sake?
This is my sig.
has always made a point of not liking "the viral nature" of GPL.
So, this could actually be an honest experiment to see what they can gain from the OS-development
model, and not even pretending to be anything else than what they are, a company trying to make
profit.
Lemon curry???
It is nice to see Microsoft open sourcing code under what appears to be a reasonable license.
However, could there be a piece of software less useful to the Linux/UNIX/etc community? We already have a bunch of mostly incompatable ways to install software.
Still, it could prove useful for open source developers targeting the Windows platform, and may provide a boost for cross platform tools such as GAIM.
Some open source projects (e.g. Apache httpd) already distribute their software in MSI form. I wonder how they create their packages - this could be a way for their developers to use less closed source software.
I'm still tending towards the "another ploy from Microsoft to not look like the bad guy", but I am a cynic.
1) Microsoft wins by getting people to develop their software for free.
2) Microsoft wins by getting "good press" for having released something in their Shared Source Initiative program.
3) Microsoft wins more "good press" by placing the released application on SourceForge (the well-known bastion of Open Source developers).
4) Microsoft wins because it persuades people it is playing nice, people let their guard down, and then Microsoft slowly spreads their foul seed....
Can an 800 pound gorilla known for deceit and the ability to subtly infiltrate and influence almost any industry it touches really be trusted?
------- "One of the joys of travel is visiting new towns and meeting new people." -- G. KHAN
It seems that Microsoft finally is coming to realize the power of open source software. After all, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
Microsoft knows that their power lies in their broad userbase. By holding out this "olive branch" to the OSS community, they are preventing an embarrassement, especially in circles where OSS is finding more and more acceptance. For example, the city of Munich switched to Linux over Windows. Now OSS advocates have one less argument in their toolkit.
From now on, no one can accuse Microsoft of being completely closed source. Not that it really matters in the big picture, because their major applications are closed source, anyway.
There's always the possibility that this will get yanked like nullsoft's WASTE (secure file sharing). In this case, I suppose it is very unlikely.
All things considered, we should welcome Microsoft's foray into OSS cautiously, who knows what their motivation is...
The fact that the tool concerned is a rather niche tool that is probably of only of interest to a relatively small number of developers is not going to factor in the press at all. Even so, I think that Microsoft is to be applauded for this, not slated; it's a big first step into a brave new world for them. Now is not the time to slap them in the face and deter them from making potentially more magnanimous releases in the future.
That's not to say I'm not still looking for the "embrance and extend" though.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
My dislike of Microsoft comes from their business practices. Crushing Netscape, RealPlayer, Wordperfect, Eudora, etc etc by levering their monopoly position on the desktop has nothing to do with closed or open source software. Watch their conduct in the coming search engine wars -- they will tie everything in with the OS in the name of "innovation" and "helping the end user" but in the end it's really just a ploy to exterminate Google and Yahoo. Just as IE was a ploy to exterminate Netscape.
What's the difference between IE's integration into the Windows shell and Konquerer's integration into KDE?
I don't see the big fucking deal. I run Windows XP at work yet--gasp--choose to run Firefox. Believe it or not, Microsoft isn't holding a gun to my head...
Yeah, but who says it *has* to be GPL to be acceptable? The FSF lists the BSD license as being an "Open Source" license. If all of Microsoft's stuff was released under BSD license (which of course it won't be, because this is just a desparate ploy to deflect some of the criticism against MS), would you people still whine about how closed it is? Oh that's right, you'd all chant "Windows is Dying".
Everyday I find myself more in agreement with that sig that says "Linux is good, but I can't stand the users". Or to put a common bumpersticker saying in context "Linus, save me from your followers".
Someone is WRONG on the Internet!
So what is it good for? Perhaps marketing? "Microsoft DOES contribute to open source! We are good!" -- perhaps a cover-your-ass attempt if some OSS does make it big, Microsoft might say "Windows makes OSS easier to install!"?
It's fantastic for marketing. It's also fantastic for business. Anything that helps other people write apps that install better on Windows helps Microsoft.
This isn't so hard to understand...they get OSS PR benefits, as well as apps that make their OS look better. What's not to like from their end of it?
You know how everyone says the RIAA could have benefited so much more if they would have embraced file-sharing? Maybe this is Microsoft comparing their situations. Keep their business model, but remain flexible enough to hold up to the changes they need to make.
I can see a lot of benefits to Microsoft doing something like this.. maybe they're just seeing them too.
By releasing something under a true open source license, and calling it "Shared Source", they help to confuse the uninformed about exactly what Shared Source really is.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
plan a) 1000s of eyes are going to find bugs for MS so their installer can be improved. good
business.
plan b) 1000s of eyes don't trust their purity if they look at the code, bugs don't get fixed in the installer, opensource proven again to be bad, ms still better(tm). good business.
and the other side of the coin, now it will be easier to create software that will install on ms, so why bother learning the complex and difficult rpm or deb formats, ms install is right there, complete with 10 different free guis to setup.
ms gets more software to install on it. good business.
bonus round: perhaps someone will port port, apt-get or yum features to MSInstaller, dll hell either gets fixed or goes away.
personnally i'm failing to see where this is a 'bad idea'(tm) for ms
And frankly, TCP/IP is a bad example, being as the Internet was quickly becoming the "big thing" for computers MS couldn't really afford not to have TCP/IP in the OS. Trumpet came out to augment a lack in windows at the time, but that doesn't mean that MS adding a TCP/IP stack was a deliberate shot at Trumpet so much as that Trumpet showed them what they were lacking.
Instead of actually discussing what the source code is or the technology behind it...the rest of the Slashdot discussion here will be about Microsoft's "motivations" for releasing it and what their plans "really" are.
Has anyone here who's posting actually downloaded it and tried it yet?
Is this another ploy from Microsoft to not look like the bad guy, or do you think they are embracing on the Open Source movement?
Can't you guys just once take something at face value instead of trying to find ulterior motives for everything? If it's damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't then why even bother?
Not true.
From the CPL version 1.0:
The CPL is a 'copyleft' license, just like the GPL. The main point of difference is that the CPL has a software-patent protection clause, which the GPL does not.
(However, Eben Moglen has indicated that this may be included in the next version of the GPL, which would make it compatible)
Don't most licenses read that the original contributor can't be sued? In other words say you use open source project X and include it in your software. Whoever came up with the original project X is free from any liability.
At least, this is what I've seen with serveral Java related technologies that I've built into commercial products. Of course, any good license agreement to an end user disclaims responsibility anyway... something you have to do or you'd have every nut out there suing you for millions because your product "somehow messed up" (the no correlation effect) their PC so they couldn't get their email, and in their inbox was some Nigerian scam that was a certain million in the hand, if your product hand't messed up their PC.
Words that come to mind:
*Trojan Horse - in its original sense
*Strategic Move
*Distraction Tactics to assuage the roars that are sure to ensue after the release of the first Phoenix TCPA bioses.
*Some Microsoft developers appreciate the power of collaboration?
*Vitiate what people understand free software to be by mudding the waters even more. At the next Linux conference, Microsoft will proudly display that they too are contributing to open source. I can just see it now: "We use open source where it makes sense and make use of proprietary best practices to lead the world to a new paradigm of openness, yet realiably supported for the one and only company that you should trust". In other words, newspeak.
I wish to be proven wrong. If a Microsoft employee reads this. Prove us wrong and we'll welcome you. Compete on the strengths of office by providing a documented, free and open XML schema for Office. Make it easy to import openoffice documents by MS Office. While you are a it, open Source CIFS under an OSI approved license.
Then, I might begin believing.
Pragmatism as an ideology is not particularly pragmatic in the long term. Keep it in mind when you dismiss Free Software
Personally I want Free software to be easily installable on Windows. More to the point, I have a proprieatry program that I want to be able to install on Windows and I don't like our current solution for this. The company that produces our current installer has been worthless at providing support and fixes.
Having a Free installer will let us scratch whatever Windows installation itches we may have.
People (especially around here) only think of MS as this evil empire that does nothing except try to illegally crush thier competitors and rob old ladies. They certainly do plenty of those things, but they're still a smart, large software company. They got where they are by encouraging people to write software for Windows and then taking care of the people that do.
-B
I used to be an absolutely staunch Microsoft and Windows supporter in the days when they promoted their O/S as an enabling platform that allowed many competing products to co-exist and compete for a user share e.g.
MS Office vs Corel Office vs Lotus Office etc
Internet Explorer vs Netscape vs Mosiac (oops IE again!)
and many other competing products.
Were the other applications much worse than MS's software - yes in some cases - but in other cases they were better. The reason that the other suites vanished is because MS used their position as vendors of the operating system to an unfair advantage to bundle MS applications at rates that were unsustainable for 3rd party vendors then having wiped out most of the competition they hiked the prices up again!
Look at a typical PC today. Apart from (say) a virus scanner and DVD/CD burning software the vast majority of the software will be MS owned and controlled. So having created a true monopoly, MS hikes up prices, adds 'features' like DRM that many users do not want then and add hardware keyed software protection measures to protect this monopoly.
Cobblers to this - I want a choice!
Don't get me wrong, I have spent most of my current IT career using MS O/S's but I am getting to the stage where I cannot justify using Windows for my own use and promoting this monopoly. My home PCs all have Windows/Linux dual boot on them and I will be moving over to pure Linux on 2/3 of the machines in the near future.
The only reason for one PC remaining on Windows is that my 4 year old daughter's favourite software (PC play and Learn - which is Macromedia Authorware based) will not run on Linux except by using a Crossover Office plugin and even then not in an acceptable fashion. Please, please Macromedia port the authorware runtime to Linux!
Bottom line - MS *IS* holding a gun to your head. What they want you to believe is "Pay our inflated monopolistic prices or stop using your PC!" (and most of Joe Public out there genuinely believe that).
I can understand MS copy protecting their applications such as Office, Developer Studio etc since there are suitable alternatives but not the operating system (if you want to use Windows software). This is especially nauseating when they drop support for earlier O/S versions after a fairly short while...
Is their open source offering a good thing? Absolutely.
Has the Leopard changed its spots? Of course not.
This hasn't cost MS a bean in real terms and has gained them some qudos by contributing to an open source project. They are, of course, the same greedy monopolistic empire that they always have been (IMHO of course!)
For goodness sake lets promote Linux usage as much as we can (in schools and workplaces) and perhaps we might be back to the position in which Joe Public has a real choice sometime soon.
Sorry about the rant but I think it is important.