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.
This license reads more like the BSD license, with all its "the code is out for everybody to grab and hide" kefussles.
Open Code + bug fixes + hidden extensions == incompatible again.
Doing the Right Thing should not be preempted by making a buck.
They just want all the programmers that use source forge to be able to use their installer and write windows programs. It's a smart move, and it's only an *installer*, no big deal...
... there *must* be something in for Microsoft for them to release the source of something. Maybe it is just a sad attempt to show that their code is not as nasty as what other programmers saw a few months back when the Windows code was leaked. Or maybe there is some ploy in here in order to make $$$ but it is so sneaky that we have not figured it out yet. As far as I am concerned, this seems to be some strategic move...
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?"
Yeah, that's why people diferentiate between "Open Source" and "Free Software". Open Source implies, sometimes falsely, what Free Software explicitly states. One project of SF does not make you a proponent of Free Software. Let's wait and see how MS follows this up.
However, it is interesting if you want to see what MS code looks like. I wonder if they spent weeks cleaning it and going to code reviews to make sure it is a good example of MS software.
There would be and it would be justified. Why you ask? The hatred of Microsoft (at least in my case) doesn't stem from the fact that they use closed source software. As much as I like open source software I do recognize the fact that companies exist to make money -- and they believe (whether this is correct or not remains to be seen) that they will make more money with closed source software. I don't have a problem with that.
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. Microsoft can't stand the idea that they might actually have to compete on merit -- so they use their monopoly.
I can't really call them evil because I'd probably be doing the same thing if I was in their shoes. I will call my Government evil for allowing them to get away with it however. WTF is the point of anti-trust laws and the Sherman act if it isn't enforced?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I'm no Microsoft basher, but I'd love to hear their explanation for such a mood change after attacking open source, and specifically, the GPL so harshly.
They should at least have the decency to explain why they think their old views are wrong.
Microsoft looks at FOSS as a bad corporate strategy that will never earn them any money, and that will never make the best software in the world. But they aren't stupid: They do observe that quite a lot of good software is being made under open licenses.
Through making their installer a part of that, they make it easier to deploy good, free software on Windows. This is, in other words, a win-win-situation for Microsoft AND its customers. And even FOSS developers. And other developers (except those making propietary installers, of course).
Roses are #FF0000, violets are #0000FF, all my base are belong to you
>You forgot Trumpet too: they crushed the whole winsock "market" by nefariously adding a TCP/IP stack to the OS.
They gave a product away for free, thereby rendering the commerical product at such a great disadvantage that no-one had a reason to use it.
And how is this different from software released under OpenSource?
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
I wouldn't touch this code with a pole of any length. Section 4 is one extraordinarily draconian provision. It basically states that if you make a commercial application using this software, and then Microsoft gets sued because of its original contribution, you have to pay all of Microsoft's legal expenses.
And yes, I'm fully aware that this license was created by IBM.
Who in their right mind would ever base a derivitive work on anything covered by this license? It's completely insane. Treat this software as you would treat misappropriated Microsoft source code: don't even look at it.
Probably, but I don't believe that open-source and moreso sourceforge having any requirements stating that any "open-source" project MUST run under xxxxx OS, does it?
And if you browse around alot of projects on SF, many say, "..were doing it in windows with a linux port hopefully down the line..."
So were you expecting Microsoft's first foray into the OSS world to be a cross platform offering? Seriously?
Sehr geehrter Toilettenbenutzer!
Imagine if Microsoft weren't a monopoly. Theoretically, if you owned an OS in a competitive market you would want more software choices. In other words, if Windows had an alternative, they would have to make their barriers to create software on it to become more loose. Best way to come up with the most software for your OS is to make development on the OS free. But that won't happen (yet). So if MS actually has competition, they would make it easier to release software for windows. Expect MS to open source more apps which encourage development on Windows as Linux gains more ground. If the world embraces open source, MS is going to have to open more and more...
First, it is only an installer, it is M$'s way to foster FOSS developed for Windows.
Second, it seems that WiX cannot compile without VS.NET, M$'s development environment.
Third, I believe M$ is just testing the temperature of FOSS with the release of this small toolset. Anyway it doesn't hurt by releasing such a small piece of software, however they will learn a lot about dealing with FOSS, gain some experience, and the whole process also provides a lot of feedback to their future policy planner.
Overall, I feel it is a smart move for Microsoft.
I don't think anyone can be sure why MS released this code, but wouldn't it be great to embrace their code and "extend" it to run under say KDE and install rpm, .deb, or whatever package mangler is cool today? It would probably be alot of work and not the best way to install apps on a *nix system anyway, but it would be a novelty to run MS code to install apps on my Linux box.
It also might make Windows users a little more comfortable to see a familiarish looking/feeling install process.
-Lod
Interesting. I think this is a good example of Microsoft testing the waters. I don't think Windows will ever be open source, but this is certainly a good start. Just think how great it would be for a company like microsoft, if they worked with open source developers the way IBM does.
I wonder what the open source landscape would be like if Microsoft were not regarded as the great satan.
It would certainly be interesting.
This signature has Super Cow Powers
All this conspiracy, "black-helicopter" rubbish being posted suggests no one has even read the lead developers blog. I quote:
"Now, let's talk about why WiX was released as Open Source. First, working on WiX has never been a part of my job description or review goals. I work on the project in my free time. Second, WiX is a very developer oriented project and thus providing source code access increases the pool of available developers. Today, there are five core developers (Robert, K, Reid, and Derek, thank you!) regularly working on WiX in their free time with another ten submitting fixes occasionally. Finally, many parts of the Open Source development process appeal to me. Back in 1999 and 2000, I did not feel that many people inside Microsoft understood what the Open Source community was really about and I wanted to improve that understanding by providing an example.
After four and a half years of part-time development, the WiX design (and most of the code) matured to a point where I was comfortable trying to release it externally. So, last October I started looking for a means to release not only the tools but the source code as well. I thought GotDotNet was the place. However, at that time, none of the existing Shared Source licenses were flexible enough to accept contributions from the community. Then, in February, I was introduced to Stephen Walli who was also working to improve Microsoft's relationship with the Open Source community. Fortunately, Stephen was much farther along than I and had the step-by-step plan how to release an Open Source project from Microsoft using an approved OSS license.
Today, via WiX on SourceForge, you get to see the results of many people's efforts to improve Microsoft from the inside out. I'm not exactly sure what is going to happen next but I'm sure there are quite a few people who are interested to see where this leads. Personally, all I hope is that if you find the WiX toolset useful then you'll join the community and help us improve the toolset."
Jonah Hex
Horror & SciFi Erotic Nudes
Well, their motivation remains cold, hard frogskins, with or without the new peachy tones.
I think this is a trial balloon. If it works, all the better; they get the browny points of being 'open' and all.
I, for one, think that, once Mono is fully mature, and after MS Office has been re-done in C#, we may well see a Linux binary version. Would not expect to see MS Word on Sourceforge anytime soon, mind you...
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
We seem to have mostly forgotten about all the garbage IBM pulled in the past, now that they're our Linux buddies, why not Microsoft?
using namespace slashdot;
troll::post();
People do some research before you name your software projects! Wix (wichs, same pronunciation often even spelled wix) means "wank" in German.
I remember there was a car that couldn't be released in the German market because it was called "Mist" which means as much as "crap" there.
Maybe so. But I don't think dismissing the good intentions behind open-sourcing WiX is very constructive.