Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Releases FlexWiki as Open Source
davemabe writes "Microsoft is apparently releasing its FlexWiki wiki implementation as an open source project. FlexWiki is the software used to run the wikis over at Channel 9. My question is: Is this software as good as the ever-extensible Kwiki implementation?"
What's with all the open-sourcing of Microsoft stuff lately?
Aren't these the guys who said open source harms innovation and damages the economy? Can't have it both ways, guys.
Here's proof. Free 27" flatscreen TVs, 17" monitors.
My question is: is there anything Microsoft can do that we won't question?
Applaud them for their newfound approach to open source. More alternatives are always better. I'll bet this software does something Kwiki can't do.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
Is this software as good as the ever-extensible Kwiki implementation?
/., but it's an unhealthy addiction... :)
You know, Microsoft has done an incredible number of crappy things, and they deserve most of the flak they get, but I don't understand why we can't just once acknowledge them for taking a positive step without making some cheap jab like this.
"Microsoft released something as open source -- but let's all assume that a non-MS alternative is better even though we haven't made an actual comparison!" How immature can you get?
Yes, I know I could just stop reading
As huge as they are, that would hardly be surprising. Governments are notorious for suffering from this problem, and Microsoft seems to be bigger than many governments.
I think the OP's problem was that Microsoft has been so vocally against open-source. IBM, at least, makes commercials with Muhammad Ali egging on the children of the corn in support of open-source. The issue is not that they should either open-source everything they do or nothing at all, rather that they should just stop talking shit about it if they're going to "participate."
Umm, I think you missed the point the parent was making. The issue isn't whether Microsoft submits all of the software as Open Source. It's the fact that they are trying to litigate against Open Source while at the same time releasing some of their own projects as Open Source. I don't think you can make the same argument about IBM, Novell or Red Hat.
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
Is this software as good as the ever-extensible Kwiki implementation?
Talk about looking gift horses in the mouth. That's like seeing Houdini get out of a lock box hanging from a crane and asking "Yeah, but can he levitate?"
The point is Microsoft put something out that's open source. If it were 30 shades of awesome they'd be selling it instead. For now it's just there for the community to improve upon and keep.
Direct away from face when opening.
Microsoft's problem is essentially little more than a marketing/branding problem. The "problem" is that in many PHB's minds, OSS == Linux/Apache/whatever. Microsoft wants to catch the very tangible benefits of OSS without inadvertantly endorsing Linux/Apache/whatever. Thats why they are choosing the CPL; for the simple reason that it isn't the GPL.
The bottom line is that, at some level, certain OSS is good for Microsoft. WiX being open is good for Microsoft. So are ASP.NET hosted Wikis. They need to find a way to capitalize on that.
Microsoft's FUD against the GPL is an attempt to shift Linux's "category" from being "Open Source Software" to "GPLed software". The fact that many biz people are confused about the GPL makes it a more convenient target. Once that association is in people's heads, Microsoft can employ OSS to their benefit, with stuff like this, WiX, and so on.
It is very unlikely that Microsoft will ever be an OSS company in the same way that Red Hat or even IBM is, but they might be one in the manner that, say Apple, is. Apple's involvement in OSS is little more than the Darwin kernel and a collection of associated goodies, really not that much if you think about it. While this is certainly more than Microsoft right now, it might not always be that way.
Its not a conspiracy - read this /. article (the italics is what you want).
Note how it is designed to stop unscrupulous people from charging you a royalty. Something that GPL doesn't do.
Imagine I add code to Apache that contains a patent I hold. Now, I wait a few years for it to become popular, and then start suing left, right and centre).
The CPL basically says that this bad behaviour is illegal, when you release, you don't just gove away the source, you allow people to use it freely. Under the GPL, you could legitimately charge for the 'free' software.
Of course, this brings out the conspiracy comments mainly because of the religious zealotly over the GPL (oh, and against MS of course).
The problem is only that the GPL requires you to release under the GPL, regardless of the original licence. That's why it is incompatible - not for any other reason, and certainly not because the CPL is 'less free' or 'patent encumbered' or 'theyre out to get you and your little FOSS doggie too'