Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Releases FlexWiki as Open Source

Posted by michael on from the jumping-on-the-bandwagon dept.

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?"

7 of 340 comments (clear)

  1. Conversely... by Sheetrock · · Score: 4, Insightful
    My question is: Is this software as good as the ever-extensible Kwiki implementation?

    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.




  2. Credit where it's due? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is this software as good as the ever-extensible Kwiki implementation?

    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 /., but it's an unhealthy addiction... :)

    1. Re:Credit where it's due? by AstroDrabb · · Score: 4, Insightful
      why we can't just once acknowledge them for taking a positive step without making some cheap jab like this.
      ...
      How immature can you get?
      If someone constantly took jabs at you and kicked you while you were down, would you trust them the next time they held out their hand? I wouldn't. It will take a while for MS to build _any_ trust in the OSS/FSS communities, especially the Free Software community.

      If you look at the few Open source apps MS has released, they have all been very insignificant. MS will impress me when they make one of their bigger apps Open Source and Free Source. I am not talking about one of their apps that they sell or generate direct revenue from. I am talking about the tons of other apps they include with their OS or other software that they do not sell. I know i would like to get my hands on explorer.exe the desktop shell and file manager. That code is crap and is always crashing on me even in WinXP SP2. It locks just about every file it touches when you use the explorer.exe file manager requiring using task manager to kill and restart it. It is the biggest headache for me using WinXP at work.

      To me this just seems like a PR effort from MS so they can say "me too" when asked about Open Source. Free Software is by far more important to me then Open Source. I don't care if I can look at the code, I want to be able to do something with the code. Free Software gives you the rights to be able to do something with the code while Open Source doesn't alwasy give you those rights. For example, can I take the FlexWiki code MS is releasing and fork it and do something with it MS does not like or agree with? Are there patents encombering FlexWiki? I cannot get to the site right now to check.

      Ok, I just got to the site and read this from the license (IANAL).

      As a condition to exercising the rights and licenses granted
      hereunder, each Recipient hereby assumes sole responsibility
      to secure any other intellectual property rights needed, if
      any. For example, if a third party patent license is required
      to allow Recipient to distribute the Program, it is Recipient's
      responsibility to acquire that license
      To me (IANAL), that doesn't sound too good. It looks like MS trying to keep a back-door in their "open" source code just in case they have something in there that they can require a license for. Exactly how is this Open Source if it can be encumbered by patents and other "IP"?
      --
      If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
      it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
  3. Re:I find it ironic by McDutchie · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Does the right nut know what the left nut is doing over there?

    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.

  4. What's wrong with a gift horse? by St.+Arbirix · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  5. It's a marketing problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  6. Re:WiX and WTL are CPL by gbjbaanb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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'