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?"
/greger
They can't do that, They have no right to be good. or who else do we look up to when it comes to evil?
~561
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
Sheesh, RTFA and click on the SF link.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html
GPL Incompatible due to patent clauses. Draw your own conclusions...
Does IBM Open Source everythig they do? How about Novell? Red Hat? It seems to me, that there are situations where companies can profit from making the code open, and others where it would lose more than it would gain. As time goes on, I think thats just going to become more common.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
A lot of people at Microsoft are changing their thinking regarding OSS. For example, Josh Ledgard, MS's "community evangelist", is a supporter of OSS and was key in brining WiX to SourceForge.
Someone once said about MS's business practices (so no cracks about software bugs please), they make mistakes like any other company, but they'll only make them once. If they discover OSS can help them and benefit them, which it certainly could IMO, they will change their ways no matter how much about-facing they have to do.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit
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'm not totoally sold on Microsoft releasing this software as open source. It was written by David Ornstein, who works at Microsoft. While this tool is used internally at Microsoft, and I'm sure MS has the rights to the software too, I just don't think it's fair to David to classify this as a Microsoft Product.
BTW, David's weblog has a bunch of info on FlexWiki being posted to SourceForge.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
Depending on where you read, it is released under either the IBM Public License or the Common Public License, which superceded the IPL and which is simular to the LGPL. It is approved by the OSI as an open source license and the FSF as a free software license. However, it is incompatible with the GPL because of some clauses about patent restriction. The FSF is not opposed to these clauses in principle - in fact they are concidering putting something simular in the next version of the GPL. But as things stand now, any IPL or CPL code cannot be combines with GPL code (unless of course, the author dual licenses the code under both).
Personally, I tend to side with the FSF when some software developer invents his own open source license which has not had the same legal scrutany of existing licenses, is incompatible with existing licnenses, causes fragmentation in potential codebases, and then accuses the FSF of being inflexible when they try to help the developer resolve these problems. I mean what is the the FSF foundation expected to do - change thier license according to the whims of every new license that comes around? It is the newcomers that are causeing incompatibility not the FSF.
But the CPL is becoming very popular among business, is a very fair Free Software license, has had the scrutiny of IBM lawyers, and does include some good ideas that are not in the GPL. So I really hope that the FSF makes it a top priority to work on the new version of the GPL which solves the patent-based conflicts with the CPL and other licenses.
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.
I've got copies download of the source code that were hosted on GotDotNet.
This might be Microsoft's implementation of FlexWiki (FlexWiki is a BSD license type, if I remember correctly) but FlexWiki has been available for a while.
My reality check bounced.
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'
Does everyone realize that his name isn't Clippy? His name is actually Clippit.
Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
It's more complicated than that.
I've talked with a few Microsoft partners and developers, including published authors who are authorities in their subjects. These people eat, sleep and breathe Microsoft--the technology, the strategy and philosophy. You might say that they are well indoctrinated in other words. I can tell you that not a single one of them were opposed to the concept of open source. In fact some really like what certain open source projects have to offer and use it themselves. I'm told this is typical throughout Microsoft.
The REAL issue is the TYPE of open license. Microsoft is terrified of the GPL and I'm not convinced that they understand it at all. They have come to truly believe their own FUD. They cannot comprehend how Linux came to be where it is today by forcing all who "embrace and extend" it to disclose their contributions. They believe the GPL is far more onerous than it really is. For example I was discussing it with a developer and she wouildn't go near GPL projects. She was afraid that anything she compiled and ran under Mono would have to be made GPL because the compiler is GPL. She thought that you could be at risk of being compelled to disclose the source to all the firmware in peripherals you created, and maybe even the schematics, if you wrote a driver for or otherwise made it work with Linux.
I explained that only the compiler was GPL and that the runtimes were actually *L*GPL which permits proprietary programs to run on the platform. She still thought using the GPL was legally treading on thin ice and preferred BSD licensing as it offered "true freedom" for developers as it was not as restrictive.
This fits right in with the Microsoft philosophy. The whole company was built on the borrowing of ideas. Microsoft essentially stole DOS from SCP (which created DOS as rip off of CP/M for hobbyists). Microsoft stole the GUI idea from Apple (who had lifted it from Xerox). Microsoft "stole" IE from Spyglass when it needed a browser to play catch-up. It even stole networking code from BSD and the underlying architecture of VMS for Windows NT. To Microsoft, open source is useless if it can't be lifted and incorporated into a proprietary system for profit. How it can be used for direct profit is what defines its value.
Microsoft is also very cautious about what it contributes as open code and what open projects it participates in--it has to not only be non-GPL. MS open source must not interfere with their revenue streams. For example, regardless of the license, Microsoft wouldn't contribute to Apache because it conflicts with IIS. PostgreSQL is under a MS-friendly license but it competes with MS SQL Server--as such they wouldn't contribute to PostgreSQL, although they might be inclined to steal code from it to put into MSSQL should they find it serves their needs (maybe they should, seeing as PostgreSQL is a superior product to MSSQL).
I think Microsoft's strategy in spearheading some open source products is to try to establish a new business model. Their profit centres are dwindling--only the OS and Office divisions make a great deal of money--and they need a less expensive development model. They are testing the waters with products outside those divisions. The model is to create a vibrant, popular project in open souce land out of languishing or overlooked proprietary code--the way Netscape spawned the Mozilla project. With the "right" licensing and ownership of the copyrights MS can easily embrace and extend it to release it as a proprietary product (or component thereof), keeping the extensions secret.
This way, Microsoft only has to maintain "extensions" instead of entire systems. Millions of developers can become familiar with the internals, promoting both internal and third-party development. Most importantly, Microsoft maintains their slight edge because it knows the secret extensions and can create superior products to compete with successful third-party software--in effect letting others create MS Bob
Finally, a good wiki, before the release of this, I couldn't find a wiki if I wanted one *sigh*. MS needs to just buckle down on getting the little jpeg issue under control.
Honestly, if you are looking for wiki software, there is lots of great stuff out...
OpenWiki -- Windows, easy to edit, featureful, fast, good. My favorite.
http://www.openwiki.com/
PHPWiki -- Cross Platform, easy to setup, fast.
http://phpwiki.sourceforge.net/
KWiki -- The king of Wiki's!
http://kwiki.org/
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).
You can't do that under the GPL. By attempting it, you've given up your rights to distribute the software.
The GPL's wording on this is, IMHO poor. But the subtlety of the wording is very very important, and may provide better protection than the CPL... (which I haven't read)
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
"7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. . . ."
The odd part about this is that 1. if you contribute the patented code and don't implicitly grant license to use it, you violate the GPL and are guilty of copyright infringement.
More interesting, and this is where it might beat the CPL (or at least your example), is in situations where somebody notices a patent violation in a GPL'd product which they didn't write, there is absolutely no way they can profit from exploiting the patent while simultaneously allowing the software to be distributed.
This is a double-edged sword, and, IMHO a very sharp one. There's no incentive to persue patents on GPL'd products... except to stop their distribution and hold the author of the patented system guilty of violating the GPL.
Now the patent holder might persue the author punatively, but the copyright holders will probably not care.
The GPL is tricky and subtle.
IANAL of course.