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?"

8 of 340 comments (clear)

  1. What!! by bluFox · · Score: 5, Funny

    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
  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... :)

  3. Uses the IBM Public License by ashpool7 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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...

  4. Re:But I thought... by Swamii · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
  5. Re:I find it ironic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
    Sorry Microsoft, you can't have your cake and eat it to..
    If you have as much moiney as Microsoft, then you can have your cake, eat it, shit in someone else's cake and make them eat it. Buy lots of cake and eat that too. Sell your cake to everyone in the world, but then eat it anyway. Whatever you want to do with cake.. having shedloads of money will open those options up for you. Now, say you're an open source dev trying to give away your software - you should be lucky if you even see any crumbs. Never mind the cake.
  6. Re:Information about the CPL by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 5, Informative
    Uh, no, I don't think so. From that discription, it sounds like a totally acceptable license. In fact, from the FSF's page:
    Common Public License Version 1.0
    This is a free software license but it is incompatible with the GPL.

    The Common Public License is incompatible with the GPL because it has various specific requirements that are not in the GPL.

    For example, it requires certain patent licenses be given that the GPL does not require. (We don't think those patent license requirements are inherently a bad idea, but nonetheless they are incompatible with the GNU GPL.)
    This is the same issue with the latest Apache license. It's good, it's just GPL incompatible. If they ever make a new version of the GPL, it might contain identical requirements.
    --

    There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.