Microsoft Launches OSS Site, Submits License For Approval

prostoalex writes "Microsoft has launched a site dedicated to collaboration between Microsoft and open source community. The site helps developers, IT administrators, and IT buyers find out what Microsoft's product offerings are, and read articles about open source such as 'Open Source Provider Sees Sales Doubling After Moving Solutions to the Windows Platform.'" Relatedly, CNet has the news that the company has submitted its shared-sources license to the OSI for approval.

Comments

RUN AWAY!!

[Divebus]

Do like Microsoft does with standards... run away as far as possible as fast as you can.

Re:RUN AWAY!!

[snoyberg]

So, I'll take it as a given that no one reading this would ever consider contributing code to M$ "OSS" sites. So then the only other use for us would be to utilize their code in our products. I would recommend considering the following:

• Are we guaranteed that the code is patent-free and will always be open for continued use?
• Does their shared-source license allow easy mixing with other FLOSS code, eg GPL and BSD licenses?
• Is there another, more well-established solution to the problem their code is solving?
• And considering the "stability" of M$ products, do we even trust the code to do what they claims

For me, it would be more trouble than it's worth to use M$ code in any of my projects.

Re:RUN AWAY!!

[Ed Avis]

* Are we guaranteed that the code is patent-free and will always be open for continued use?

You are not guaranteed that with any other free software program. In fact, it's almost guaranteed that it does infringe software patents (both those existing now, and those that will be granted in the future).

* Does their shared-source license allow easy mixing with other FLOSS code, eg GPL and BSD licenses?

The GPL doesn't allow easy mixing with code under any other licence, so this seems a little unfair - but yes, practically speaking it may be a problem. Mixing with MIT-style or new-style BSD code is usually unproblematic since you can just relicense that code to match the fussier licence.

* Is there another, more well-established solution to the problem their code is solving?

Almost all free software projects fail this test.

* And considering the "stability" of M$ products, do we even trust the code to do what they claims

The whole point is that you can read the code for yourself, so you don't have to trust anyone.

I think a better list of things to consider is whether you have freedom to (1) use, (2) share, and (3) change the software. If you can do all those then it's free software, no matter which company it came from. There's no reason to hold Microsoft-written code to a different standard to other code. If it's free it's free.

The real reason

[MosesJones]

Is that Balmer has run out of chairs. By doing this he hopes to gain access to all the Open Source communities chairs.

Re:The real reason

[Howitzer86]

He'll get my chair when he prys it from my cold dead ass.

Interesting site

[ilovegeorgebush]

It seems Microsoft's approach on this site, is to twist the terminology and meaning of Open Source to link it to their products.

From the site (microsoft.com/opensource), they've linked to a PDF explaining how SharePoint (first link, 'share' and 'open') is the 'Road To Open' and the Sharepoint Learning Kit (SLK) has been released under Microsoft's own OSI-submitted open source license.

Could the idea be to confuse the average consumers (and buzz-word obsessed manager types) into thinking Microsoft when they hear 'Open Source'?

Either way, it's interesting to see them formally acknowledge their opponents - again!

Re:Buckling under pressure?

[Door in Cart]

FOSS != OSS

See the Wikipedia article on Alternative terms for free software and RMS's Why "Free Software" is better than "Open Source".

A Microsoft OSS Site? I've said it before...

[commodoresloat]

It's a cookbook!!

MS Open source website? ooookkk

[opieum]

Well this is interesting. It is the equivalent of asking a Nazi about Jews and expecting objectivity. Also MS is having trouble having people developing on their platform. They are losing developers for Mac OS and Linux. People know a sinking ship when they see one. Plus the subtle jabs they take at developers claiming that it is their software causing security problems (which is partly but not totally true) why would anyone want to develop for MS when OSS provides full flexibility. People can see the code and not come up with hackish solutions or workarounds to problems they may encounter. http://www.cio.com/article/122152/Microsoft_Window s_Loses_Ground_With_Developers_Survey_Says With Vista being a mess of compatibility and DRM/WDM/"Security" laden crap, it makes it hard for any real innovation to happen in the application space. I used to work for MS. One of the biggest gripes I heard was that drivers were always made wrong. Applications were usually buggy which caused problems with the OS. While again that is PARTIALLY true, part of the problem was the fact that I later learned (after I left MS for the real world) that coding for Windows platforms is a PITA. The closed nature makes everything a hackish effort. Workarounds here, hooks there. Linux, BSD and other open source kernels out there have easy access to the lowest level if necessary of the kernels and OS in general. This makes it extremly easy to integrate with a minimum to intermiediate learning curve (if you are coming off Visual Studio specifically)