Microsoft 'Shared Source' Attempts to Hijack FOSS

aacc1313 writes "An article that details how Open Source is being hijacked by Microsoft and the sort via 'Shared Source' licenses and how Open Source licenses have become so much more confusing. From the article, "The confusion stems from the fact that Microsoft's 'shared source' program includes three proprietary licenses as well, whose names are similar in some ways to the open-source licenses. Thus, while the Microsoft Reciprocal License has been approved by OSI, the Microsoft Limited Reciprocal License (Ms-LRL) is not, because it allows users to modify and redistribute the software only on the Windows platform" and "The 'shared source' program was and is Microsoft's way of fighting the open source world, allowing customers to inspect Microsoft source code without giving those customers the right to modify or redistribute the code. In other words, "shared source" is not open source, and shouldn't be confused with it.""

Comments

Auditable source

[davidwr]

Read-but-not-reuse source really should be called auditable source or, if you are allowed to change and recompile it for your own use, a traditional commercial source-code license except it's free-as-in-beer.

Both have value and are better than closed-source software. Neither is free-as-in-freedom.

Re:Auditable source

[drinkypoo]

The OSI did not invent the term "Open Source". The phrase means only that you can get and use the source code, NOT that you can redistribute works based on it. We have a name for code with licenses like that already, it's called "Free Software". For more ranting on this subject, see this journal entry I wrote on the subject. Short form: The OSI should not be allowed to define what "Open Source" means any more than McDonalds should be allowed to define what "Hamburger" means.

Re:Auditable source

[harry666t]

"Shared source" IS open source. The source is open. You can open it in a text editor and read it.

But it is NOT free software.

I'm with FSF about this one. The "open source" term made it all less clear what this whole movement is all about.

Re:Auditable source

[fbjon]

But it's not closed. I propose a scale:

1. Public domain (or legal equivalent)
2. Open source
3. Free source
4. Visible source
5. Closed source

Optionally bundle Free/Open together.

Re:Auditable source

[KutuluWare]

I think we are running into the same problem with "closed" that we have run into with "free" for years now. The word is typically used because it is the opposite of open, but both words have a number of subtly different meanings, and every definition of "open" is not the exact opposite of every definition of "closed".

Closed can mean "not allowing access", which covered most proprietary software where the source code is completely hidden from everyone except the copyright holders.

Closed can also mean "not open to the general public", which covers the type of traditional source-code licenses being referenced in the GPP. In this case, there are some people who have access to the code, it's just not publically visible.

There's a third definition of closed, that of "requirement memebership", usually in the sense of a closed union shop or a closed industry trade group. This is very roughly the sense of closed that applies to the some of the shared source licenses, in that the code is open to the public only in the sense that anyone willing to follow all of the "membership requirements" is allowed to use it.

Of course, arguably any license fits into that third category, so the difference between open and closed then falls onto how open or closed those individual requirements are. For example, the limiting of access of derived software to only running on Windows is more closed than allowing derived software to run on any platform.

The FSF has taken to using the term "libre" instead of "free" because it has the explicit connotation of freedom by lack of restructions. There must be terms that are less ambiguous than "closed" that are also appropriate. A poster lower down suggested Visible, which is better but still doesn't distinguish the various degrees to which a company can make its source visible. Unfortunately I like the word "shared" in certain senses but not in others. It has the implications of being available for others to look at, but still being completely owned and controlled by the copyright holder.

Perhaps:

* Public Domain - Or legal equivalent
* Open Source - Open with minimal restrictions (BSD)
* Free Source - Open but with restrictions (GPL)
* Shared Source? Illustrative Source? Read-Only Source? This is where I get stuck. Code that anyone can see but cannot use.
* Restricted Source - Available under severe restrictions (confidentiality etc.)
* Closed Source - Fully hidden from all but copyright owner

Re:Auditable source

[AmaDaden]

I was thinking that having one axis for openness and another for cost might help. Openness could be
1. Public domain (or legal equivalent)
2. Free source
3. Open source
4. Visible source
5. Closed source
and Cost could be
1. Give it away
2. Free version for unlimited time but limited usability
3. Free version for limited time
4. Pay software
So a few examples. Windows is is a O5C4. Rad Hat is a O3C4 or O3C2 if you count Fedora. Ubuntu is a O3C1. Apache is O2C1.

But I think you are more looking for a mobility measurement for the next guy. In that case I guess Windows could be O5C4->X because you can't do anything with it. Firefox would be O3C1->O3C2 because of logo licensing issues. Apache would be O2C1->O2-5C1-4 because your modified version could have stricter rules.

I admit this all looks complex but if you know the system it can get the idea across very quickly. But I might just be over thinking it all...

Re:Auditable source

[Allador]

OSI has a trademark on the term "Open Source", so naturally they are allowed to define what "Open Source" means. The ignorance on /. is appalling.

From the OSI website:

http://www.opensource.org/docs/certification_mark.html

Unfortunately, the term "open source" itself is subject to misuse, and because it's considered descriptive, it can't currently be legally protected as a trademark (which would have been our first choice). From that same page, they DO have a trademark, but its not on 'open source':

Since the community needs a reliable way of knowing whether a piece of software really is open source, OSI is registering a trademark, Open Source Initiative Approved, for this purpose. If you see this mark on a piece of software, either the software really is being distributed under a license that conforms to the Open Source Definition, or the distributor is misusing the mark and thereby breaking the law. Please make some sort of attempt to be at least remotely factually accurate in your postings.

License confusion

[rxmd]

Open Source licenses have become so much more confusing.

To be honest they were pretty confusing already, with license proliferation leading to a large number of very similar free software licenses with minute, but potentially decisive differences. It didn't need Microsoft for that. Even the general overview at Wikipedia lists 54 different Open Source licenses, not counting superseded or volunarily retired ones.

What is Open Source?

[Simon (S2)]

"shared source" is not open source, and shouldn't be confused with it." I think this is not true. Open Source means nothing more that the source is "open", that you can see it. I never interpreted the term "open source" whit the meaning that you are free to modify it and distribute it. That is GPLed code for me. A piece of code is Open Source when you can see the code. So, shared source *is* open source, because the code is there for you to see. What you can do with the code, is part of the licence agreement attached with the code. There is no "open source" license, but there is a GPL, BSD, Apache, MIT and so on license.
Am I the only one seeing it like this? Am I wrong?

Re:What is Open Source?

[AndGodSed]

And on another tack - I wonder if MS would incorporate any positive changes you would make to their source code.

And if they incorporate it, would they automatically own it, hence not needing to pay you for it?

Not only are we M$'s beta testers, we are now their bug fixers.

Sounds fishy - but that is just me playing the paranoia card...

Re:What is Open Source?

[drinkypoo]

Yes, you're missing something quite fundamental. The term "Open Source" is a trademark. NO IT IS NOT. The term "Open Source" is most certainly not a trademark. The OSI is attempting to build a case for their formerly-denied trademark application for the term "Open Source". The Open Source Marks themselves are trademarked. This is, of course, deceptive business practice - they have YOU fooled, don't they?

This fact is more obvious when you look at the largest logos, e.g. opensource-550x475.gif. In this logo you can clearly see that the TM applies to the logo, not to the words "Open Source". The smaller logos deceptively make it look like the TM applies to the whole thing (and it SORT OF does - but to the graphic representation of the phrase "Open Source", and not the phrase itself.)

I did the research into this issue when the OSI announced its intention to "crack down" on vendors who "misuse" the term Open Source. That issue, and the comments in the slashdot story made me somewhat nauseous (and still do.) I subsequently wrote a journal entry detailing the situation. I've since exchanged comments with Bruce Perens, who defends his stance on redefining the term from what it used to be. Rather than taking responsibility for selection of an already-overloaded piece of terminology, Mr. Perens insists that he is correct and that the OSI (and by extension and some truly addled logic, the entire computing community) is the injured party here.

In reality there is no injured party, just some geeks with an overdeveloped sense of their own importance. Arguably, that includes myself; but then, I'm trying to preserve history, not rewrite it.

A legitimate question

[stonecypher]

How is this any different than what GPL did to BSD? Show up, act like you invented the term "free software", impose a bunch of draconian restrictions that didn't used to exist and loudly tell everyone that your choice of strictures does good for the community?

Preparing for inappropriate troll and flamebait mods. It's still a legitimate question.

Re:A legitimate question

[adpsimpson]

...impose a bunch of draconian restrictions that didn't used to exist...

Rising to the bait, GPL's restrictions act to restrict the current user in order to the benefit the community. They arguably don't necessarily benefit the original code developer, although the developer is free to the same benefits as the community receives.

Microsoft's restrictions benefit, well, Microsoft. That is, the original developer. Not the community, not the current user. Nobody else.

This seems like a pretty important distinction.

Re:A legitimate question

[Bert64]

The GPL may have more restrictions than BSD, but the GPL itself doesn't take anything away, it actually grants you rights you wouldn't normally have under copyright law while placing some restrictions on those rights.

If you look at most commercial licenses, they are far more "draconian" as you put it, since not only do they usually not grant you any rights you wouldn't already have, they often seek to take away the rights you would have had through copyright law.

GPL is good for the community because it insures that future users have the same rights, and that a third party cannot take the code and re-release it under draconian restrictions (as often happens to BSD code). Obviously it's far from ideal, and i'm sure Richard Stallman would be the first person to agree, but so long as there are people out there seeking to take free code and rerelease it under draconian restrictions there will be a need to do something to stop that happening. I would say that the restrictions of the GPL are more than livable, given the alternative of completely closed source.

Additionally, the extra restrictions imposed by the GPL compared to BSD don't really affect people who just want to use the sofware, or who want to modify it and contribute the changes back to the community. They only have an impact on those who want to leech by taking existing code, packaging it up and selling a closed source derivative.

Re:A legitimate question

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

How is this any different than what GPL did to BSD? Show up, act like you invented the term "free software", impose a bunch of draconian restrictions that didn't used to exist and loudly tell everyone that your choice of strictures does good for the community?

The GPL and BSD are different licenses, each ideal for different uses. In many cases the same developers will develop both BSD and GPL licensed code depending upon what they want to do with their creation. Sure there are idiots who claim everything should be GPL or BSD and that the other is not "real OSS" but those people are mostly uninformed twats. Seriously, very rarely are those opinions expressed by anyone here or in knowledgeable forums. The development community as a whole accepts and utilizes both; GPL for projects that are larger and need a lot of ongoing input from different players and the BSD license for core technologies where adoption of that technology is more important than keeping contributions to a reference implementation available to all.

For example, if I (or my employer) is investing in writing a userspace application like a page layout program, the GPL is most likely to garner contributions from others in a way that benefits me and the other developers as well as the user base. If I (or my employer) invests in writing code for a new auto-discovery over IP daemon the BSD license allows that code to be integrated into more devices and OS's more easily and both users and developers benefit only if adoption is widespread. The same developer or company will often find itself contributing under both these licenses. Very few developers consider it some sort of competition between the two or advocate only one license for all things... and most of those people are not industry insiders and probably have not contributed significant code in any case.

The shared source license is somewhat different in that the specific use case it is designed to solve is a marketing one, rather than a functional one. It is simply a way to provide a license that benefits the one and only developer at the expense of the user, by providing a very small subset of the benefits of other OSS licenses, while intentionally castrating the most important (but less understood) benefits. MS's problem is not that developers or users need more freedom to make the code better, it is that developers and users are demanding OSS because OSS code is helping others in ways they don't really understand and those developers and users need to be convinced that MS is giving them those same benefits, in a vague and not specifically explained way.

Preparing for inappropriate troll and flamebait mods. It's still a legitimate question.

If you're preparing for troll and flamebait mods, then you probably at least have an inkling that your view is both inflammatory and reflects a poor understanding of those licenses as they are commonly used by the OSS community. In future, if you think you're going to be modded down as a flame and troll, maybe you should assert less and instead ask people to inform you as to why the opinion would be so large of a misunderstanding that it would potentially result in such a moderation. You obviously have doubts about the legitimacy of your question, otherwise you would not phrase it the way you did.

Re:Duh.

[denis-The-menace]

The PHB signing your paycheck.

Re:Well it's like this

[Culture20]

You wouldn't take a fox's vegetarian food recipes without a barrel of salt either, would you. I don't know... Regurgitated grass doesn't sound like it needs any seasoning.

Re:Sounds like Open Source to me

[bob.appleyard]

By what definition? How about The Open Source definition? They did kind of coin the term, after all. In which case you're wrong.

GPL is an easy decision...

[IGnatius T Foobar]

It's very easy to see why the GPL is the very best license to choose for a FOSS project. Quite simply, it is the license that Microsoft abhors the most. The very mention of its name sends Microsoft people into foaming fits of anger.

From this, we may safely draw the conclusion that Microsoft has done a lot of research, with a lot of lawyers, and they've determined that the GPL represents the biggest threat to their revenue model. And what's bad for Microsoft is generally good for everyone else. So if you're going to develop FOSS, the GPL is the obvious safe choice.

The GPL does not restrict Users at all

[FreeUser]

Rising to the bait, GPL's restrictions act to restrict the current user in order to the benefit the community.

Ahem. Just a little nit to pick: the GPL does not restrict users in any way. It "restricts" (if that's the term) distributors and developers, in that it requires them to make the source code available to anyone they distribute to, upon request. Like a constitution, it enshrines the rights of users, coders, and everyone else by defining their rights and prohibiting actions taken to infringe on those rights.

Microsoft's restrictions benefit, well, Microsoft. That is, the original developer. Not the community, not the current user. Nobody else.

This seems like a pretty important distinction.

You're right, it's an extremely important distinction, not unlike the distinction between your run-of-the-mill business contract and the US Constitution or the British Magna Carta.

Shades of studpidity

[malevolentjelly]

I've always heard the FOSS debate having something to do with the technical merits of being able to modify and view your source code for security or customization purposes. Even if it's platform-locked, this still applies to that general principle.

But there are shades of madness in the open source community- once Microsoft fulfills the realistic argument for why you need the source code, suddenly it's not about actually having the source code. No- it's about porting it to linux and refusing to maintain it for windows, nay- FREEDOM. It's about some sort of weird ideal defined by Stallman, whose primary argument seems to remain that he doesn't like that things cost money or that there's a software industry hustling and bustling out there that he's not qualified to participate in.

Suddenly it's no longer "you need the source code to make use of the product" but it's evolved into "I deleted the wifi firmware on my laptop because it wasn't free. Now I use a wire."

Since the slashdot zealot crowd has so many shades of open source mania, it doesn't matter what microsoft will do. Here is my slashdot zeitgeist by MS license-use prediction:

MS LRL: It's bad because it forces you to use code written FOR windows on windows.

Ms-RL: It's bad because it's not abstractly free in Stallman's imagination.

GPL: It's bad because it's Microsoft, and they're planning something.

BSD: They're just going to make us so we're dependent on it then they're going to sue everybody and everything will far apart. I was abused as a child and have trust issues.

MIT: The world is going to end and we need to resort to cannibalism immediately.

My personal thought about this is that the Shared Source license is a way for Microsoft to make use of open source in some applicable categories without having their code licensed under something that is controlled by an organization of wingnuts, like the FSF. Thus, they could release their code under the GPL, but then Stallman will just draft a GPLv4 that says whoever uses the license needs to release the source code to Windows if they are called "Microsoft", which is basically like what the GPLv3 did to Novell. Stallman and his nimrods will cook licenses that include bitter little addendums to address contemporary issues that put his panties in a knot, because suddenly Stallman has the say in how people use Linux.

This is the same reason that Monsanto doesn't use Earth First! to handle their marketing and to distribute their products to grociers. If Microsoft goes open source, they need to have the assurance that the license is under their terms otherwise their shareholders might get nervous that they're putting some maniac activist organization in control of their distribution rights. There's no reason to do that unless Windows is squarely defeated in the market by open source alternatives.

Could you imagine how many windows clones would show up overnight? It would be a disaster for their platform and company. They're currently in a state where they can sell their platform for large amounts of money. They won't give that up because it angers a fringe of developers whose religion is FOSS-- they'll only do it if there's no other way to make money.

Re:Shades of studpidity

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I've always heard the FOSS debate having something to do with the technical merits of being able to modify and view your source code for security or customization purposes. Even if it's platform-locked, this still applies to that general principle.

OSS is a series of development methodologies and business strategies. They result in both real technical benefits and financial and flexibility benefits. Removing the ability of the developer to lock you into a format or platform or product is one of the main benefits. A license that removes that ability has removed one of the main benefits.

But there are shades of madness in the open source community- once Microsoft fulfills the realistic argument for why you need the source code, suddenly it's not about actually having the source code.

People with a very superficial understanding of the benefits of OSS would think MS's shared source license provide those same benefits. This is not a coincidence. That is what MS's licenses were designed to do, provide not the most important benefits of OSS, but the benefits most understood by purchasers. It is basically marketing.

No- it's about porting it to linux and refusing to maintain it for windows, nay- FREEDOM. It's about some sort of weird ideal defined by Stallman, whose primary argument seems to remain that he doesn't like that things cost money or that there's a software industry hustling and bustling out there that he's not qualified to participate in. Suddenly it's no longer "you need the source code to make use of the product" but it's evolved into "I deleted the wifi firmware on my laptop because it wasn't free. Now I use a wire."

Strawman. Quote people who have actually made those arguments here and been modded up if you want this to be taken seriously.

Since the slashdot zealot crowd has so many shades of open source mania, it doesn't matter what microsoft will do.

In terms of licensing, MS can adopt GPLv3 for a significant amount of the code they release and then abide by the terms of that license long enough to develop a history of good behavior. That would satisfy most Slashdotters in terms of licensing and if their shared source licenses really bring the same benefits to users, why wouldn't they do this? [Note: the last comment was rhetorical.]

At this point in your rant, you seem to go into a lot of hypothetical and inflammatory ranting. I'll address a few points deserving of it, but I'm not going to try to address your random speculation about what you assume people here on Slashdot would say in some hypothetical situation.

My personal thought about this is that the Shared Source license is a way for Microsoft to make use of open source in some applicable categories without having their code licensed under something that is controlled by an organization of wingnuts, like the FSF.

The Free software foundation doesn't somehow magically have any more rights to or control of GPL'd code than anyone else. The point of the GPL is to release some of the rights to users and other developers in order to provide them with benefit. MS's shared source licenses do that, just in a very, very, very limited way designed to capitalize on misunderstandings of those users. It's like motorcycle manufacturer realizing that most people think CC of displacement necessarily indicates the power of a bike and so creating a bike engine that displaces a lot of area to capitalize on that misunderstanding without bringing many of the real benefits users want.

Thus, they could release their code under the GPL, but then Stallman will just draft a GPLv4 that says whoever uses the license needs to release the source code to Windows if they are called "Microsoft", which is basically like what the GPLv3 did to Novell.

That is complete bullshit. First, just because Stallman writes a GPL4, doesn't mean MS would have to switch to it. Second

That's not what actually happened

[argent]

Back in the 1980s, when Richard Stallman was the only one talking about the need for "free software," no one quite knew what he was talking about.

Back in the 1970s lots of people were talking about he need for free software, under all kinds of names. More than that, we were doing it. The movement that RMS is given credit for starting was already well under way, all across the spectrum. You had compilers (and not just on big computers, in the 8-bit worls Small-C, Tiny-Pascal and -Basic, and Forth were published in Dr Dobbs Journal), editors, shells, UNIX emulation (the Software Tools VOS on minis and mainframes, and more modest tools on micros), the free/open/whatever-you-call-it community was already huge when he published the Gnu Manifesto in 1984.

Before the late '70s commercial closed-source software was really the exception. It wasn't even clear how much of a future there was for proprietary code, because a software package that didn't include source meant you were locked in to the operating system you got it for. A friend of mine came up with he name "Tangible Software" to describe software that wasn't proprietary and locked down to a single OS by being distributed only in compiled format, and we even used that name for our company (don't bother googling for it, it lasted less than a year and never shipped any product... we were both undergrads at Berkeley and had no time for classes AND starting up a business). Of course what happened was that this turned into a benefit for the vendors of proprietary software... they could sell you the white album over and over again.

The point is that what actually happened is that RMS provided a focus for what a lot of people were already doing, and tried to redirect the energy of the community his way. He succeeded, in both, to a point... but the people who didn't want to be redirected found they needed a better name. "Free Software" already meant too many things to too many people, from freeware (mostly binary (not "tangible") and some of which was crippled, and soon became 'shareware') to things like BSD- and MIT- licensed code to purely public domain stuff, even before Stallman, but he sure didn't help things.

Now we have RMS arguing that "open source" should refer to the development model (the bazaar) rather than the license, though the OSI's definition of open source is all about the license... and Microsoft trying to hijack the mindspace with "look but don't touch" licenses (also nothing new... you used to be able to get VMS source code... on microfiche). The term's under attack from both sides, and the history of the past 30 years is being rewritten (with the best of intentions, no doubt) by all sides.

Re:No One Cares About Your Opinion

[jedidiah]

No. This is obvious fraud and deceptive marketing.

Anyone that's not a total sheep should be up in arms about
it even if they are Microsoft groupies. Ultimately this is
about the fact that Microsoft has a long history of using
misleading trademarks and trying to hijack well established
terms of art.

This is by no means the first time Microsoft's done this.
They tend to do it constantly.

This is business as usual for Microsoft.

Re:Auditable source ... IMO: "Open" ....

[OldHawk777]

Proper Nouns are not pronouns
Open is not open.
Bath is not bath.
China is not china.
Apple is not apple.
Mobile is not mobile.
Windows is not windows.
US ain't us, but is should be US not U$/M$/eU....

"Open" should be an internationally protected market/economic trademark like Champaign, Cognac ....

"Open" provides significant international market/product value that is being fraudulently used by companies (like microsoft) to damage the market value of "Open". L/FOSS companies need "Open" to be competitive and differentiate L/FOSS services, methods, standards, products ... from the corporatism profiteers' drive-by sales of SOSS (Same Old Shit Software) in the USA and EU pseudo-capitalism economy.

"Open" needs to be legally protected in the global market just like Sun_sun_SUN, Java_java_Java, Windows_windows....

IOW: To use the market trademark "Open" specific standards must be meet ... like ... source is freely editable, shareable, and available ..., just read about GPL and BSD licenses, then by consensus define how/when/... the trademark "Open" can be used. "Open" defines many varied source purposes, concepts, applying to software code, personal creative content, standards, patents, community structures, collaborations .... If this is not done, I am sure that the corporatist/plutocrats of pseudo-capitalism will bury the L/FOSS community and any other "Open" markets/sectors (Standards, Content, Music ...) in this anti-competitive corporate-welfare economy.

Please stop the historical revisionism

[Bruce Perens]

Look, I'm sorry it annoys you. But the day I published the Open Source Definition, Open Source acquired a specific meaning which stands to this day. Eric Raymond and I took the authority to do that. What gave us the right? We chose to lead, and some Millions of people have followed. Today they use "Open Source" as in the definition.

It's a trademark too. Just not a registered one, because that got botched.

Can't you do something more constructive and work on hacker? The abuse of that to mean computer criminal is much more bothersome.

Bruce