Microsoft Treating "Windows-Only" As Open Source

mjasay writes "The Register is reporting that Microsoft is hosting Windows-only projects on its 'open source project hosting site,' CodePlex. Miguel de Icaza caught and criticized Microsoft for doing this with its Microsoft Extensibility Framework (MEF), licensing it under the Microsoft Limited Permissive License (Ms-LPL), which restricts use of the code to Windows. Microsoft has changed the license for MEF to an OSI-approved license, the Microsoft Public License, but it continues to host a range of other projects under the Ms-LPL. If CodePlex wasn't an 'open source project hosting site,' this wouldn't be a problem. But when Microsoft invokes the 'open source' label, it has a duty to live up to associated expectations and ensure that the code it releases on CodePlex is actually open source. If it doesn't want to do this — if it doesn't want to abide by this most basic principle of open source — then call CodePlex something else and we'll all move on."

Comments

Terminology is not owned by narrow extremists.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry about this, but simply being a group of semi-communist nerds ("CopyLeft") does not give you the right to rewrite the dictionary and enforce this upon others.

The way you as a narrow special interest group define 'Free' as in 'Free Software' does not rhyme with how the majority of the world's population define the word 'Free' or the connotations they draw from it. To therefore allow a special interest group to hijack standard terminology and aggressively retribute against people who defy their hold on and special definition of that terminology is not something we should, for the sake of language standards if not anything else.

Still Open Source

[TheRaven64]

If someone can take the code, port it to other platforms, and distribute it, then it's still open source. They can refuse to accept patches porting it to other platforms, and it's still open source. Their hosting provider can even deny them free hosting if they accept patches for supporting other operating systems.

Just because you host open source, doesn't mean you can't add extra constraints. Google Code limits the licenses you can use, and used to not allow the Mozilla Public License.

Re:This is microsoft trying to help kill open sour

[Timothy Brownawell]

There was no "open source", capitals or not, regarding software until the Open Source Definition. If you look through past material, you can only find a few uses of the words together regarding software at all, with no consistent meaning.

There's also no term that I'm aware of for "water that is wet", simply because "water that isn't wet" hasn't really been invented yet. Maybe someone will invent the term "wet water" once we figure out how to make "dry water", and we can all credit them with the existence of wetness...

Re:This is microsoft trying to help kill open sour

[Blakey Rat]

Their publicity agencies are here on Slashdot pumping that angle every day.

Proof? Citation Needed?

Me being sick of people spreading utter bullshit like this and assuming everybody reading Slashdot is so stupid that they'll bend over and take it?