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

Re:Nothing new here.

[iamhigh]

yet another example of Microsoft attempting to muddy the waters

Or is this FOSS advicates trying to muddy the waters between 'open source' and 'free software'.

Open source == can see source code.
FOSS/Free software == GPL; Few restrictions on use.

If you don't want people confusing the two, then start using the correct term on your stuff.

I am sure I will be a troll, or quickly corrected.

Open Source != Free

[DaveV1.0]

There is literally nothing to see here.

A software project being open source does not automatically mean that software is free, either as beer or as speech.

Either you people have forgotten that, or you are just changing the meanings of your words.

Criticising Microsoft in this way is nit-picking

[golodh]

Criticism that Microsoft is mistakenly touts Windows-only projects as Open Source is pure nit-picking.

Just consider: Microsoft can obtain all Windows source code, Microsoft is licensed to modify Windows source code, and Microsoft is empowered to impose any condition it likes on subsequent users (if any) of the Windows source code. So from Microsoft's point of view, Open Source is as good a moniker for Windows-only software as any. It's just a question of hacking the definition of "Open Source" a bit.

Of course you always have intolerant extremists who feel that only their own views on Open Source should be considered, but Microsoft makes a pretty good case for their own definition of Open Source.

So why not open the "Open Source" trademark so that anyone can use it? Everyone can see that it's hypocritical to demand free software and then insist on closed trademarks. There clearly is a demand for opening the Open Source trademark!

Re:This is people trying to play with words.

[JAlexoi]

There is no such thing as public domain... That is the problem with most copyright legislation. Even Homers Iliad is not in public domain, meaning that if you quote from it you can be forced to attribute the quote to Homer.