Slashdot Mirror
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."
This is most likely a tactic to try to get people to associate "open source" with Microsoft and not Linux.
Honestly, I don't see anything new here. This is just yet another example of Microsoft attempting to muddy the waters. It's classical embrace and extend.
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
"...invokes the 'open source' label"
Who owns this label?
"His name was James Damore."
Microsoft doesn't really understand the idea of 'open source'... It seems to believe that if the source is out in the open in a certain manner, so to speak, it's 'open source', and it believes there could be restrictions placed on top of it despite what the name implies.
Maybe they're thinking along the lines of the 'open door policy' that some managers use as a means of 'communication with employees'. I mean, it's 'open', after all... right? He might throw a chair at you, but you're welcome to step in?
Serving time in Aristotelean prison for violating laws of physics
I don't think it is fair that you got first post, I wish I had got first post, my first post was going to be quite good. Someone (perhaps the shashdot editors should fix this). Maybe in retrospect I should have realised that an Anonymous Coward by nature would try to get first post, but I didn't, my hope was that the Anonymous Coward would change his behaviour this time so that everyone would get to read my post - but I guess the Anonymous Coward can't be trusted to do the right thing after all. Its a shame though. I really hope that from this chastisement Anonymous Coward will get message and change his spots. Irrelevant first posts are selfish and spoil things for everyone.
Before adopting WHATWG, read the moonlight.NET EULA [http://www.microsoft.com/interop/msnovellcollab/moonlight.mspx]
It is not a matter of ownership. Words have a particular meaning and this is a case of MS trying to throw its weight around to change the popular understanding of the meaning of "Open Source" to something that is favorable for them. Last time I checked, "Open Source" does NOT mean "something that is only legal to use on Windows".
OSI?
Hmmmm, I discovered something with the latest Ubuntu......I could install it within MS windows and run it.... like an application.
Or Linux-only, or Mac-only, or Plan9-only. The point is that if someone wants to modify the code so it runs on an Atari 800, they're legally free to do so. Publishing the code, and saying, "You may do this, only, and no more", is certainly within their rights, but it ain't open.
I hear there are no versions of the Linux kernel that run under windows.
From http://www.colinux.org/ Cooperative Linux is the first working free and open source method for optimally running Linux on Microsoft Windows natively. More generally, Cooperative Linux (short-named coLinux) is a port of the Linux kernel that allows it to run cooperatively alongside another operating system on a single machine. For instance, it allows one to freely run Linux on Windows 2000/XP...
A case could be made that it's a trademark of the opensource initiative, and/or software in the public interest...
That Microsoft got their Microsoft Public License accepted by the OSI as an open-source license certainly indicates they know who defined the term... Then they go back and misuse it...
"Publishing the code, and saying, "You may do this, only, and no more", is certainly within their rights, but it ain't open."
Licenses by definition aren't open and they most certainly serve an end. All the OSI approved licenses restrict what I can do in one way or the other. Otherwise everything would be public domain which is as free as this world can offer.
Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
Open source does not mean open platform, case closed.
About CodePlex CodePlex is Microsoft's open source project hosting web site. Start a new project, join an existing one, or download software created by the community. More About CodePlex... Microsoft does not control, review, revise, endorse or distribute the third party projects on this site. Microsoft is hosting the CodePlex site solely as a web storage site as a service to the developer community.
In other words, developers can -gasp- choose the license they want. And they do, including MS. Also, it has nothing to do with the OSI since MS explicitly mentions it's 'open source' and not 'Open Source'(which seems to be hijacked by the OSI as a trademark?). open source != free(as in freedom) software.
This space for rent.
That's the whole point, you're not allowed to do that.
It used to be registered as a service mark of the Open Source Initiative.
However, I believe the trademark registration was allowed to lapse in 1999. It is a shame, because this is the type of confusion that the trademark and trademark law should have prevented.
From the article:
Honestly, please read more than a paragraph or two of the article before submitting it to Slashdot. You can submit any code under any licence you like to CodePlex, and indeed encourages you to do so. Where's the problem here, exactly? That "open source" means different things to Microsoft than it does to some other people? That term means many things to many people, from the idea of being able to view the source of software but do little else with it, to the BSD/public domain-ish idea of all code being available for modification under virtually any terms. That's all this is. Nothing to see here, move along.
I write bullshit
Point understood, you have an example of a ruby-only site.
However, do projects on that site have a license explicitly forbidding you from re-implementing them in python or perl or C? I suspect no, that they would allow that even if they choose not to explicitly aid it.
In this case, MS's site is hosting code that not only is Windows specific, but forbids potential developers from even porting it to other operating systems. The former is hard to argue, the latter bit I understand raising some ire amongst Free software advocates.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
But (if I am understanding the comments correctly), the license forbids you from porting to code to another platform. A real open source license wouldn't do that.
Open Source is what is defined by the Open Source Definition.
A number of microsoft dweebs and/or campaigners would like to have it otherwise. But then Microsoft would like to have a lot of things. It's called corporate totalitarianism.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Coor's Brewing Company would say yes.
The problem isn't that the code is built solely for Windows...there are lots of projects that are considered open source that are built for a single operating system. The issue is that the license expressly forbids developers to port the code to any other OS.
Call it what you will, but that ain't open source.
Ride the skies
If you're an awesome enough hacker to take code written for Windows on x86 and compile it on a TI99/4A, then go to. The problem here is that the licence forbids it to be used on non-Windows platforms, not that it's difficult in practice to do so.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
They weren't bastardizing the concept. They were working with the community to provide a definition big companies like IBM, Sun, or Microsoft, and lawyers could understand.
And in the past they even registered "open source" as a service mark for protection of the thriving community against dilution by people who wanted to twist the concept of open source.
To protect against companies who want to just make the source visible without actually opening it for others to use or change without undue restrictions protective corporate lawyers would normally demand upon (things like written approval).
From http://www.opensource.org
Emphasis mine.
Publishing the code, and saying, "You may do this, only, and no more", is certainly within their rights, but it ain't open.
I find that statement to be slightly ironic, since it's exactly how the GPL works, and most people consider that open.
'Course, now I'm the one playing word games, since the GPL is arguably restricting what you can do to keep openness, but still, the point is that almost all open source licenses place some form of restriction on what you can do with the code.
The difference between truly open and closed depend on what those restrictions are.
That's not even the point. When someone says "open source", what do YOU think of? Let me tell you, it's not anything Microsoft related.
What is Codeplex really about? It's a cheap form of recruiting developers to keep supporting the Windows platform by building better programs... as long as Microsoft gets a profit from it.
This is why using the GPLv3 is forbidden in Codeplex.
A real open source license wouldn't do that
That's your opinion. As far as I'm concerned, open source means exactly that - the source is open. People seem to be intent on tacking on a whole load of 'moral' obligations that someone has to follow to qualify to use 'open source', when nothing could be further from the truth.
Definitely a very liberal sprinkling of "Open Source is our phrase, you can't use it" going around the comments on this article.
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
Their publicity agencies are here on Slashdot pumping that angle every day.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
It's the rights that are important. You're missing that entirely.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
But (if I am understanding the comments correctly), the license forbids you from porting to code to another platform. A real open source license wouldn't do that.
Then you understand wrong and so do the tossers making the comments because the GPL allows restrictions on open source. Or are you saying the GPL isn't an open source licence?
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams
By your definition, the latest feature films are "open" as well. After all, you can look at them. You can't copy them, distribute them, compile them, or anything else.
C'mon, we both know you're cleverer than this. We're talking about the definition of 'open source', not open in general and certainly not Software Freedom or copyright of any kind, which is what the article would like us to get incensed about.
I respect you and your work Bruce, but I'm going to have to disagree with you completely here - I'm not missing a damn thing, and I believe you're getting yourself lost in a moral definition of a very simple English phrase - the source is open and it therefore is 'open source'. One of the plus points of open source as I'm led to understand is that others can review the code to increase trust in that code, many eyes and all that. This is possible with the license as given and as such provides at the benefits that open code can provide. I agree that it doesn't follow the FSF-approved definitions of Free Software or "software libre" but that's not what this is about in the slightest.
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
Timothy, you can do better than this. Some of the qualities of molecules, such as surface tension and the polarity of atomic dipoles, govern the ability of water to wet various materials. Chemicals, for example detergents, have been developed to modulate the wetting ability of water. And there are few more enthusiasticaly trademarked products than detergents.
Bruce Perens.
And for it to be made into a Cross Platform code tree, the source would have to be completely open which is not how Microsoft is publishing this stuff. Just because the code is (supposedly) available , doesn't make it open . There's a big difference there.
I'm not a prophet or a stone-age man,
I'm just a mortal with potential of a super man.
Public source means the source code is publicly available. Open source means that you can take that source and do whatever you want with it.
Windows is a very simple phrase. Trademarked.
Apple? TM
"Start me up"? That was restricted with Win95.
etc.
And Open Source MEANS something. The use of words to mislead a customer is why trademarks were invented.
If you bought a Sony product and found out it was a Latvian company called Sony making your LCD TV, that would be wrong. Not because they didn't sell you a Sony TV but that you thought the Sony was a particular company.
Same here.
Open Source defined by OSI in computer markets.
Go here and search for "wet". It's already trademarked :-) . There are also a very large number of trademarks containing or related to "wet".
Bruce Perens.
This is, unfortunately, a prelude or realization that Microsoft can embrace/extend/extinguish the _meaning of the phrase_ "open source" just as well as it can anything else.
Sadly, the exact same thing happened to all the "organic farmers". Big companies started slapping "organic" on all their products because it would sell, irrespective of any meaning behind the words.
The only defense would have been to trademark "organic" / "open source" and have it be held by some public committee, but it's too late now.
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
We need more than you think for something to be open even by your over-restrictive definition of "open". Consider that the report on the security of Sequoia voting machines has been supressed by the court. In that case, the software was trade secret and all rights reserved. But what if it had been source code that was disclosed but still "all rights reserved"? Since that prohibits compilation and use, it would be difficult for security testers to legally do their work at all. Since it prevents derivative works and redistribution, we'd be unable to include code snippets in any report. We would be legally unable to modify the software for the purpose of testing bug fixes. And we'd be unable to distribute fixes.
The rights are a lot more important than you think. Even to have a kind of code that is disclosed mainly for the purpose of increasing trust, we'd have to design a license to convey significant rights, if the examiners were not to be placed at legal risk.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
where I worked on making movies they were compiled.
Bruce Perens.
Isn't this pretty much why RMS argues against using the phrase "open source"?
IIRC, his point was basically that "free software" allows you to study, modify, and use the software. Open source, on the other hand, means just that; the source is there for you to look at, but different licenses have different restrictions on the use and modification of the code.
In RMS's own words: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html
OSI's definition of Open Source: http://opensource.org/docs/osd
My point was really that "open source" already conveys something far more simple than what you want people to read into it, and it's the simple definition that Microsoft are very obviously meeting.
Even with your more complex definition for the purposes of the OSI, the MS-LPL only fails on one count of 10, which is regarding being technology-neutral. We could further argue on how important to the issue that is but I think we'd be digressing even further from what I'm trying to say.
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
Open Source is what is defined by the Open Source Definition.
A number of microsoft dweebs and/or campaigners would like to have it otherwise. But then Microsoft would like to have a lot of things. It's called corporate totalitarianism.
Bruce
Unlike the totalitarianism of redefining the meaning of common words like 'free' and 'open' and then insisting everyone else use your definition.
Open source means the source is publically available. Like Paint.net.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
As if that one count of 10 wasn't important.
At one point or another, my main coding platform was an Apple II, Commodore Vic-20, Commodore 64, PDP-11, VAX, Sun, SGI, PC Clone, and I've had a number of secondary coding platforms, including CHAP (something Pixar made), 6809, PIC, AVR, and so on. And all of the various operating systems for those things.
Any code that I have been given with platform restrictions, during that entire time, for various employers, is dead code today. No users, probably can't even be built if someone could find it, and I can't use it either.
In contrast, essentially all of the work I've done under an Open Source license is still living and has a vibrant user community.
You really need to think about this rights thing more.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
There is no affirmative fair use right in copyright law. Go look for it in the copyright title, it's not there. Fair use is a defense in copyright case law. And it has been substantially eroded, and continues to be. If we're talking about books, a number of software manuals place substantial restrictions on the use of the information in their licenses. For example, the Java manuals from Sun restrict use of the knowledge to create an incompatible implementation. There is some dispute regarding whether these things can be enforced, but not enough.
Bruce Perens.
First, I can read 17 USC as well as the next guy, and it's pretty clear:
the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright
That doesn't say, "is a defense against a lawsuit for infringement". That says "is not an infringement of copyright". So, if you are doing any of those things, you are not infringing, and you don't need a "defense".
The gray area is what, exactly, is meant by "fair use". The list of examples given shows what the law intended, but defining it specifically is maybe not as easy. Still, I'm pretty sure that saying "this code sucks because of this buggy line right here" would fall under "criticism". If you word it a little differently, I think "research" would apply.
Second, there really is no need for an affirmative fair use right unless you are distributing copies, as like anything else, if the right isn't granted or limited to a specific group or person, it is reserved for "all the people". For computer software source code, here is the complete list of all "the exclusive rights to do and to authorize" that the copyright holder has:
For everything else, the copyright holder has no special rights.
What this means is that until you distribute something copyrighted by someone else, you are not infringing, and you don't need to worry about a "defense". So, re-compile that code and test it as much as you want...you aren't infringing on copyright. Or, print out thousand copies and store them in your basement if that floats your boat...you may be crazy, but you're not infringing on copyright.
And it has been substantially eroded, and continues to be.
The "erosion" of fair use is primarily because of the back door of "no circumvention" Otherwise, "fair use" has done nothing but increase. Time shifting and device shifting have been upheld by courts as "fair use", and ventures like YouTube have greatly expanded fair use through more lawsuits over the length and completeness of copies.
Paranoia much? They call it open source, not Open Source like you do. Stop getting confused and trying to confuse both the terms.
This space for rent.
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'
The Raven
And what's wrong with that. If you know anything about true communism, you will understand that it is actually a very sound and well thought out idea. The only reason it has always failed so horrifically badly is because of the greedy ass-hat morons that always try to implement it!
This is interesting. How would we classify the earlier IBM OS source, MVS, VM, etc , they were "open"? They are now used for example on x86 systems. I changed and tested a lot in 70's and 80's - found a couple of bugs. Of course you were on your own if made some changes which didn't get implemented to original. BUT you couldn't sell it, just nothing preventing showing the changes to someone and they adapting the same changes - we did that a lot even between competing companies / corporations.
It was nice as long as it lasted, many ways as good as GPL, BSD, etc (created a lot "synergy") and in some ways even better, better documented, heh!
come on, are people really surprised that Microsoft is not only taking MS .Net to the world of Windows-only but also making sure anyone who uses their sites/services are Windows-only partners too?
Get real folks. With out a monopoly hold on the pre-load computer market, Microsoft would be dead meat. They know they need to make sure their customers do not have a choice to try another OS because they will not put their software on another OS. Remember, without Windows they are dead meat. Outside of one package, MS Office for Mac, they have never put their software on another OS with the intention of making a business profit from it. They put Internet Explorer on Solaris to kill off all the Win32-UNIX licensees and keep anti-trust judges from nailing them for it. When Palm had 80% marketshare and WinCE was less than 5% IBM, Sybase, and other dbase vendors released lite versions for the PalmOS. Microsoft released MS Access-lite for WindowsCE.
Miguel is an idiot for kissing Microsoft's ass every time they expose it to him. MS .Net was created to stop Java from taking Microsoft developers over to a cross platform API and software stack plain and simple. Anything "open" about it is a trick/game/hoax/etc because they own the spec.
Microsoft's business is to own/control all software development and make sure it is all done on Windows. This is a fact. Everything they do must first protect the Windows marketshare. This is reality. Open source is a threat to Microsoft when it runs on anything other than or along with Windows. Another fact. So cry all you want Miguel, you're an idiot for following Microsoft and playing the Pied Piper to those too naive to understand. IMO.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
But, it gets to the matter of what "Open Source" is. I believe that you are promoting the idea that "Open Source" just means "Source", without the idea of "Open".
As an example, is Windows "Open Source" or not? It can be argued that Windows is, because source is made available. Therefore, for some, it is open, and that is the end of the discussion.
You can substitute VMS in there (I had it on micro-fiche), or any number of other programs.
However, consider what "Open" means -- if the software is platform-locked, it isn't Open in the sense that it can provide a base that lives longer than its platform (imagine a world in which PostScript use was locked to the LaserWriter -- no LaserWriter would mean no PostScript).
In order for this Openness to exist for programs, there must be certain conditions: source must be available, there cannot be a platform lock-in, and there cannot be a usage lock-in (among some other characteristics). Bruce tried to define those necessary pre-conditions in his definition of "Open Source".
Call the variant "Source Available", or something, but please do not dilute the concept of "Open Source".
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
If anything, it is the Free Software movement that has attempted to redefine Open Source as something other then open source. Words have meanings, and FOSS != open source, not for most people on the street. A judge or jury is going to have a much easier time making the connection to the availability of source code as open source, then showing them the 10 or 9 commandments of the FOSS movement.
Microsoft is no more guilty of misusing this term then Sun, IBM, Apple or any other large software company. They all use fine print to limit customers and leverage their proprietary code. I would think that Apple is the most egregious party when it comes to making an ill gotten buck off of FOSS. IBM and Sun actually give back some of their work to the community.
Maybe a better term for 'Open Source' would be 'Open Development' or maybe we should just recognize that there are lots of different licenses and stop crying when someone doesn't use the one we like.
Not possible. Anybody who receives the library under the GPL can port the library as he or she pleases.
If you don't realize that platform independence is a key tenet of the Free and Open Source software communities, you're missing the point entirely, and you're unlikely to be contributing positively to the discussion.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes