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)
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".
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...
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
The big difference in this case is that it affects how you *use* the software.
Many OSI approved licenses affect how you may redistribute the software, but none of them AFAIK limit how you may use or alter it.
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
technically you are right about what licenses are. but what open source licenses all have in common is that they aim to make the software source code the most freely available to others, thus maximizing its utility, with the minimal licensing restrictions to achieve this goal.
Microsoft's use of "open source" not only goes against the spirit of FOSS, but also violates the basic definition of "Open Source" used by the OSI:
5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups - The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.
6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor - The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product - The rights attached to the program must not depend on the program's being part of a particular software distribution. If the program is extracted from that distribution and used or distributed within the terms of the program's license, all parties to whom the program is redistributed should have the same rights as those that are granted in conjunction with the original software distribution.
9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software - The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software.
in the end, what "open source" means is defined by the community. it is what the community finds acceptable and conducive to the goals of the Open Source movement. if they decide that they are willing to accept Microsoft's definition of "open source" then the Ms-LPL can be called a genuinely open source license. however, that would require changing the current accepted definition of open source. but not only would that require arriving at a new consensus, but it would likely destroy the open source movement by undermining its original aim of fostering open collaboration and combat the increasingly restrictive IP laws and cultural attitudes.
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.
The OSD is related to what people had tried to do with licenses at the time. For example, there was Alladin Ghostscript, which prohibited its distribution on the same medium with software that wasn't freely distributable. And there was the Berkeley Spice License, for their electrical engineering software, which prohibited the use of the software by the Police of South Africa, and still did a decade after apartheid was over.
I was trying to define what was Free Software for Debian's social contract. FSF didn't promote a definition of Free Software at the time, although they'd published one in their newsletter a long time before. RMS even said in a personal email that he liked my definition.
Then 7 or 8 months after this was all written and in use by Debian, Eric Raymond brought me the news of the meeting where a bunch of people had decided to promote Free Software as Open Source, and asked me to work on that. So, I filed off the Debian references and it became the Open Source Definition, and I announced Open Source to the world, including here on Slashdot (and that announcement still survives online today). That announcement was the first real use of "Open Source" to the public.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
No, damnit.
Open source means that the source is open. That's it.
You could hypothetically define "Open Source" (with capitals) however you see fit, or be a lot more specific and refer to GPL, BSD, Creative Commons, etc.
However, in this case "open source" is very simply referring to software that has its source code openly available. You cannot simply redefine the meaning of already-existing words, especially when you're not using them as a proper noun. There is absolutely no debate to be had here.
Also, what's the deal? Microsoft seem to be heading in the right direction, and actually seem to be addressing the criticism being thrown at them. Miguel de Icaza has a fantastic track record for being diplomatic, and persuading Microsoft to "do the right thing."
Finally, please don't bring up the extend-embrace-extinguish argument. It's a cynical logical fallacy that can be used against any seemingly-benevolent action undertaken by anybody.
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
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.
If I were to rewrite it today, it would say what you can do, rather than what you can't. But it's held up really well. There is a tremendous amount of software conveyed as having that particular set of rights, and it touches everybody's lives daily. I can't complain :-)
Bruce Perens.
where I worked on making movies they were compiled.
Bruce Perens.
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
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.
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