Microsoft Releases Source Code For Web Sandbox

nandemoari writes "After flirting with open source development for some time, Microsoft has made another step towards real commitment with the release of source code for Web Sandbox, a program used to test and secure web site content. The Sandbox source code will be released under the Apache 2.0 license, an open source license agreement allowing the content creator to maintain copyright while permitting others to develop the product for their own use. Microsoft has gradually been increasing their involvement with the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) since 2008 when they agreed to fund development of certain ASF initiatives."

Comments

Excellent.

[Corpuscavernosa]

I'll assume that Windows kernel, IE, Office, and that new song making program are next!

Re:Excellent.

[djupedal]

Ah yes - another day, another coating of Microsoft on Slashdot. And another....and another....and another. Got to get the 30% coverage quota going.

The deep end

[Temujin_12]

An interesting section of code:

if (sandbox.isDeepEnd()) {
      Message message = sandbox.getLeprechaun().getMessage();

      if (MessageInterpreter::isBurnCommand(message)) {
            environment.burnItAll();
      }
}

self.citeRalphism();

Rule of Acquisition #76

[NonUniqueNickname]

Every once in a while, declare peace. It confuses the hell out of your enemies.

Re:Rule of Acquisition #76

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, cats love sandboxes too. How do you like them cookies?

Re:Rule of Acquisition #76

[Frosty Piss]

Every once in a while, declare peace. It confuses the hell out of your enemies.

The obvious answer to me is that Microsoft has determined that they can not squeeze any money out of this code.

Re:Rule of Acquisition #76

[Anonymous Coward]

My dog loves those "kitty Kat Krunchies"

Re:Rule of Acquisition #76

[david.given]

"If you're up against someone more intelligent than you are, do something insane and let him think himself to death." --- Pyanfar Chanur

Re:Rule of Acquisition #76

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Actually I don't. If I had to take a wild stab, I'd say Caesar, but I don't know. Please enlighten me!

Re:Rule of Acquisition #76

[Anonymous Coward]

I salute you, fellow Niner ;)

Profit!!!

[carrier lost]

Microsoft has gradually been increasing their involvement with the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) since 2008 when they agreed to fund development of certain ASF initiatives.

The whole "Embrace, Extend and Extinguish" thing is sure taking a lot longer these days...

Re:Profit!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole "Embrace, Extend and Extinguish" thing is sure taking a lot longer these days...

I think MS is trying to sneak up to it this time, though they still have all the subtlety one would expect from an 800 pound gorilla.

Re:Profit!!!

[JohnBailey]

The whole "Embrace, Extend and Extinguish" thing is sure taking a lot longer these days...

Shh.... We don't want them finding out that the "extend" bit only works when you can keep all your code secret.

Re:Profit!!!

[ksd1337]

That gorilla tried to sell me life insurance, you insensitive clod!

Re:Profit!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

"...the "extend" bit only works when you can keep all your code secret."

Or when you get people hooked on its use and then change the license so future upgrades "extinguish".

Apache?

[qoncept]

The really surprising part of this story, to me, is that Microsoft didn't draft it's own, new license for this.

Re:Apache?

[glenstar]

Um... the Apache license is MUCH more free than the GPL in that you can do anything you want with it, including closing it if you are so inclined. Plus you don't have to buy into the feverish and rabid philosophy of the majority of GPL disciples.

Plus, let's flip this on its head: do you REALLY want to have to publish your changes so that Microsoft can take advantage of your hard work?

Re:Apache?

[ianare]

No it is compatible with GPLv3, and Apache licensed software and Linux have always played nice (there's this minor thing you might have heard of, called 'httpd').

Re:Apache?

[FranTaylor]

I want to publish my changes so that EVERYONE can take advantage of my hard work.

Re:Apache?

[hansamurai]

Maybe an FU to GPL fans but definitely NOT to free software.

Re:Apache?

[h4rr4r]

The GPL protects the "commons", the other open licenses do not. With another license like the Apache one microsoft or anyone else is free to take the code close it up and sell a product that makes the open version obsolete or at best less featured.

The freedom for end users to have and be able to modify the source is the only one that really means anything.

Re:Apache?

[Anonymous Coward]

Apache is Open Source, but not GPL compatible (it lacks the 5th freedom -- freedom for the GPL to virally infect it). This is a big "fuck you" to linux and FREE software in general. They might as well have left it proprietary or released under their shared source license.

Wrong again. The Apache License is compatible with the GPL v3, according to the Free Software Foundation.
And there are only four software freedoms.

Re:Apache?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing's stopping you.

Re:Apache?

[JustinOpinion]

If you'll indulge a tangent here...

the Apache license is MUCH more free than the GPL

I find the debates about which OSS license is "most free" to be rather silly, because:
1. All the "major" OSS licenses (GPL, BSD, Apache, etc.) are awesome, in my opinion. They all do great things and greatly help free software. So debating about which one is "the best" seems counter-productive because it obscures the fact that they are all good.

2. The debates usually have an implicit assumption that "freedom" is a one-dimensional axis, and we are trying to maximize the amount of "freedom." Occasionally someone will insightfully explain how freedom is more complex: one person's freedom may come at the expense of another; you need to distinguish between user freedom, developer freedom, distributor freedom; etc. Overall I prefer to think of "freedom" as being multi-dimensional.* A particular license may maximize along one freedom-axis, while not being maximal along another freedom-axis. And there may not be any license which simultaneously maximizes along every axis. Hence no such thing as the "most free" license. (But there may still be ways to rank things; e.g. most proprietary licenses are less free along every axis.) In other words (and you would think this would be obvious): the "best" license depends very much on the particular situation and one's particular priorities.

(* I believe this multi-dimensionality applies to many "wavy-gravy" human concepts/principles/emotions. Too frequently we argue about things as if they were binary or 1-dimensional, when even a cursory analysis shows them to be more complex than that.)

Re:Apache?

[lucas_picador]

Um... the Apache license is MUCH more free than the GPL in that you can do anything you want with it, including closing it if you are so inclined.

Yeah, just like America was a much freer place in 1750 because you were free to own slaves or to sell yourself into indentured servitude.

Re:Apache?

[glenstar]

There is nothing stopping other from enjoying your work under the Apache license.

Re:Apache?

[glenstar]

I tend to agree with you and if you build a matrix of the "freedoms" between the GPL, Apache and BSD you will find the only "freedom" that the GPL adds that others do not is: "You MUST share all changes you make to the code with whomever asks for it, so long as your code is made for public consumption". That is a grossly simple definition of the GPL but the essence is right.

I am not anti-GPL so much as I am anti this rabid sensationalism that software is made to be free. Software takes time, money, and skill to create and if the creator wishes to restrict its use that is their choice.

Re:Apache?

[_Sprocket_]

The freedom for end users to have and be able to modify the source is the only one that really means anything.

I don't agree that it's the only thing that really matters. But I do agree that its a pretty major point that seems to be lost by the "more free than the GPL" arguments you see from time to time.

Re:Apache?

[glenstar]

The end-use has just as much access to the original project under Apache (or BSD) as they do under the GPL...but they may not necessarily have access to the changes that a developer makes to the original. I don't see this as a giant hurdle since the only people who would give a flying fuck about source are developers and they are perfectly capable (maybe) of adding whatever changes they want to the original.
</dragged_into_troll_debate>

Re:Apache?

[h4rr4r]

Then they have to use an inferior version, which would not be an issue if the end user had the freedom to see and and modify the source.

Non-developers do care too, they hire developers.

All this means that Microsoft or whoever can take from the commons and not give back. Thus the tragedy of the commons occurs. If there is no need to give back(give source to the end user as it was given to them), then the software might as well have started closed source. At least that way the people closing it would have paid for they code they now hold ransom.

Re:Apache?

[glenstar]

God damn it...I can't help but continually be drawn into this. You cannot possibly be equating non-GPLed software to slavery...or can you? That is, excuse me, the dumbest fucking thing I have ever heard.

Do you honestly believe that all software companies should just shut their doors, or give their products away by licensing it in such a way that everyone else can also release it(which is the same as shutting their doors)? I suppose you think that all artists (authors, musicians, etc...) should give their product away as well? That anything that anyone creates magically belongs to the whole of humanity? That it has no value at all? If you do then you are the most short-sighted individual I have ever come across. Money must be exchanged for services rendered (software, books, music) or they will cease to exist. It is not free to make them and somewhere along the way there has to be an exchange of money or the entire financial system breaks down (even worse than it is now). And before you pipe up with the mantra: "release your software for free and then charge for services!" please answer the following question: "Why in the fuck do you think your 'services' have a value when the software does not?".

Re:Apache?

[Anonymous Coward]

Explain to me why parent comment is not rated troll.

Re:Apache?

[denis-The-menace]

"Microsoft or anyone else is free to take the code close it up and sell a product that makes the open version obsolete or at best less featured."

That the "Extinguish" part of MS' EEE strategy.

Re:Apache?

[just_another_sean]

Plus, let's flip this on its head: do you REALLY want to have to publish your changes so that Microsoft can take advantage of your hard work?

Yes. That's how Free Software is supposed to work.

Re:Apache?

[dwiget001]

>

Where are the words "...freedom for the GPL to virally infect it" in the GPL? Hmmm?

Re:Apache?

[Anonymous Coward]

Plus, let's flip this on its head: do you REALLY want to have to publish your changes so that Microsoft can take advantage of your hard work?

I find it disturbing how many people don't realise that that this is only required when you are distributing the results of your modifications. You can modify and use to your heart's content, the GPL only kicks in when you need a license to distribute copyrighted works (i.e. distribute someone else's software, or rather, your derivative work of it). The GPL is not a EULA, you can do whatever you please with the software, including modify it to do pretty much anything, and use that modified version without ever telling anyone; and if you did, no one would care.

Re:Apache?

[lucas_picador]

Settle down, tiger, and give that straw man a rest. I was responding to a post that made the absurd claim that a license that allowed covered code to be made less free ("closed" was, I think, the word used) was actually a more "free" license than one which required the code to remain free/open. This was so close to a restatement of Orwell's paradigmatic slogan of linguistic nihilism -- "Freedom is Slavery" -- that I thought it bore comment. The "freedom" to discard your own freedom -- or that of others -- is no freedom at all.

You've imputed to me a bunch of weird stuff about business models, equating software licenses with human slavery, and so on. I suggest that this is your baggage, not mine, being inappropriately drawn into the conversation.

Re:Apache?

[larry bagina]

Consider Qt -- before Nokia bought trolltech and relicensed it as LGPL, it was FREEly available as GPL. Not because they believe in FREEdom, but to encourage/force end users to buy the proprietary/non-FREE version. How can the GPL ensure FREEdom if it encourages people to use non-FREE software? The GPL can and is used to force the usage of proprietary software.

Re:Apache?

[Anonymous Coward]

Good for you. Under the BSD license, you can. Some folks want the freedom to not do that, Microsoft choose a license that suites those people.

If you want to take the software, contribute something to it so that people would actually want to use it over the original, and then release it under GPL, you can.

Your post implies you want to be able to take advantage of other people's hard work. That is something wholly different.

Re:Apache?

[larry bagina]

You're worried that Microsoft will steal the code that they just released under an open source license, and won't give anything back, after just having given everything?

Re:Apache?

[FatdogHaiku]

So, something released under an Apache license can be modified and then released under GPL? Not being sarcastic, I'd really like to know if the act of modifying negates the first license (Apache), or if that is even required to meet the terms of GPL... that just sounds like a nightmare coming soon to a courtroom near by... What license prevails? Or is the code somehow split-licensed?

Re:Apache?

[h4rr4r]

They call that step Extinguish.

Re:Apache?

[_Sprocket_]

<dragged_into_troll_debate>

I would note that you helped define the troll debate. At least you didn't play the "viral" card.

I don't see this as a giant hurdle since the only people who would give a flying fuck about source are developers and they are perfectly capable (maybe) of adding whatever changes they want to the original.

I'm an end user the majority of the time. There is very little chance I'll contribute code to even a sliver of the Open Source software that I use. Yet the license is important to me. Everything that makes OSS interesting / worth investing in is further enforced by a license that ensures modifications / improvements are returned to the project.

Re:Apache?

[Danathar]

Unless you are new here to slashdot, the key is the definition of "Free" which seems to vary wildly.

Re:Apache?

[struppi]

And, let's not forget, if Microsoft had released this software under the terms and contitions of the GPL they could still create an improved closed source version, but nobody else could. Every other developer would have to develop for them or not be recognized at all (because nobody except geeks would use a fork). Sun is doing exactly this with Java, just google for "Java" and "Walled Garden". With AL2 at least everybody can create a closed source version. I think the AL2 is a good joice by them.

Re:Apache?

[icebraining]

No, the existence of the proprietary license (along with GPL) made people use it. If Qt was GPL only, they couldn't be forced to use the proprietary version. Of course, you could say it would force them to use other toolkit, which is the problem with GPL: it would work best if everything was GPL, which is the FSF dream but not a reality.

There is no "Freedom", there are multiple "freedoms". GPL gives everyone the freedom to look at all the code. LGPL gives everyone the freedom to use code without giving your own up. These are two different "freedoms", and aren't compatible. You have to choose one.

I understand the use of LGPL in company projects like Qt, Nokia knows companies aren't going to give their code away and prefers to let them use it anyway.

Re:Apache?

[buchner.johannes]

You can go public domain, but:
Say you give someone your hard work, and they forward it to someone else, those people might not be able to take advantage of your hard work. It might be sold to them, limited in usage, etc.

So limiting the rights to change the rights of your hard work might be what you want to ensure freedom of the software. GPL (especially v3), Apache, EUPL, even BSD-style licenses try to ensure this.

Btw.: Did anyone use the EUPL yet or has an opinion about it? Sure, it's not in common use yet and time will tell if it is in a acceptable version, but it looks like a good thing to me.

Re:Apache?

[Anonymous Coward]

It also would fail completely. How many copies of Windows do you think Microsoft would be selling in the future if they released Windows 7 under the Apache license? Even if you aren't good at math, it is pretty easy to figure out that the number would be close to zero. Quality builds of the system would quickly gain notoriety and dominate the market. At the very least, OEMs would build their own version.

Re:Apache?

[Anonymous Coward]

God damn it...I can't help but continually be drawn into this. You cannot possibly be equating non-GPLed software to slavery...or can you? That is, excuse me, the dumbest fucking thing I have ever heard.

-1, missing the point.

The whole point of examples like these is to exaggerate. If a point is too subtle for people to see, you find a much more exaggerated situation where the same principle applies, but where it's an order of magnitude clearer why it's a bad (in this case) thing.

Of COURSE chattel slavery is not the same as proprietary software, and I hope you don't seriously believe the GP tried to claim that - that should fail the laugh test.

What the GP DID mean was that the same principle applies in both cases: but while it may not be obvious in the case of proprietary software, it IS clear in the case of chattel slavery. So by bringing that up, he shows people what the principle in question is so that they will then see how the same *general* principle also applies to proprietary software: namely, the principle that allowing people to do just about anything does not actually automatically means an increase in freedom, and in fact may very well lead to a net DECREASE instead.

So, there you go.

Re:Apache?

[Cyclops]

Since you got moderated to "insightful" and I don't have moderation points in this article, I'll have to take the bait:

the Apache license is MUCH more free than the GPL

They're both just as Free Software. Claiming one is "more free" than the other, is a proof that you're confusing issues and still have something to learn about Free Software licensing, because for instance...

in that you can do anything you want with it

No, you can't. You can't claim you're the author, for instance. Actually, it's very hard to find a popular license where you can do that. In some jurisdictions, it is even legally impossible to do so.

including closing it if you are so inclined.

That you can, and it is a crying shame.

Plus you don't have to buy into the feverish and rabid philosophy of the majority of GPL disciples.

Funny you should say that, since your comment is quite philosophically rabid, like the majority of the GPL haters club.

Plus, let's flip this on its head: do you REALLY want to have to publish your changes so that Microsoft can take advantage of your hard work?

No Free Software license mandates publishing. The GNU GPL in particular only mandates that IF AND ONLY IF you publish, then you must provide the same rights and obligations (in a very broad overview, read the text for the gory details) you got when you got a copy of said software.

Besides, when you do publish in a license like Apache's, Microsoft can take advantage of your hard work and it is very likely to do so.

Indeed it has done so, albeit not Apache, but a somewhat similar but quite shorter license, previously.

Re:Apache?

[Anonymous Coward]

BRIAN:
        Are you the Judean People's Front?
REG:
        Fuck off!
BRIAN:
        What?
REG:
        Judean People's Front. We're the People's Front of Judea! Judean People's Front. Cawk.
FRANCIS:
        Wankers.
BRIAN:
        Can I... join your group?

My 2 cents on OSS Licenses...

Re:Apache?

[Allador]

I dont know off the top of my head if Apache allows re-licensing, though I believe it does. Assuming so ....

The GPL licensed software that you forked has GPL license.

The Apache licensed software that was already there still has the same license it had before.

They're now two different pieces of software.

Re:Apache?

[Allador]

This is the simple-minded response to freedom everywhere. It sounds good, shuts people up who dont have time to sit around and think about it, but is generally quite silly.

Everything starts with an axiom, so lets start with a couple:

1. Every human individual is equally valuable.

2. Freedom applied to self trumps freedom applied to others.

(yes, I know there are deeper axioms, but I only have limited time here, and dont want to have to list all the turtles)

Thats all you need to completely invalidate your argument.

To demonstrate:

"Freedom to own slaves"

Without even getting into the discussion of why two highly subjective and ambiguous words such as 'own slaves' can't effectively be applied to 'freedom' ...

An individual's freedom to not be owned (self-context) of course must trump another's "freedom" to enslave others (other-context).

You're always going to have conflicting freedoms in a modern society, but you can always just strip the argument back to self as the fundamental unit of freedom, which simplifies things.

So please ... next time think about your argument before you trot out what you did. It embarasses us all.

Re:Apache?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit.

First, dual licensing of GPL work means that the exact thing is happening all the time.

Second, if the company made so many enhancements that the open-source one was obsolete and unusable, then they *deserve* to be paid for it. The original code is still available for the community to use, enhance, etc. In fact, they can learn how from the proprietary version what to do / mistakes to avoid. The community has lost *nothing*.

What the GPL does try to do, if dual licensing is not in place, is hope that the barrier to entry is high enough that it disuades companies from making a competing product from the ground up that is significantly better than the free alternative. It does not try to promote the industry as the whole in terms of protecting users or improving technology. It simply tries to create a barrier to entry large enough that the GPL version becomes the defacto standard that everyone uses. The wide-spread success of the GPL was less to do with freedom but the ability for companies to use it as a competitive advantage (IBM adopting/promoting Linux as a means to kill Sun/Solaris).

Re:Apache?

[DavoMan]

Brilliant post!!

Re:Apache?

[DavoMan]

In my view, it is content or end-user products that should have the right to be non-free. But if the program serves something else, which THEN provides the content, then that should be open.
Eg.... Platform free, end-applications non-free if author wants.

Some examples:
Operating system:free (supports stuff, needs free APIs)
Game, game content: Non-free by choice (its artists work)
A fancy application: Non-free by choice (a unique,valuble product competing on value)
That same applications file formats: free (allows interoperability).

Take the web browser example: Web browser: Sure theres nothing wrong with selling a program to read web pages, but it needs to support HTML/CSS etc

You can see a trend here. Anything which is a platform of some sort really needs to be free. But end-content, whether that be a game, fancy application, music, whatever - should have the right to be non-free.

This is why it seems so much more realistic to demand web-rendering engines be free, then it does to demand the next commercial game be free.

Re:Apache?

[Grizzlysmit]

If you'll indulge a tangent here...

the Apache license is MUCH more free than the GPL

I find the debates about which OSS license is "most free" to be rather silly, because: 1. All the "major" OSS licenses (GPL, BSD, Apache, etc.) are awesome, in my opinion. They all do great things and greatly help free software. So debating about which one is "the best" seems counter-productive because it obscures the fact that they are all good. 2. The debates usually have an implicit assumption that "freedom" is a one-dimensional axis, and we are trying to maximize the amount of "freedom." Occasionally someone will insightfully explain how freedom is more complex: one person's freedom may come at the expense of another; you need to distinguish between user freedom, developer freedom, distributor freedom; etc. Overall I prefer to think of "freedom" as being multi-dimensional.* A particular license may maximize along one freedom-axis, while not being maximal along another freedom-axis. And there may not be any license which simultaneously maximizes along every axis. Hence no such thing as the "most free" license. (But there may still be ways to rank things; e.g. most proprietary licenses are less free along every axis.) In other words (and you would think this would be obvious): the "best" license depends very much on the particular situation and one's particular priorities. (* I believe this multi-dimensionality applies to many "wavy-gravy" human concepts/principles/emotions. Too frequently we argue about things as if they were binary or 1-dimensional, when even a cursory analysis shows them to be more complex than that.)

V V V true the place I most often notice this is in politics where people often view view points as ranging along a one dimensional axis of left to right, in my opinion extreme left and right wing are basically the same thing look at so called left wing soviet Russia and so called right wing Nazi Germany, look at what they did murder concentration camps etc so close to each other give or take a little political flavor, so I would say that left and right wing are circular hence there must be at least 2 dimensions of political opinion, in actual fact I would say there are many dimensions involved

Re:Apache?

[Pigskin-Referee]

Plus, let's flip this on its head: do you REALLY want to have to publish your changes so that Microsoft can take advantage of your hard work?

Excuse me, but isn't that exactly what Microsoft is doing -- publishing the work its engineers worked hard on for your perusal?

Re:Apache?

[glenstar]

Sorry, that was my point... made in a rather sarcastic way.

Re:Apache?

[Pigskin-Referee]

Sorry, that was my point... made in a rather sarcastic way.

My mistake -- I misunderstood.

Re:Apache?

[Goaway]

Thus the tragedy of the commons occurs

It does not. Source code is not a finite resource. Microsoft can take as much as they want, and the code will still be there.

Re:pist fr0st!!!111!one

[Corpuscavernosa]

First poooooooooooossssst! *jazz hands*

This is the funniest variation of these meme that I've seen. Great visual. Laughed my ass off.

Ray Ozzie

[Anonymous Coward]

Given Wired's article on Ray Ozzie, this doesn't surprise me. Ray seems to really believe the future of Microsoft lies firmly in the cloud, and the Microsoft is behind the curve in that arena.

Trusting your business to the cloud, and Microsoft's cloud means you must trust them for security.

Microsoft, internet and security haven't exactly gone together over the years.

Maybe this is an honest effort to improve how IT professionals view Microsoft's commitment to web security.

Re:Ray Ozzie

[peragrin]

I will only trust the cloud when I can step out of an airplane and walk.

Any business that relies on one outside company exclusively is stupid.

Re:Ray Ozzie

[Anonymous Coward]

The cloud (read: industry) moves so fast, if MS is behind the curve for a year or two it's no big deal. They are that big that they can leverage whatever they have to get what they want or have to be.

For instance VoIP. They are going to blast the sht out of it because finally, organisations are gonna have less staff to do shifting technology with. Give them exchange based integration, with video, which is encumbered with patents, and all of a sudden a 30 person office needs a lot of grunt to run their communications infrastructure - enter the telco - enter hosted ms products, enter the cloud. enter less onsite IT people. Enter evolution.

Update the Microsoft icon?

[RevWaldo]

Isn't it about time the Microsoft icon was updated? Bill the Gates is doing other things these days and who follows ST-TNG anymore?
Maybe a screaming Steve Ballmer in a Darth Vader helmet instead?

Re:Update the Microsoft icon?

[Anonymous Coward]

Lord Cheney hasn't handed the helmet over yet. Give him a few months to get used to not having the power any more, then maybe he'll be willing to give it up.

Re:Update the Microsoft icon?

[JustinOpinion]

Don't hold your breath.

Take a look at Slashdot's FAQ. Most of the entries haven't been updated in 8 years. For some of them it doesn't matter. For others, the answers don't make much sense. (Most written before things like article tagging and the firehose existed.)

In short, Slashdot evolves at a positively glacial speed. (Which has its advantages: it would be worse to try and implement every whizz-bang fad.) This is somewhat ironic for a site where articles are posted dozens of times a day, and comments are posted at a fantastic speed. Slashdot's content changes every second. It's format changes every decade.

Re:Update the Microsoft icon?

[ckaminski]

And it still has some of the most annoying anti-spam comment restrictions in place. That's about the most that slashdot has changed for me over the years... no two minutes between comments, no 20 seconds wait period... Even the so-called "new interface" I turned off about a day after it became the default. Gack!

Get off my lawn!

Re:Update the Microsoft icon?

[AKAImBatman]

He may not be CEO, but last time I checked Gates still represented Microsoft.

So the Borg icon may be coming up on 15 years old, but it's still relevant! ;-)

Re:Update the Microsoft icon?

[thetoadwarrior]

How about an animated gif of a chair zipping by the clouds?

Re:Update the Microsoft icon?

[DragonWriter]

Bill the Gates is doing other things

He may also be doing other things, but he's still Chairman of the Board of Directors of Microsoft Corp.

Re:Update the Microsoft icon?

[Jason Levine]

Two minutes between comments? I've gotten messages telling me to slow down because it's been four or five minutes between my comments. I guess my typing speed it just too quick. The Slashdot effect is well known for turning servers into piles of goo. If Slashdot were to allow posters to make multiple comments without any delay, would Slashdot's servers turn to goo?

By the way, is this irony? As I try to post this message, I get: "Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment. It's been 4 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment."

Sorry, Slashdot for typing too quickly. I......w...i...l...l......t...r...y......t...o......s...l...o...w......i...t......d...o...w...n......s...o...m...e....

Re:Update the Microsoft icon?

[Colonel Korn]

He is the most meaningfully philanthropic billionaire. As of a year or two ago he'd given 56% of his total accumulated wealth to charity over his lifetime. That's pretty cool, and the B&M Gates Foundation does a lot of great stuff, like pay for my local NPR and PBS stations. Compare to, oh, the Walmart heirs, who have given less than 0.01% of their wealth to philanthropic causes.

Re:Update the Microsoft icon?

[dedazo]

In short, Slashdot evolves at a positively glacial speed.

That's not the problem. The code and the overall look seem to be moving along lately, so it is evolving. The "borg" icon and many other things appeal to the "hur-hur, M$ LOL" demographic that brings in the page views and ad revenue. That's why it's not going away any time soon.

I like Slashdot, don't get me wrong. But let's not pretend it owes its popularity to anything other than bashing Microsoft.

(and what the hell, now I have to wait four minutes to post again?)

Re:Update the Microsoft icon?

[seandiggity]

When you actually take a look at the icons for the topics, it's amazing how outdated they are: http://slashdot.org/topics.shtml

Is it funny? I dunno, kinda.

Re:Update the Microsoft icon?

[Anonymous Coward]

As of a year or two ago he'd given 56% of his total accumulated wealth to charity over his lifetime. That's pretty cool,

Wow, yes, that's wonderful. Hey, maybe I should become the world's greatest thief - then after I retire, I'd just donate half of my stolen goods to charity, and people would call me a hero. Right?

That's what Gates has been doing: he's been stealing money from people by abusing his monopoly, and now he's giving SOME of that money to charity, and people rave about him. Why?

Nevermind, FWIW, that he still is so stinking filthy rich that even if he donated 95% of his wealth, it wouldn't make a difference to him: he'd STILL be able to afford literally everything he wanted (everything that money could buy, anyway). So it's not as if he's even making any personal sacrifices: he literally doesn't feel it. Just like before, interest alone will ensure that his wealth will continue to grow faster than he could possibly spend his money.

And to top it all off, he's not donating to just any charity, oh no - he's donating to HIS OWN.

Say whatever you want - non olet, that much is true, but I still have much more respect for the lowliest street worker who helps out in a soup kitchen than for that poor excuse of a human being they call William Henry Gates III.

Re:Update the Microsoft icon?

[TheSeer2]

Second only to Warren Buffet.

Re:Update the Microsoft icon?

[DNS-and-BIND]

Oh, so a lifetime of financial crimes and holding back progress on computers is forgiven as soon as you give away your [unusable anyway] massive fortune? Great...

Re:Update the Microsoft icon?

[mahadiga]

He is the most meaningfully philanthropic billionaire.

"Behind every great fortune there is a crime." --Honore de Balzac

Re:Update the Microsoft icon?

[AKAImBatman]

Dear moderators, you appear to have misspelled "+5 Insightful".

Talking of x86 sandboxes

[DrSkwid]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VX32

which enables the User Mode Plan 9 - http://swtch.com/9vx/

Re:Talking of x86 sandboxes

[Anonymous Coward]

umm... who's talking about x86 sandboxes?

So what?

[FranTaylor]

What good is "Free Software" when it only runs on a proprietary platform? It's like saying "free food" but neglecting to mention the cover charge.

Re:So what?

[NineNine]

That's cutting your nose off to spite your face. Free Software is only useful on Linux, then? That seems absurd. There's no reason that free software can't exist within the framework of a proprietary platform. As always, if you don't like it, you don't have to use it. Your attempt to somehow paint this as a bad thing doesn't really hold water.

Re:So what?

[dedazo]

There's a lot of software that only runs on Linux or BSD and is useless to me on Windows, but I don't think less of it because of that.

More importantly, I'm more interested on what I can do with my applications and less about the OS they happen to be running on. This is called "the right tool for the job", and for me at least, completely trumps philosophical arguments about degrees of freedom.

Re:So what?

[h4rr4r]

You can install those OSes for no cost and with no loss of freedom. You could even put them in a virtual environment on your OS for no cost and no loss of freedom.

This software does not offer that.

Re:So what?

[HeronBlademaster]

Would you prefer that I closed the source to my .NET-based OSS project?

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

To borrow a line from practically every OSS developer i've worked with (myself included): The source is out there, do it/port it yourself.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering that it only runs on a proprietary OS and that you are writing it in a language that has no open compiler, you might as well. It makes little difference, that software is not free in any real sense.

The Mono Project guys would like to have a word with you.

Re:So what?

[dedazo]

I don't care about cost, and I don't care about "freedom". I care about getting the job done, delivering what I was asked to deliver and getting paid for it.

If I write an application with ASP.NET/Server 2008 that cost $500K to build and maintain over five years, which then ends up generating $50 million in revenue, my costs are effectively zero. Besides, the bulk of the cost is usually people, not software licenses. For all practical purposes the cost ends up being the same if I do it in Python, except that there are things I won't use Python or any other open source software for.

As to freedom, that's a philosophical argument, and you're welcome to it. Just don't assume it's a major factor in real life. I it were, Microsoft and every other commercial software company in the planet would have gone out of business years ago.

Re:So what?

[h4rr4r]

You will when you can't fix a bug in some closed app you're using that causes your app to perform badly.

Re:So what?

[kabocox]

What good is "Free Software" when it only runs on a proprietary platform? It's like saying "free food" but neglecting to mention the cover charge.

Well, if I say free food from 5-6 pm at this GPS address and you want any of it, you'll have to get off your butt and spend your effort/resources getting to that GPS address. If the address were one house down from yours, you'd like walk and try it out. If it were across town, which would mean 15-30 minutes travel out of your way to get there, you might only show up if you know some else that was going to attend. If it were 1+ hour or cost more than $5 in transportation costs then you'd say, I couldn't careless.

Face it there isn't anything completely free. Everyone's internal question is how much of my own effort/resources do I have to put into to install/implement/run this "free" solution?

Re:So what?

[dedazo]

Considering I've been happily using "closed" products for more than a decade to make a living, you're a little late on the warning front.

For all practical purposes I would be just as screwed if I found a bug in the .NET CLR as I would if it were in the Python VM, because I'm not in the business of developing or fixing languages or runtime libraries, but corporate applications.

That's why I choose tools that are established and have solid backing behind them. I trust the Apache Foundation as much as I trust Microsoft. I trust Guido van Rossum and his troupe of geniuses. I trust Zend and I trust Debian. Not so much the SuperDuperPHPCMSOfTheWeek Team, so I might use their product to run my personal blog about kittens, but I wouldn't trust my livelihood to them.

Understand that money has nothing to do with this.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

What good is "Free Software" when it only runs on a proprietary platform?

Dude, Web Sandbox is JavaScript. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Re:So what?

[rbanffy]

It's like using free software in Cuba.

Re:So what?

[RightSaidFred99]

Haha. Wow, you really take this stuff seriously dude. Do you wear a red beret and take a "moral" stance on letting yourself touch a keyboard attached to a Microsoft OS? Ahahaha.

Re:So what?

[h4rr4r]

Not at all. I have even in the past used windows. The reality is why bother opensourcing something that cannot really ever be open?

Re:So what?

[mwlewis]

This is a really dumb way to think about things. Or a troll.

Re:So what?

[HeronBlademaster]

It seems your definition of "open source" is different than mine. You see, last I checked, GPL'ed source code qualifies as "open source". I - and most of the OSS world - would consider the ability to get the source code and modify it to your heart's desire - and distribute those changes - a pretty good indication of the "free-ness" of the software.

Also, I fail to see how writing an open source .NET runtime makes the Mono team Microsoft's lapdogs... or do you call Apache's developers Microsoft's lapdogs now, too, since MS is funding some Apache development? Or perhaps you think that anything Microsoft has developed is not truly free, regardless of the license it's distrubted under?

The sort of rabid anti-Microsoft sentiment you're showing here is precisely the attitude that makes people avoid Linux, and open source software in general. I suggest toning it down - a lot - if you're really interested in converting the masses to an open platform.

Re:So what?

[mugnyte]

  This is well-put. Trust and Openness need not be linked. Although they can influence one another, there are many items we trust with our lives (car brakes) every day that are not necessarily open systems. Software can be closed and yet trusted. The servers we all transact with on the web need not be open, but we certainly trust them, regardless of how we juggle the client OS/browser.

Re:So what?

[cyber-vandal]

Most people avoid Linux because it doesn't run their software, doesn't have drivers for all their devices and is more difficult to use than Windows or OS X. Any rabid frothing at the mouth behaviour is a small factor in comparison.

Re:So what?

[HeronBlademaster]

Ubuntu will run on any relatively mainstream system. Dell's machines, in particular, are quite Ubuntu-friendly. Drivers were an issue three years ago, but not so much now.

As for "run their software", that's why it's valid to make OSS for Windows. Some people are locked into Windows for one reason or another - "We have to use Joe's Address Mangler 3.0 for Windows" - so the solution is to provide OSS programs to fill as many needs as possible.

The sooner we can make OSS "their software", the sooner they'll convert to Linux.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

OMG!!! Don't forget to blog about the ponies!!

Re:So what?

[dedazo]

Trust and Openness need not be linked.

Yes, thank you. That's the idea I was trying to convey without much success, obviously :)

oh, _that_ license

[Anonymous Coward]

The Sandbox source code will be released under the Apache 2.0 license, an open source license agreement allowing the content creator to maintain copyright...

You mean, just like all other open source licenses? That is hardly a distinguishing feature of the Apache license.

A step in the right direction

[StackedCrooked]

Seems that anti-microsoft sentiment again dominates the discussion. Couldn't it simply be that Microsoft is taking a step in the right direction?

Re:A step in the right direction

[h4rr4r]

Historical evidence suggests otherwise.
They would first need to get rid of their bad reputation for people to treat them fairly.

Re:A step in the right direction

[cparker15]

You must be new here...

Re:A step in the right direction

[CannonballHead]

They would first need to get rid of their bad reputation for people to treat them fairly.

What would that take, then? It doesn't appear that, with some people, they can ever do that, since every good thing they do is dismissed in some form of a conspiracy theory, basically.

It's not like Microsoft, as a business, is trying to hide that it is trying to make money. Most businesses try to do that. So yeah, they probably want to make money somehow with this open source software thing. Maybe supporting it, and thus encouraging people to use Windows, and thus encourages people to buy Windows, is a good thing to them. So what? As long as free software is getting financed somehow, helped along, etc., who does it hurt?

Re:A step in the right direction

[the_one(2)]

It takes a while to regain trust (and there is the whole OOXML bribing thing which happened not to long ago)

Re:A step in the right direction

[Americano]

Historical evidence suggests otherwise.

And "Past performance is no guarantee of future results." Shit changes, man. At some point, you have to either allow them the chance to regain some level of trust, or you have to admit that you just have a weird personal issue with MSFT that so totally dominates your view of them that you can't behave or think rationally about anything they do.

They would first need to get rid of their bad reputation for people to treat them fairly.

How does one get rid of a bad reputation except by making positive moves that would show an effort to move in the right direction? If every step they make is greeted with derision, will it be all that surprising when they say "Hey you know what? We tried playing by your rules and caught nothing but shit for it. GFY."

Repairing a bad reputation and restoring trust takes 2 sides: one side to make a genuine effort to make amends for past damages, and the other side to be genuinely willing to forgive and move forward. Nobody's suggesting you swear an oath of allegiance to MSFT based on a single project adopting the Apache license. You cannot, however, say that this is not an encouraging move by MSFT, and perhaps an indicator that they're trying.

Re:A step in the right direction

[Americano]

let them release all the docs the Wine project would need to be 100% interoperable.

Why not just run Windows then? You're bitching about wanting free software all over the comments here, and then you're going to claim that you want to run closed-source windows software on your Free OS? What's the point?

Then release real interoperability docs for exchange, sharepoint, etc.

If freedom is of paramount concern, why would you care to run software that will interoperate with non-free systems at all? Why not pressure them to accept a better (standard) way of doing things? You know, by using the robust & stable FLOSS software that does the same job as Exchange, Sharepoint, etc., but does so while conforming to GPL & open standards? And then when you've achieved a market leadership position with your superior products, you can simply freeze out Microsoft products if they don't conform to your standards.

Or is all this really about forcing Microsoft to commit some bizarre form of hara-kiri ritual to atone for the grievous sins they've committed against you?

Re:A step in the right direction

[innocent_white_lamb]

Repairing a bad reputation and restoring trust takes 2 sides: one side to make a genuine effort to make amends for past damages, and the other side to be genuinely willing to forgive and move forward.
 
It also takes time to rebuild a damaged reputation, sometimes a great deal of time. And sometimes it simply can't be done.
 
If I spent 20 years beating your dog every time I saw it, throwing my feces over your fence, and telling everyone that I know what a bad bugger you are, then suddenly one day I said, "Things have changed so let's be friends now" would you immediately invite me in for coffee in your living room?
 
You might enjoy the sudden peace and quiet and hope that it continues, but I doubt we would ever be bosom buddies.

Re:A step in the right direction

[cyber-vandal]

As long as it takes most habitual offenders.

Re:A step in the right direction

[cyber-vandal]

Microsoft have lost several court cases due to their illegal behaviour. They have a lot of mistrust to overcome, much like human habitual offenders. The whole OOXML fiasco hardly helps their case for rehabilitation.

Re:A step in the right direction

[h4rr4r]

Then the open source windows apps could run on a free OS.

Interoperability should be available, while I might prefer FLOSS mail servers others may not and we should be able to work together.

Re:A step in the right direction

[Americano]

Then the open source windows apps could run on a free OS.

If they're open source, then just port them to run on the free OS. Why do you need to make your free OS look like & behave like a non-free OS? Think about it for a second. The point you're making about allowing WINE to work fully makes NO sense - either you want to run closed source applications on Linux under WINE (which would only be enabled by the WINE project having full specs to make WINE 100% interoperable, as you demand), or you have the source to an open-source windows application and can simply port it to your free OS, in which case WINE is irrelevant.

Interoperability should be available, while I might prefer FLOSS mail servers others may not and we should be able to work together.

So then use POP3 or IMAP. Why do you need Exchange or Sharepoint to interoperate? Why make a shitty knock-off of a non-free Microsoft product? Why not make a better product, based on open standards, that conforms to your notions of free software?

For all the bitching about Microsoft and other non-free software companies that happens here, you'd think somebody would put their money where their mouth is and do something about it by writing free software that compares favorably on the basis of robustness, stability, features, and usability to the non-free / non-open offerings.

Re:A step in the right direction

[Americano]

And you might have noted that I didn't suggest we should all sit down and have tea and biscuits with Microsoft, did I? I won't say they don't have a lot of mistrust to overcome, but you have to be willing to let them try.

There comes a point where you have to concede that a step is a positive development. A single step doesn't mean they're making a pattern of it, but it's a starting point. Maybe tomorrow they abuse the Apache license and get dragged into 15 different courts because of it. Or maybe tomorrow they say, "Wow, that project was so well received, maybe there's something to this open source stuff, and maybe we should look at doing this with other projects."

Microsoft is a company with thousands of employees, which means there are many competing agendas. Some people may be gung-ho for open source licensing of everything, some may want to fight it with every breath they have left. As a user, why not vocally encourage the good stuff they do in addition to roundly criticizing the bad?

Re:A step in the right direction

[Anonymous Coward]

Or is all this really about forcing Microsoft to commit some bizarre form of hara-kiri ritual to atone for the grievous sins they've committed against you?

I'd be OK with that.

Re:A step in the right direction

[Allador]

If they want to regain peoples trust let them release all the docs the Wine project would need to be 100% interoperable.

Now this is just you being disingenuous. There is no 'document' that describes how to perfectly implement win32, user32 etc. Windows is filled with 15 years of shims, edge-cases, special-cases, back-compat-hacks, and just plain bad code, like every other commercial software of size and complexity.

Such a thing doesnt exist, other than in the source code itself, plus the build process, plus the compat testing, plus the testing scripts, etc etc.

And you know that, so asking for it is just being silly.

Then release real interoperability docs for exchange, sharepoint, etc.

Yeah, that happened last year. Go google it.

MS even went to the trouble of having plugfests and such for the samba project on their campus, put them one-on-one with the engineers who actually work on these things etc.

It may have taken along time, and the EU to get involved, but its out there.

You also probably knew that, and if you didnt, then you're having conversations about an industry that you apparently dont follow, which is also silly.

OMG WTF BBQ

[Nabeel_co]

Holy jeez i think the sky is falling... And wasn't that a pig that flew by just a few minutes go...

Don't Forget Rule of Acquisition #48

[rsmith-mac]

The bigger the smile, the sharper the knife.

Re:Don't Forget Rule of Acquisition #48

[Squeeonline]

You have you be behind someone to stab them in the back.

Re:Don't Forget Rule of Acquisition #48

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, technologically they are behind...

Coming around finally?

[Mephistophocles]

I'm not ready to condemn this MS move as some sort of veiled treachery quite yet. There's no denying that Open Source is finally beginning to transform the marketplace. Couple of reasons for that IMHO - one is Microsoft's decline in recent years, if not as a market-share holder than at least in terms of reputation (and I mean reputation in the eyes of the average consumer, not the tech world). The other might be the slow but sure loss of market-share by entertainment giants (extrapolate to your heart's content - it's not coincidence that Vista's copyright protection measures caused, in large part, it's bad reputation, and those measures were dictated by the entertainment industry). I think we just might be beginning to see the fall of copyright law, at least as we know it today. Open source has contributed a lot to that. MS just might be beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel.

Link if you're interested

[allometry]

http://livelabs.com/web-sandbox/

Stop it!

[jonaskoelker]

Stop it! You're being overly rational in a perfectly emotional debate.

Only one direction my anonymous friend

[coryking]

Almost all OSS licenses are "compatible" with GPL, but only in one direction. You can take BSD code, Apache License code and integrate it into GPL code, but you can't take any changes you made in the GPL code back into the BSD/Apache code*.

* Unless you own the copyright to the entire body of work under GPL, in which case you can do whatever you want with it.

Re:Only one direction my anonymous friend

[huckamania]

From gnu.org...

"Developers that use the GNU GPL protect your rights with two steps: (1) assert copyright on the software, and (2) offer you this License giving you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify it."

How can a GPL programmer take code from Apache license and assert copyright on the software? The Apache license does not confer copyright, merely a copyright license. They are not the same thing.

For example, you take Microsoft's Web Sandbox and put it under GPL. Someone else comes along and does the same thing. Neither one of you now owns the copyright. Neither one of you can sue the other for copyright infringement.

Re-licensing

[rbanffy]

Can we re-license it (or fork it) under GPL?

It would break my heart if someone improved the software just to see the improvements turn into proprietary ugliness.

Re:Re-licensing

[The Dancing Panda]

Well, it doesn't look like they're allowing uploads to the codebase. I don't know that it can be relicensed, but the only improvements microsoft can take and make proprietary are the ones Microsoft has in its codebase.

In essence, Microsoft can take their ball and go home whenever they want, but if you take a copy of their ball and make it better, they can't take yours.

Re:Re-licensing

[FishWithAHammer]

Thank you for being another example of why I really, really don't like the GPL or its users.

"How do we lock this up so the original developers can't use this?"

I'd say you ought to be ashamed, but your sense of shame has likely atrophied away a long time ago. (And you lot do the same to BSD developers on occasion, who are at least nominally "your own." Pathetic.)

Re:Re-licensing

[rbanffy]

Why should I be ashamed? Microsoft can use whatever they wrote. The question is why would anyone else help them build their next release of anything for free? Why would anyone with half a brain help a convicted monopolist to screw its users even further for no reward beyond, perhaps, a poorly paying job on a company regarded as "second rate" by any programmer that could contribute to the project?

What re-licensing as GPL does is that it keeps the downstream users "honest" by forcing them to be as nice to their downstream users as their predecessors were for them. It would say "Dear Microsoft, I give you my contributions on the condition that you never subvert my will and turn them into proprietary software I can no longer study or modify". Is that too much to ask?

The license difference between BSD and Linux is probably the most influential factor in the development of the healthy community that surrounds Linux and that does not surround BSD. Why would IBM contribute to BSD if HP could take their contributions and implement them in HP-UX without giving anything in return? IBM gives code to Linux because they know that HP, SGI, Intel, Red Hat, Novell and just about everyone else will do the same. Everybody is kept nice by the force of the license, which is the "law" of the community around it.

So, again, what is the advantage this license gives the community that, for some incomprehensible reason, decides to give their time and dedication to this initiative?

Re:Re-licensing

[amolapacificapaloma]

Thank you for being another example of why I really, really don't like the GPL or its users.

"How do we lock this up so the original developers can't use this?"

I'd say you ought to be ashamed, but your sense of shame has likely atrophied away a long time ago. (And you lot do the same to BSD developers on occasion, who are at least nominally "your own." Pathetic.)

More like "How do we free this up so the original developers can still use this and everyone else too?".
If someone forks a project like this, that has an Apache license, using the GPL (so every future user will be Free to use, modify and distribute it), the original author keeps his copyrights to *his* code, he can even relicense it over and over again, as many times and under as many licenses he wants. My code, my terms, their code, their terms (and I'm glad they are choosing Apache and not one of those craptastic microsoft "open licenses" ;)

Re:Re-licensing

[FishWithAHammer]

What re-licensing as GPL does is that it keeps the downstream users "honest" by forcing them to be as nice to their downstream users as their predecessors were for them.

Horseshit and worse terms. What relicensing does is to spit in the face of those who released the code in the first place. And you know it, you little fucking gnulot. If you want to "force" downstream users to be "nice," why choose to not be "nice" to your upstream?

Oh, wait. Because it's Micro$oft, LOLOLOLLOLOLOLOL!

Re:Re-licensing

[Anonymous Coward]

"How do we lock this up so the original developers can't *exploit* this?"

There, fixed it for you.

This is what it is about, we don't take anything away from MS, they still can use their code with *our* GPL'ed additions if they wish. However, they won't be able to *exploit* it by closing up the source code of subsequent versions.

Re:Re-licensing

[Anonymous Coward]

"convicted monopolist"

It's not illegal to be a monopoly. They were convicted of abusing their monopoly status.

Re:Re-licensing

[FishWithAHammer]

Except that you're exploiting their generosity by using *their* code with *your* additions in a way that ensures that they do not receive the use of them.

In other words, you're leeching from them. You're exploiting them. Which is legally permissible under the Apache license, but it makes it no less cretinous.

Re:Re-licensing

[Anonymous Coward]

"Dear Microsoft, I give you my contributions on the condition that you never subvert my will and turn them into proprietary software I can no longer study or modify"

What are you talking about? If you wrote the code, you have the copyright. Noone can take that away from you, you will forever be able to study and modify your code.
And it gets even better. The code you contributed to will also always stay Open Source. Once you granted permission you cannot take that back. Everyone who obtained a copy under Open Source license will always be able to use and distribute it according to that license.

What you really meant is this:
"Dear Microsoft, I give you my contributions on the condition that you never subvert my will and add something that I cannot study or modify"

Re:Re-licensing

[Anonymous Coward]

> What re-licensing as GPL does is that it keeps the downstream users "honest" by forcing them to be as nice to their downstream users as their predecessors were for them."

Except that you are not forcing them to be "as nice", nor are you being "as nice" to the original author (a downstream user of *your* modifications). In fact, most of the time the original author tags and copyrights are removed, so as to not even give credit to the original authors. This is where the integrity issue lies - the overwhelming tendancy has been to take credit for a lot of hard work of others. If you are explicitly careful to not do that - give credit, offer back bug fixes, work with the original author professionally - then they may find it a sad fact of life that it was forked. They would not, or rarely seem to, be upset or expect for you to be ashamed. It is merely the lack of professionalism that one now expects from those performing the relicensing that the grandparent was saying should cause shame.

Re:Re-licensing

[rbanffy]

OK... "convicted monopoly abuser". I stand corrected.

Re:Re-licensing

[rbanffy]

And since when re-licensing mandates the removal of previous authorship or copyright notices?

Re:Re-licensing

[shutdown -p now]

The license difference between BSD and Linux is probably the most influential factor in the development of the healthy community that surrounds Linux and that does not surround BSD.

You mean, it wasn't the BSD licensing lawsuit (only settled in 1994; Linux was first released in 1991)?

Re:Re-licensing

[rbanffy]

That's precisely my point.

The economic incentive to invest in a BSD-licensed kernel is less than the economic incentive to invest in a GPL-ed one. Investment in BSD would result on a base open-source OS and a couple vendor-specific "enhanced" versions just like what happened with AT&T's Unix.

It's the GPL that keeps Linux cohesive and grants, say, IBM, the right to use the enhancements Oracle provided.

Re:Re-licensing

[Repossessed]

GPLv3 is compatible with Apache, via a couple optional license terms, so yes, you should be able to fork a GPL version if you want to make sure your changes stay open source.

Re:pist fr0st!!!111!one

[Anonymous Coward]

it's just a shame the creativity resulted in failure, should just have put "frist" and posted it.

Nice propaganda

[coryking]

You forgot the bit about that compatibility being one direction. You can't take GPL code and use it in any codebase under the Apache License without GPL'ing the whole damn thing.

Nice you got modded up though, even when you forgot that very, very important bit. GPL is more then happy to take other code, but it isn't so happy to give back...

Re:Nice propaganda

[Anonymous Coward]

So in response to the "tragedy of the commons" you have the "tragedy of the GPL"?

Re:Nice propaganda

[ianare]

I know that, but this wasn't the discussion at hand. I was replying to the GGP saying that "This is a big 'fuck you' to linux and FREE software in general." - which it isn't, since you can take code from apache and put it in Linux and other GPL projects.

Re:Nice propaganda

[ianare]

* woops, no you can't put it in linux, since it's gpl2.
But that's another issue : too many licenses ...

Re:Nice propaganda

[kiddygrinder]

I've never understood this point of view, if you're so worried about what people are doing with your code why the fuck would you choose the apache (or similar) license anyway? either choose a different license or stop whining.

What about the facts?

[thetoadwarrior]

I recall MS tell me to get the facts about how bad open source was for me. Now they're doing it. I'm all confused!

Similar to Caja?

[psydeshow]

Typical of MS offerings, it took a while to chase the links down to find out what the hell Sandbox actually is/does. See http://websandbox.livelabs.com/

Seems to be similar to Caja, allowing you to include third-party scripts or content in your pages without worrying that they will muck things up or steal your cookies.

Has anyone (shudder) actually used it for anything? I'm afraid if they want my attention I need to see some simple, obvious examples.

In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

RMS decided to close-source emacs and sell it for profit.

"Gates As Borg" icon

[Anonymous Coward]

You should change your M$ icon, from "Gates As Borg" to "Ballmer As Borg".

Fuck Off You Fucking Bearded GNU Wacko

[Anonymous Coward]

GNU/Retards like you are shitstains on the shoe of the open source world.

Re:Fuck Off You Fucking Bearded GNU Wacko

[rbanffy]

Never before Anonymous Coward was such an appropriate nickname...

Letting...

[Anonymous Coward]

Letting Microsoft into your Open Source project is like inviting Jeffrey Dahmer over for dinner...

Re:Update the SlashDot Code?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to no problem with that "2 minute" rule. Lately it takes me 10 minutes just to be able to log in to make a single post (That's why this is AC. I gave up trying to log in and having it recognised when I click the Reply button.)

Something has happened to the servers in the last few months, at least for me where it's a never ending battle of logging in and staying logged in.

I once clicked the "log in" button *TEN TIMES IN A ROW* and still it wouldn't stick.
1. Firefox auto-filled the name and password.
2. Click log in.
3. Screen refreshed and I see the login box with name and password filled.
4. Goto step 2.

After cursing enough I will get the *TOP* of the page to say I'm logged in, but when I reach the comment I want to reply to, I'm either not logged in, or haven't proven myself as human.

Right now I've found an in between state; I'm logged in enough so that I can use my Mod Points, but I'm not logged in enough to post a comment as myself.

Is anyone else having this problem?

P.S. As an aside, why is my CAPTCHA word "satanic"?

Great stuff... NOT

[Anonymous Coward]

Nigger please! This is the same Micro$oft that claims Linux violates 164 (or something) of their PATENTS.

I say again, PATENTS.

Connect the dots..... Wouldn't touch any of their shit even with a barge pole...

Re:Wal-Mart Donations

[Arterion]

Why you bring up the bible, I can't being to fathom, but I do know this:

It doesn't say to receive in secret.

You have a really twisted sense of morality

[coryking]

What if somebody came up with the MEGA-GPL lisence that was one-way compatible with the GPL? This MEGA-GPL license could suck up GPL code, but could not give back to the GPL project without the original project becoming MEGA-GPL. If this sounds far-fetched, the same scenario already exists with GPLv2 vs GPLv3.

So I take your project, MEGA-GPL it and make all kinds of changes to your project. Sadly, you'll never see any of my changes unless you adopt my MEGA-GPL license.

Sound like a plan?

Re:You have a really twisted sense of morality

[arendjr]

This MEGA-GPL license could suck up GPL code, but could not give back to the GPL project without the original project becoming MEGA-GPL. If this sounds far-fetched, the same scenario already exists with GPLv2 vs GPLv3.

The GPL actually does not allow this, since no "MEGA-GPL" license would be allowed to impose additional restrictions on top of the GPL. This is explicitly stated in the GPL.

The only reason most GPLv2 can be converted to GPLv3 (which does have some additional restrictions) is because most GPLv2 released software explicitly states that anyone is allowed to choose whether to use GPLv2 or any later GPL version for redistribution (or because its original authors explicitly decide to do so). This is not required however, and for instance the Linux kernel does not do this. So no, noone can relicense the Linux kernel under MEGA-GPL, or even GPLv3.

You didn't free it up for the original developer

[coryking]

Unless he wants to GPL his codebase. You basically forced him to either GPL his code or not accept any of your patches. Keep in mind dual licensing is only practicle when a single person or organization owns the copyright to an entire project. Many people, including myself, take issue with projects that want to own the entire copyright on an open source project. It limits our ability to use our work else ware.

The short of it is you guys are like little high-minded leeches. At least people who take "lesser" licensed code and "lock it up" don't have the high-minded attitude (and really, we wouldn't have licensed it the way we did unless we cared). You guys do it all under the pretense of "Freedom", which makes you guys sound really, really pretentious.

Re:Wal-Mart Donations

[spisska]

The founders and heirs of Wal-Mart have made donations, just not as vocal about them. The bible teaches to give in secret. Can you verify to me your source for the .01% or did you just pull that out of the air.

Parent is not a troll, and GP did pull the 0.01% figure out of the air. The Walton family, are in fact major-league philanthropists. Who do you think is behind the Walton Arts Center? And that's just a drop in the bucket.

The Walton Family Foundation gives away around $250 million per year, much of it to support K-12 education programs, while the Wal-Mart Foundation gives away another $200 million or so.

I'm no fan of Wal-Mart, just as I'm no fan of Mr. Gates. But credit where it's due. At least the Waltons don't seek publicity and adulation for giving away money they could never hope to spend.

Re:Wal-Mart Donations

[Colonel Korn]

The founders and heirs of Wal-Mart have made donations, just not as vocal about them. The bible teaches to give in secret. Can you verify to me your source for the .01% or did you just pull that out of the air.

I got it from a documentary on Walmart. It was called something like "The High Cost of Low Prices."

OpenBSD: Apache? -- httpd

[Mana Mana]

> The really surprising part of this story, to me, is that Microsoft didn't draft it's own, new license for this.

As always, when it comes to free software principles,

- no binary blob firmware in our OS
- documentation/specifications of chips in your widgets wanted period, NOT vendor drivers---we are not slackers
- we build our own drivers no matter the pain, we don't sell our soul to become lamers
- "free software"* licenses with our free software

OpenBSD years ago, soon after Apache was relicensed for "everyones' benefit" as you now see, jettisoned Apache 2.x from the CVS repository and began maintaining the previosuly licensed Apache 1.x.

As per the new license terms it thusly cannot be called "Apache" hence OBSD calls it httpd!

Theo deRaadt called a spade a spade then. Search the ml's archives for yourself.

Regulate Market Capitalization of Companies

[mahadiga]

I suggest to regulate market capitalization of companies (for e.g Microsoft) so that more opportunities are created for start-ups.

"If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."-- Reagon

Ashamed of what?

[jotaeleemeese]

People and companies release their work any way they see fit.

Once it has been released it is a perfectly legitimate question to check if other licensing schemes can be used with derivative work.

You may not like the GPL or its proponents, what it is clear to me is that you understand neither.

Re:Ashamed of what?

[FishWithAHammer]

Regarding the GPL: I've read v2 and v3 numerous times and have been involved with multiple licensing discussions with clients, their lawyers, and other open-source developers. I very much understand the GPL, thank you very much.

Regarding its proponents: understanding moral bankruptcy is in no way difficult. Recognizing (if not understanding, because it's sick in the head) their burning desire to screw anyone not using the GPL is pretty easy too.

Re:Wal-Mart Donations

[jimwelch]

"It doesn't say to receive in secret."

Buzzz. Wrong, Try again! Jesus several times told those who received healing to tell no-one.

I brought up the Bible because the the Walton's were Presbyterian and it guided much of their life.

It it only since others took control, that Wal-mart has run down hill.

Why is this modded as troll?

[egghat]

He gives a link, a comparison (what is this sandbox thingie all about) and asks for examples.

So essentially three lines with three valid remarks.

Re:Wal-Mart Donations

[Arterion]

Touche. But my point was, if they were giving away money to charities, I think the charities would say something. I guess the Waltons could have entered into some kind of NDA, but it just doesn't seem likely.

And I am sure they do give some to charities, and in total, way more than I ever could. But the B and M Gates Foundation has given an insane amount of money, over half of what they have.

Of course, when you're that rich, you can have any luxury you want. You could probably half your money a number of times and still have any luxury you want.

I think once you get to that "I can have anything I want" stage, trying to accumulate more wealth is greed in the evilest of ways.

apache is still hugely succesfull

[BlueYoshi]

Apache: http://www.apache.org/ ( the link is there just in case ...). Licencing is important but is not the only factor. And for the Jakarta projects the fact that you can use some library in close source software without to worry is an excellent think.

Re:apache is still hugely succesfull

[rbanffy]

Licensing is crucial. You won't see a company contributing technology that could be used by its competitors as a differential when combined with their products under an Apache license.

Re:apache is still hugely succesfull

[BlueYoshi]

Depends on their strategy, but for support libraries why not?

Re:apache is still hugely succesfull

[rbanffy]

For libraries that help others support your product or format, then LGPL, Apache or BSD are really _the_ choice.