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!

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.

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?

[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: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.