Microsoft Bans Open Source From the Windows Market

Blacklaw writes "Microsoft has raised the ire of the open source community with its Windows Marketplace licence by specifically refusing to allow software covered under an open licence to be distributed. The licence, which anyone wishing to distribute Windows, Windows Phone, or Xbox applications through the company's copy of Apple's App Store is required to agree to, is the usual torrent of legalese — but hides a nasty surprise for those who support open source ideals."

Comments

"We own it"

[TheRealMindChild]

It is likely that Microsoft is asserting control over what you put up there. Sort of like when you upload your photo to site x and in the ToS they have "We reserve the right to use your picture in anyway we can possibly find to make money off of it" (probably not exact wording). I could be talking out of my ass too.

Re:"We own it"

[binarylarry]

Doing that makes way more sense than banning open source from their store, but it's in a similar vein.

They don't want to be hit with daily copyright infringement lawsuits from the morons who buy Xboxen, claiming Microsoft is misusing the video/3d content they created.

By the same token, they don't want to get into situations where they're getting sued for failing to provide source on request from people or paying legal staff to determine how to handle the myriad of open source licenses out there. This has the nice side effect of not encouraging open source (knife the baby, etc).

(FYI I'm a registered Microsoft hater)

Re:"We own it"

[AndGodSed]

Link to original blog post:

http://jan.wildeboer.net/2011/02/microsoft-absolutely-no-free-software-for-windows-phone-and-xbox-apps/

Enjoy.

Re:"We own it"

[commodore64_love]

More likely it's just because Bill Gates' protege Ballmer doesn't think software should be free. See his infamous Computer Users Group letter from circa 1977. He cited the unfairness of gaining the benefits of software authors' time, effort, and capital without paying them.

It's also reminiscent of how Microsoft sent letters to schools warning them that using open source and/or pirated software could be dangerous with possible legal consequences. As a result we have stories like Karen the Teacher sending a student to detention, because he was handing-out Linux OS discs. (She thought she was doing the right thing based upon Microsoft's warnings.*)

MS actively fights against open source.

*
* "No software is free and spreading that misconception is harmful. These children look up to adults for guidance and discipline. I will research this as time allows and I want to assure you, if you are doing anything illegal, I will pursue charges as the law allows."

Re:"We own it"

[fermion]

Generally this is a non-exclusive license for use of the product. This does not conflict with any OSS license I know of, as any license will allow the author to grant individual rights. The problem with OSS license is that they will, in general, prevent companies like MS from taking the software, putting a copyright on it, and preventing even the author from innovating on it.

I wonder what the ramifications are going to be. For instance, from what I can tell, most of the engines for LaTex are OSS. Does this mean that LaTex editors will not appear in the App Store. Such engines do exist in the Apple App store. This certainly will prevent Firefox, just in a different manner than Apple. Pretty much this seems to a clear means to prevent any software that competes with MS from entering the store, since almost all such software is OSS.

Off topic, I wonder if LibreOffice is going to truly innovate the Office App and write a touch interface so we can use this on the iPad.

Re:"We own it"

[Anonymous Coward]

Its not even asserting control - its a "Marketplace" - if you want free shit just download it for free. You don't NEED Windows Marketplace to facilitate such a transaction, bogging down their servers and costing them money without generating any. Its not like they have the totalitarian oppression of Apple (from the perspective of customers - whiny bastards whom they've burnt aside - if you even call that burnt when they have enough money to whine in public).

Re:"We own it"

[somersault]

What? I remember the story he's talking about.

Re:"We own it"

[Murdoch5]

He's completely right, That's not a Troll comment at all. To defend him Balmer did say "Linux is a cancer" so I don't really see your point holding up well. When you don't know what a Troll is it's easy to call them out, Your a car, isn't a car someone who calls a troll wrong?

No a car is not that, just like the com64 isn't a Troll, you just think he is for this comment. I haven't read his other stuff but this one is fine and right.

Re:"We own it"

[Daniel Phillips]

They don't want to be hit with daily copyright infringement lawsuits from the morons who buy Xboxen, claiming Microsoft is misusing the video/3d content they created.

An argument that is right up there with "think of the children" as a cynical means of justifying evil.

Re:"We own it"

[Anonymous Coward]

You're simply amazing. You're all about "banning" people and ideas that you don't agree with.

I bet you're a hit a parties. Well, maybe not. Considering your viewpoint is that of an adolescent who throws a hissy fit when you don't get your way, I would think that your mom still has your bed time set at 7pm.

Grow the fuck up.

Re:"We own it"

[paiute]

Hey! That chair almost hit me!

Re:"We own it"

[DMiax]

Slashdot does not ban as far as I know. If they ever did you would be a much better candidate, since you look much more qualified to post on Youtube than /. The story cited appeared here and is relevant to tell the stance of Microsoft regarding open source. I cannot really understand the reasons for the Troll mod on the GP. Surely a link wouldn't have hurt, but was it difficult to just search?

Re:"We own it"

[Smivs]

Slashdot does not ban as far as I know.

Yes they do, and you get a nice PINK screen telling you so as well. Don't ask how I know this.

Re:"We own it"

[mister_playboy]

Pics or it didn't happen. ;)

Re:"We own it"

[Anonymous Coward]

there's more to it, check the clusterfuck that comes out when you submit stuff with an open source LICENSE and then the user can't actually do what the license says(vlc on ios for reference).

Re:"We own it"

[Anonymous Coward]

Gates wrote that letter, not Balmer, and it was 1976, and it was about people pirating software, not about people voluntarily giving software away.

Since "He cited the unfairness of gaining the benefits of software authors' time, effort, and capital without paying them." is lifted directly from the Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Letter_to_Hobbyists I would have thought you could have gotten the other details right too.

Re:"We own it"

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, you tell someone to shut up and call them a troll, and in your sig you want a news channel banned. Let me guess. You're all for freedom of speech as long as you agree with that speech? You're the troll here.

Re:"We own it"

[Hylandr]

Isn't it interesting how painlessly they got us to connect cameras to our Tv's instead of shipping the Tv's with cameras?

I would call it a tin hat moment but they are indeed, cameras.

You cover that thing and unplug it when not in use right?

- Dan.

Re:"We own it"

[gstoddart]

Yes they do, and you get a nice PINK screen telling you so as well. Don't ask how I know this.

No, I think that's the April 1st "OMG Ponies" screen -- that causes me to impose a ban on Slashdot for the day because that thing is so fugly.

Given the amount of trolling and whatnot, I'd be surprised if people actually get banned.

Re:"We own it"

[AmiMoJo]

The issue MS seem to have is that the GPL in particular forces you to redistribute the code along with the software. They most likely interpreted that as requiring them to put a source code archive next to the "Install" button. I don't think that is a correct interpretation and the Android Market doesn't do it. The Market does link directly to the author's website though, and maybe MS/Apple don't want to do that. Apple in particular are very insistent that everything happens in the App Store, unlike Android which lets you install apps directly from web sites if you want to.

One of the supposed advantages of an app store is that you click one button and it installs and works seamlessly. No needs to check requirements or fill out a form to make a purchase. That is the way Apple do things and from their point of view I can see how having a "download source" button could be confusing for users. I don't agree with it but we are just trying to guess their motives here.

Using a quote from 34 years ago isn't very convincing, especially as recently MS has made more of an effort to open its standards and use open-source code. Did you read the recent story about their attitude towards Kinect hackers? The TCP/IP stack from Windows 95 had some BSD code in it.

Re:"We own it"

[Smivs]

No not *that* one. Just a nice pink screen saying you've been banned. I found this out the hard way when I accidentally set Opera's speed dial to refresh every second or something and they banned me as a suspected DoS attack! My presence here now is testament to the fact that they do listen to reason, though for a while I was a bit worried. Life without slashdot - unthinkable.

Re:"We own it"

[Kell Bengal]

Ok, I'll bite. "Utilize illegal practices" - couple of things wrong with that. I'll completely skip the ethics argument on this one, since we're talking about companies. Instead, consider how a company engaging in unlawful practices exposes shareholders to prosecution, should it become known that the shareholders were aware of these activities of the company and was profiting from them.

Furthermore, while you require the profit to be greater than the cost of settlement, that's a short-term strategy. Firstly, If a company regularly flouts the law it may face increasing censure, imprisonment of its officers and eventual deregistration - none of these are good for business. Secondly, it can be difficult to assess what the exact penalties for any given course of action is. For example, breaking EPA regulations might slap you with a fine if it was unintentional, whereas a judge may increase the fine punitively if he/she decides the company was intentionally violating the law.

While it is perfectly expected that company act ruthlessly and without mercy - and there are plenty of ways for a company to be anti-social without being criminal - engaging in illegal activities is never in the real interest of shareholders. More often than not, illegal business practices serve to inflate the standing of an executive in the eyes of the shareholders by making larger than expected profits for them - the driver is not the shareholders so much as the executive's ambitions.

Re:"We own it"

[ByOhTek]

It's fairly easy to get around the no open source rule though.

Every time you release closed source MyReallyAwesomeApp, immediately release an open sourced OpenMyReallyAwesomeApp.

Re:"We own it"

[click2005]

I thought the GPL only required you to make the source code available. Mozilla doesn't have a source code archive next to it's Download/Install buttons for Firefox/Thunderbird etc.

Re:"We own it"

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair, a 34-year-old quote may not represent his current ideals.

In this case, it probably does, but still... that's an old freaking quote.

Re:"We own it"

[Anonymous Coward]

He cited the unfairness of gaining the benefits of software authors' time, effort, and capital without paying them.

Yet, as a capitalist, I'm sure he follows the principle of employing resources for the least amount of money (presumably at a fair market price). The unfairness has nothing to do with paying for the resource. The unfairness is centered around having the ability to monopolize a resource for the least amount of money. If you can pay for and subsequently own a resource, then that's fair to him, but getting a resource for free with the stipulation that the resource remains non-exclusive and any improvements to said resource must be contributed back, that's unfair in his mind. I have a feeling somebody didn't learn to share at daycare.

Re:"We own it"

[ByOhTek]

Maybe, but in our lawyer filled world, with plenty of people actively trying to engineer ways to sue others, it is unfortunately necessary to keep in business in some areas.

The legalize is not the only part of the puzzle, but what they do with it is also relevant. Do they use that 'ownership' to abuse their customers, or do they let their customers do what they want with the data?

Re:"We own it"

[drinkypoo]

You cover that thing and unplug it when not in use right?

Cover it and unplug it? Paranoid much?

I mean, if you were really paranoid you wouldn't want to use HDMI 1.3 because it has a back-channel and there exists the technology to make a screen into a camera, Apple has the patent.

Re:"We own it"

[RogerWilco]

What if they would for example put out a contract on Linus Thorvalds. Say 1 million to kill him? How illegal are the illegal practices that you would be happy with?

I can assure you that 1 million + legal fees if it was discovered, is cheap compared to the value that Linus has.

If you're fine with that, maybe you can suggest which other OSS developers should be on the hitlist?

Re:"We own it"

[gtall]

"I expect its CEO to spread FUD against FOSS at every chance, because that's part of his job description."

So lying is part of Ballmer's job description? I thought he just did it naturally, sort of his Buddha-Nature. Now I find he's been instructed to do it because a "job description" tells him to.

Now who could write such a job description for a CEO. Why, it must be the Board of Directors. So his Board has instructed their employee to lie. And Ballmer couldn't do it on his own, he must have help. So Ballmer must be telling others to lie.

Now, why would a company do that? What kind of people would a company hire who would engage in such practices? This is some company you've invested in. And when one of those lies come back to bite your ass, I fervently hope it takes a bite out of your wallet. You deserve it for such loyalty.

Re:"We own it"

[mellon]

The article seems to ignore the rather obvious point that the GPLv3 and LGPLv3 themselves forbid using covered software in app stores that apply anti-circumvention measures, such as the Windows 7 mobile app store or the Apple App Store. This is one of the improvements in the GPL between versions 2 and 3. The restriction is specific to GPLv3 licenses, and does not apply to GPLv2 licenses, nor to Apache, nor to BSD.

It's always fun to paint Microsoft as the big villain, but what's going on here is what the FSF intended when they added the anti-tivoization clause to the GPL. That is to say, it's a good thing. If you want to run GPLv3 software in a Tivoized device, you have to jailbreak it first. You can't sell GPLv3 software in an app store unless the app store meets the restrictions of the GPL, and Microsoft's App Store does not.

Now, one could turn around and say that Microsoft is bad for having an App store that violates the GPL, but given how cooperative Microsoft has been with jailbreakers, I really don't think one would have a rhetorical leg to stand on with this argument. It would work much better against Apple.

Re:"We own it"

[Pioto]

Mozilla products don't use the GPL, they use their own license: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mozilla1.1

Re:"We own it"

[KhabaLox]

As a shareholder of Microsoft, I expect it to do everything in its power to generate profit. I expect its CEO to spread FUD against FOSS at every chance, because that's part of his job description.

I kind of agree with you in spirit, but I think some of this is strategically short-sighted. It's probably in MS's best interest to work against open OSs, but it's very conceivable that fostering the open source community for applications for it's OSs (like Windows Phone) is the best way to maximize profits. Windows Phone will not succeed without a vibrant app ecosystem, regardless of how many phones Nokia manufactures. Actively working against developers in that space is probably a bad idea.

Re:"We own it"

[BitZtream]

Phones are 'succeeding' right now because of paid apps, not OSS ones. Hence why a certain phone OS is still trouncing all over everyone else.

Re:"We own it"

[Anonymous Coward]

>Ballmer doesn't think software should be free. See his infamous Computer Users Group letter ...

In the context of that letter he's actually saying "you shouldn't steal software," not that there shouldn't exist any free software.

Re:"We own it"

[lordmetroid]

I loooove my cancer, I can't live without my cancer!

Re:"We own it"

[KhabaLox]

Paid apps can be open source. And iOS is not still trouncing over everyone else. It's current lead doesn't even cover the margin of error of the Nielson analysis. And when you look at new buyers in the last 6 months, the results indicate that Android is, not surprisingly, going to be the leading smart phone OS sometime this year.

Of course, I wouldn't lay this squarely on the shoulders of free or OSS apps, though I'm sure that plays a part. The dominant factor I think is the range of devices and carriers available. It's possible, I suppose, that the Verizon bump iOS will receive may slow down Android's gains, but I'll wager that Android will be the clear leader by the fall or sooner.

Re:"We own it"

[aliquis]

Maybe Microsoft don't want to have to "make it available" all the time either.

Re:"We own it"

[Zeinfeld]

The article is incorrect. Microsoft does not ban 'open source', it bans one very specific type of license that the author expressly intends to be viral.

Microsoft use open source code, but they only use code with licences that do not have a viral clause. They use some of my open source code in IE. Microsoft also publish open source code, but not under viral licenses. RMS is very definite about his intention to contaminate proprietary code with his own.

Now before folk go off into a slashweenie froth over this. I know RMS, i have argued this point with him. And he is very very clear about his intent that the gpl be viral. He makes no secret at all about this. Go and talk to him if you do not believe me. But dont assume that because the description of his idea sounds nutty that it must be false. Again, you need to talk to him and know him.

We expressly rejected the gpl for licensing the CERN web code because we did not want the ideological baggage. The code was merely a tool to spread the web. Well ok not for Tim, he hadvcode attachment, but not to owning it. We did make a big mistake in making the code public domain, but there was not the selection of licenses we have today. BSD would have been a better choice.

So dont blame Mr softy for taking RMS seriously. There probably isnt a legal risk there. But Gates is merely taking RMS seriously.

Re:"We own it"

[zill]

If you have good enough lawyers, illegal activities rarely results in a conviction. Just look at United States v. Microsoft (the anti-trust case). Even though Microsoft was convicted, their punishment was essentially a slap on the wrist.

Re:"We own it"

[RDW]

It's not just GPL3, though MS uses GPL3 as an example:

'"Excluded License" means any license requiring, as a condition of use, modification and/or
distribution of the software subject to the license, that the software or other software combined
and/or distributed with it be (i) disclosed or distributed in source code form; (ii) licensed for the
purpose of making derivative works; or (iii) redistributable at no charge. Excluded Licenses include,
but are not limited to the GPLv3 Licenses. For the purpose of this definition, "GPLv3 Licenses" means
the GNU General Public License version 3, the GNU Affero General Public License version 3, the GNU
Lesser General Public License version 3, and any equivalents to the foregoing.'

(i) & (ii) would apply equally to (e.g.) GPL2, which lacks the 'Tivo' clause. Of course you could argue that use in a 'Tivoized' environment is against the spirit of GPL2, if not its letter.

Re:"We own it"

[AdamWill]

"One of the supposed advantages of an app store is that you click one button and it installs and works seamlessly."

The same way Linux distributions have managed software via repositories for years, then? They don't seem to have any problem handling software under free licenses.

Re:"We own it"

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes they do, and you get a nice PINK screen telling you so as well.

OMG PONIES!!!!!!!

Re:"We own it"

[Anonymous Coward]

It's funny how you call "GPL restrictions" what is in fact a clear application of the golden rule: "treat others like you want to be treated".
You want to modify and recompile some software but you'd jail it in the device for others. Who's restricting who here?

Re:"We own it"

[s73v3r]

As a shareholder of Microsoft, I expect it to do everything in its power to generate profit. I expect its CEO to spread FUD against FOSS at every chance, because that's part of his job description. I even expect it to utilize illegeal practices, as long as the expect profit is greater than the cost of settlement.

This is the problem with Capitalism.

Re:"We own it"

[zill]

Nice straw man.
I was referring to how Microsoft has gotten away with illegal business practices before.

Re:"We own it"

[s73v3r]

As far as I know, Apple has the same thing. I don't see why this isn't them just doing the same thing. I don't remember the specifics of why, but I think it has something to do with requiring the OS libraries to then be opened as well.

Re:"We own it"

[Bing Tsher E]

The problem at that time (1976) was that personal computers were centered on user group communities. Every city or region had a user group. And they shared their software freely. I'm not talking just about the software they themselves created. Microsoft found that they could only sell one copy of Microsoft BASIC to each user group.

It was a problem, and the thrust of Gates' letter was that unless something changed, nobody would ever be able to produce any commercial software.

Re:"We own it"

[david_thornley]

Note that all Free and Open Source licenses permit no-charge redistribution and the creation of derivative works. It's in the definitions.

Now notice the "or" before the "(iii)". This means that any Free or Open Source license is excluded.

Re:"We own it"

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't sell GPLv3 software in an app store unless the app store meets the restrictions of the GPL, and Microsoft's App Store does not

What would be the brick & mortar equivilent? If you don't publicly document all your business processes and exactly how you run your business, with financials included, we won't let you sell our products?

Seems like an asinine restriction, no?

Re:"We own it"

[Anonymous Coward]

C64L is a known anti-MS troll, just ignore it and it'll go away.

Re:"We own it"

[vishwin]

Mozilla software do use the GPL along with the LGPL and their own MPL as a tri-licence.

And Mozilla does provide a link to source code, though not in the most obvious way.

Re:"We own it"

[Anthony Mouse]

Now, one could turn around and say that Microsoft is bad for having an App store that violates the GPL, but given how cooperative Microsoft has been with jailbreakers, I really don't think one would have a rhetorical leg to stand on with this argument. It would work much better against Apple.

I don't know, being "cooperative" with jailbreakers seems like trying to have it both ways. If they were really being cooperative then they wouldn't have created a device that needs a jailbreak for the owner to control it. Their obvious purpose is to get some of the benefits of an open device (because anybody can jailbreak and lots of people do) but simultaneously trying to pull the wool over the eyes of DRM supporters who spuriously think that lockdown is effective and useful, and maneuvering themselves into a position where they can use the DMCA selectively against anyone they don't like because everybody is a violator. I find it hard to support that.

Re:"We own it"

[Will.Woodhull]

I don't get it.

FOSS generally requires that the source be available, but MS can meet that requirement with a link to the appropriate SourceForge page, etc. They are not obligated to provide it directly. Copyright issues on content is a different problem that the MS store has to face no matter what its policy on FOSS is.

This seems like just another try by MS to stuff the open source genie back in its bottle. And not a very well thought out effort. But I think what will happen is that MS is going to find that alienating an increasing number of potential customers who are already dabbling with FOSS a little bit is not good for market share, or the bottom line.

Re:"We own it"

[Kymermosst]

No it doesn't, because it says 'requiring' not 'permitting':

'"Excluded License" means any license requiring, as a condition of use, modification and/or
distribution of the software subject to the license, that the software or other software combined
and/or distributed with it be (i) disclosed or distributed in source code form; (ii) licensed for the
purpose of making derivative works; or (iii) redistributable at no charge. Excluded Licenses include,
but are not limited to the GPLv3 Licenses. For the purpose of this definition, "GPLv3 Licenses" means
the GNU General Public License version 3, the GNU Affero General Public License version 3, the GNU
Lesser General Public License version 3, and any equivalents to the foregoing.'

(Emphasis added)

Since the BSD license does not require any of the three conditions, it is a permissible license.

Re:"We own it"

[Anthony Mouse]

It's fairly easy to get around the no open source rule though.

Every time you release closed source MyReallyAwesomeApp, immediately release an open sourced OpenMyReallyAwesomeApp.

Only if you refrain from using open source the way it was intended.

I can't write my app which is half GPL code from the FSF and half my own code and then release it under both the GPL and a closed license. I can only release it under the GPL.

Re:"We own it"

[AmiMoJo]

Package managers download an install dependencies for you. On a phone your app has to be self contained and installable with a single download since the code has to be signed. At most you can download some data afterwards.

Phones are not like PCs. The OS manages apps a lot more than a desktop OS does.

Re:"We own it"

[jo_ham]

Not sure about the Mac App Store, but the iOS App Store is GPLv2 compatible - they changed the terms after the first round of "submit GPL app to store than demand they change the licence because they're infringing" that has cropped up a couple of times.

http://maniacdev.com/2010/06/35-open-source-iphone-app-store-apps-updated-with-10-new-apps/ gives a list of open source apps on the iOS version of the store (with links to source code). I don't see that the Mac App Store would be any different.

Re:"We own it"

[Will.Woodhull]

While parent post seems to have all the facts, that is a really weird spin that's been put on it.

The value of open source, and what today is most commonly meant by "open source" is the GPL and other viral licenses. What parent post appears to be describing is Microsoft's use of source that has been put in the public domain, without any copyright restrictions. Of course Microsoft uses that.

Public domain is not the same as open source. Open source comes with a guarantee that no matter what happens to the user's direct provider of the application, he can continue with its use (switch to a different provider, as many are doing in switching from OOo to Libre Office, or even take on the burden of support and development oneself). Public domain is worthless with respect to assuring that your investment in applications will still be of use to you a decade from now. Only open source with its viral licensing assures that.

Re:"We own it"

[h4rr4r]

Viral? You mean that it prevents you from using my open code in your closed one unless you want to open as well?

GOOD! Then write your own fucking code.

Re:"We own it"

[h4rr4r]

I have apps that require other apps to work, on my android phone. My linux desktop manages applications far more, it gets depedencies, replaces them with new stuff, etc.

Re:"We own it"

[gnasher719]

The article seems to ignore the rather obvious point that the GPLv3 and LGPLv3 themselves forbid using covered software in app stores that apply anti-circumvention measures, such as the Windows 7 mobile app store or the Apple App Store. This is one of the improvements in the GPL between versions 2 and 3. The restriction is specific to GPLv3 licenses, and does not apply to GPLv2 licenses, nor to Apache, nor to BSD.

The purpose of this change is to avoid companies fulfilling their GPL obligations by the letter while removing your freedom by allowing you to copy software or modifying it, but then having no chance to actually run it. On the App Store, you can modify and run the software - not without some cost, but then it is the same cost as for non-GPL software. You can't make copies, but anyone you would want to give a copy to can just download it themselves. So what exactly is this "improvement" that you are talking about?

Re:"We own it"

[tripleevenfall]

Wow. Pure, unadulterated ownage.

Re:"We own it"

[Anonymous Coward]

(i) & (ii) still applies to BSD, MIT and such licenses. Why? The required condition of use, of say a library licensed under BSD, is that the app developer must compile and statically link that library. As far as I have heard of international and USA case law regarding the matter, the statically linked code in your product is considered a deverited work. Hence your product is considered a partially deverited work of the all the code linked. (Collage is the copyright law term iirc)

Re:"We own it"

[Kymermosst]

Yes but the license still does not require any of the three items. If I make a derived work from BSD code and make it available for sale, I do not have to give you the source, I don't have to require you to distribute the source to any derived work, and I don't have to require you to redistribute free of charge.

Re:"We own it"

[grcumb]

[Software sharing] was a problem, and the thrust of Gates' letter was that unless something changed, nobody would ever be able to produce any commercial software.

Uh-huh. How did that work out for him?

Bet the poor guy lost a fortune because of it....

Re:"We own it"

[hairyfeet]

How is this ANY different that what Apple already does in their TOS? Everyone here has already read about what happened to Gnu Go and VLC when it came to the app store, so if anything I'd say this is just another MSFT "Me too!" copy Apple move.

Which I'm sorry FOSS guys, but it makes sense. For you to comply with GPL V3 (which you had BETTER be using GPL V3, otherwise any corp can just "TiVo trick" you right out of your code) you have to have access to ALL code signing and other DRM measures so you can exercise your four freedoms (because without it you've just been TiVo tricked, so what's the point?) and if they hand those out all the "evil M$! ZOMG!" hackers will "stick it to the man" by reverse engineering it and pass out an easy way around any and all DRM, thus rendering any Windows Market worthless for developers that actually want to get paid.

So while I support RMS's right to set whatever terms he likes in his license, and for a developer to choose any license that reflects his views, freedom is a two edged sword. On the one hand it gives you freedom to do good but to exercise those freedoms on something like a handset you have to also have the keys which will allow you to do ill. both Apple and MSFT have decided they'd rather do without FOSS than open their markets up, and that is their choice. If you don't like it the droid is open (although thanks to no GPL V3 is easily "TiVo tricked") so you are free to vote with your dollars there. Isn't choice nice?

Re:"We own it"

[Anonymous Coward]

He thinks that C64 is above lying to prove a point!

Oh AC!
How new you must be!

Re:"We own it"

[mellon]

Untrue. The point of having a non-jailbroken phone is that it won't run software that hasn't been signed. This makes it difficult for viruses or even trojan horses to slip past. For someone who is not qualified to tell the difference between a trojan horse and a legitimate program, this is a very useful feature. For somebody who wants to be able to run their own software on the phone, the ability to jailbreak it is a huge win. Jailbreaking has to be difficult, or the trojan horse will just trick you into doing it ("Install this great new codec so that you can see the porn!"). Microsoft gets to have it both ways here, and it's a very smart move. It's true that they can always try to crack down on jailbreakers in the future, and it's also true that just because Microsoft is cooperating doesn't mean handset makers will also cooperate. But it's a good strategy.

If you want to be really pure, buy a Nexus S, or a SheevaPlug, and install your own kernel and runtime on it.

Re:"We own it"

[huzur79]

I wouldn't call it a improvement from GPL2 and GPL3, if anything it takes away rights of users who want to use GPL software and now can't. Its why I can't support GPL in anyway any more and hope it dies a short death.

Re:"We own it"

[Chibi Merrow]

Open source comes with a guarantee that no matter what happens to the user's direct provider of the application, he can continue with its use (switch to a different provider, as many are doing in switching from OOo to Libre Office, or even take on the burden of support and development oneself). Public domain is worthless with respect to assuring that your investment in applications will still be of use to you a decade from now. Only open source with its viral licensing assures that.

That is completely false. No matter what happens to the "user's direct provider of the application", public domain code will remain public domain code. Likewise, any investment you make into public domain code CANNOT under any circumstances be "taken away from you". Public Domain vs GPL has no difference in the cases you just cited.

The only time there IS a difference is when you're DISTRIBUTING the code. In that case, any improvements/changes you have made to the code when it's virally licensed must be distributed under the same license. This is not true for PD code, as you can keep changes proprietary. But you WILL NOT ever lose access to that original PD code, nor will you ever lose access to any improvements you have made to the PD code.

Re:"We own it"

[mark-t]

The GPL is really only seen as "viral" by people who want to deprive the copyright holder of his or her rights to control who can copy the software.

Because software under the GPL is just as restricted to who can copy it as any other copyrighted work... the GPL just happens to explicitly grant permission to people to copy the work if, and only if, they agree to the license. A copyright holder can freely dictate the terms for which he or she will allow others to copy his or her work... where most copyright holders might require written permission to do so, there is nothing in copyright to prohibit allowing copying under other terms. It really is wholly illogical to be against the GPL and not also be against the whole idea of copyright as well.

Re:"We own it"

[MrKaos]

MS actively fights against open source.

Especially in the business application space. I notice how hard they fight to get an application developer who hosts their application on Linux or a Unix when they are weighing up using JBoss or Websphere. They seem to behave in the most devious manner and every time you are just on the point of saying to yourself "maybe they have changed" you find they haven't. They type of zealotry they encourage makes Apple and Linux zealotry pale in comparison as well, just look at some of their trolls.

Go Google, I hope they are able to end Microsofts reign over the IT landscape.

Re:"We own it"

[BitZtream]

The Market does link directly to the author's website though, and maybe MS/Apple don't want to do that.

If they didn't want to do that, then why do both Apple and MS have links to the vendors website on every app page of their respective stores and its a requirement for submission to the stores?

Re:"We own it"

[masterzora]

While I don't agree with most of what GP said, wouldn't everything you said just be a factor of 'costs' that must be considered against the revenues gained from it? Your post reads more or less as "comparing revenue v. cost is short term thinking because you don't take into effect this and that cost" which... doesn't make much sense.

Re:"We own it"

[BitZtream]

The problem with OSS license is that they will, in general, prevent companies like MS from taking the software, putting a copyright on it

Licensing has nothing to do with copyright. No one can take your copyright regardless of license. MS can't take and claim copyright on code under any license unless the copyright owner transfers the copyright to MS specifically.

Your statement is pure FUD. Even BSD or Public Domain software can not have its copyright changed, the license and the copyright are entirely 100% unrelated and your attempt to confuse the two shows that either you are ignorant of both copyright and licensing or just trying to spread FUD.

Eitherway, the statement is 100% false in everyway, you should do some research into what Copyright actually is.

Pretty much this seems to a clear means to prevent any software that competes with MS from entering the store, since almost all such software is OSS.

I think perhaps you should take your head out of the sand, thats just a completely ignorant statement indicating you have no clue what the Windows software landscape looks like and you assume the OSS is something MS is afraid of in that aspect. The reality of it is, OSS presents little threat to MS on the desktop as there has yet to be an OSS package for a Windows OS of any size that didn't look like it was written in the 70s by a bunch of guys with no clue what the end user actually wanted. You may not care that it looks antiquated but the majority of the public does, that alone keeps OSS down, MS doesn't have to work much harder after that.

I'm sure I'll get marked a troll, but that won't change anything, the same reasons will still exist, you'll just be ignoring them and wondering why it isn't the year of the Linux desktop ... again.

Re:"We own it"

[MrKaos]

"I expect its CEO to spread FUD against FOSS at every chance, because that's part of his job description."

So lying is part of Ballmer's job description?

Now who could write such a job description for a CEO. Why, it must be the Board of Directors. So his Board has instructed their employee to lie. And Ballmer couldn't do it on his own, he must have help. So Ballmer must be telling others to lie.

I think there is a mis-understanding. What you call a lie is refered to as a "Vision". The Board hires a CEO to create a "Vision" and then it's up to the board to believe in that "Vision". No one lies, they have a "Vision".

Re:"We own it"

[Cognitive Dissident]

Gates also admitted he himself was in the habit of "gaining the benefits of software authors' time, effort, and capital without paying them"...

    Bricklin sent waves of laughter through the auditorium by reading a passage from Lammers' interview with Bill Gates in which the young Microsoft founder explained that his work on different versions of Microsoft's BASIC compiler was shaped by looking at how other programmers had gone about the same task. Gates went on to say that young programmers don't need computer science degrees: "The best way to prepare is to write programs, and to study great programs that other people have written. In my case, I went to the garbage cans at the Computer Science Center and I fished out listings of their operating systems."
    Bricklin finished reading Gates' words and announced, with an impish smile, "This is where Gates and [Richard] Stallman agree!"
        Source: Programmers at Work by Susan Lammers (1986), ISBN 0914845713

          "...the best way to prepare [to be a programmer] is to write programs, and to study great programs that other people have written. In my case, I went to the garbage cans at the Computer Science Center and fished out listings of their operating system."
-- Bill Gates.

Re:"We own it"

[Darinbob]

This is slightly different. Neither BSD nor GPL "require" redistributing at no charge. GPL fails on the earlier clauses, but the BSD license does not. The GPL only requires providing source code on demand, and even there you are allowed to charge a reasonable cost for this service.

Re:"We own it"

[Anthony Mouse]

The point of having a non-jailbroken phone is that it won't run software that hasn't been signed. This makes it difficult for viruses or even trojan horses to slip past.

The trouble is that signing doesn't scale. You can't economically screen millions of apps sufficiently rigorously to ensure you aren't signing malware. If you make screening arduous then either everybody including grandma figures out how to run unsigned software and signing becomes irrelevant, or they don't and your platform fails because getting screened is sufficiently difficult or expensive to drive away small developers.

If you want to be really pure, buy a Nexus S, or a SheevaPlug, and install your own kernel and runtime on it.

That doesn't get me a strong and diverse ecosystem. They have to be in the hands of many people so that developers of Microsoft- and telco-unapproved software have prospective users to make it worth their while to write the software. I can't write it all myself.

Re:"We own it"

[Kalriath]

The GPL does not require "libraries ordinarily distributed with the operating system" to be opened - there's a special exception for that.

Re:"We own it"

[Kalriath]

Software can't be sideloaded to Windows Phone 7. It has to go via the Marketplace. Hence yes, there is that totalitarian oppression.

Re:"We own it"

[Will.Woodhull]

Parent post does not know what it is talking about. And it sounds like astroturf FUD.

Public domain code may easily be "'taken away from you'" or from anyone else simply by making trivial modifications to it as it is mixed into development and not making those changes public. There is no requirement that the result be made public; there are no requirements at all on public domain material. Microsoft has done this back in the days of DOS, GeeWhiz BASIC, and woodburning computers. There is no reason to believe the practice has changed.

FOSS under GPL or similar viral licenses requires that any changes have to be made public if the product is going to be distributed (as opposed to strictly in house use). To do otherwise is to violate the expressed provisions of the license: a violation of copyright law. That is the advantage of FOSS: there is the legal guarantee that any FOSS app you purchase or otherwise obtain through a public means will have all of its source code available to you if you ever need to use it.

So while I agree with parent post about the facts of the difference between PD and FOSS, I very much regret that author of parent post either has not yet been able to think through the profound implications of that difference, or he is deliberately spewing FUD upon slashdot.

A viable business strategy for Microsoft is to factor its OS into core, file system, windowing system, etc. Then become a Linux distro by replacing the core and file system with FOSS Linux code, while selling their old windowing system and all the ooh shiny things as a proprietary library on top of the Linux base. There is no legal reason why this could not be done, it would bring Microsoft's development overhead closer to being in line with its competitors, and it is probably what Microsoft will end up doing, unless it manages to beat itself to death first with a business model that is 50 years or more out of date.

Re:"We own it"

[multi io]

(FYI I'm a registered Microsoft hater)

How and where do you register for that?

Re:"We own it"

[AuMatar]

It's the problem with unregulated capitalism, not with capitalism in general. Here's a simple fix: for every 50K a company is fined, all CxO level employees, board members, and the biggest 5 shareholders must spend a week in jail, no parole. If anyone ever is sentenced for more than 10 years that way, it becomes a death sentence. Then watch everyone clean up their act.

Re:"We own it"

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but at the end of the day, software authors who write open source software do so, so that people can USE it. I don't see a problem if, for example, you put VLC in the Apple App Store and put the source code up for download. Saying "Apple didn't distribute the source" is a bit too much whining for me. The AUTHOR is "distributing" the app through Apple's store, he/she can distribute the source code somewhere else. Or they can embed it in a text box in the app's "about" screen if they /really/ want to. If I post a link to a torrent file containing OpenOffice for Windows, are you going to complain that I didn't distribute the source simultaneously? As long as the source is available for practical purposes, I don't see the problem.

Also, you don't have to download the app from the app store, you can download the program and install it yourself... (or compile it yourself).

Re:"We own it"

[amliebsch]

That would be obviously unconstitutional.

Re:"We own it"

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe not, but it can get Ambiguous. For example, Stallman wrote Emacs, then others wrote implementations, then Stallman wrote another implementation using a base that later became proprietary, then the company that took it proprietary asked Stallman to stop using the code, which happened as code was rewritten. No one lost copyright, but because the license did not forbid the new owner from retroactively closing the source, it caused problems. The lack of ability to retroactively close he source when the copyrigh changes hands is what makes the OSS model work, and is what companies like MS are most afraid of.

Let us take a more recent example. Suppose that Sun had not placed the StarOffice code under LGPL but merely continued to offer a free download as i had for a year. It could have even allowed code to be added by others, and the copyright would be held jointly with Sun, just like it is now. Now suppose that Oracle decided to retroactively close the code. Sure the contributors would sill own the copyright to their bits, but the value of he copyright would be reduced with respect to them, while another firm profited off their work. The contributors could band together and get a rewrite going, but not as quickly as LibreOffice did.

With licenses like the GPL there is an assurance tha he integrity of a copyright will not be infringed.That work that one does cannot, through legal trickery, be closed, at least retroacively.

Re:"We own it"

[AmonTheMetalhead]

I stopped using Microsoft products ages ago, and i'm not going back

Re:"We own it"

[WorBlux]

The author of a work doesn't need a license to innovate or re-release it under a different licenses.

Re:"We own it"

[commodore6502]

More likely it's just because Bill Gates' protege Ballmer doesn't think software should be free. He learned from Gates' infamous CUG letter from circa 1977. He cited the unfairness of gaining the benefits of software authors' time, effort, and capital without paying them.

It's also reminiscent of how Microsoft sent letters to schools warning them that using open source and/or pirated software could be dangerous with possible legal consequences. As a result we have stories like Karen the Teacher sending a student to detention, because he was handing-out Linux OS discs. (She thought she was doing the right thing based upon Microsoft's warnings.*)

MS actively fights against open source.

*
* "No software is free and spreading that misconception is harmful. These children look up to adults for guidance and discipline. I will research this as time allows and I want to assure you, if you are doing anything illegal, I will pursue charges as the law allows." - Teacher to Ubuntu.com

Re:"We own it"

[MikeBabcock]

lol @ irony. Thanks for the laugh, troll.

Re:"We own it"

[MikeBabcock]

You're saying Windows phones are too stupid to understand dependencies? When I try to use the barcoding feature in one app on my Android phone, it redirects me to the Market page for the Barcode Reader so I can install the functionality I'm trying to use.

PS Microsoft's OLE and subsequent ActiveX are no different. Reaching out and downloading sub-programs to handle specific features most certainly should not break the package manager.

Re:"We own it"

[MikeBabcock]

This is completely ignorant of how the GPL works and very insulting to those who use it.

The GPL says "here's a magic marker you can use anywhere you want, any time you want, that replenishes itself indefinitely. Give it away all you want but do not restrict others any more than you were restricted."

Now a brick and mortar store rents the magic marker to people for one hour's use at a charge of $5. That's a restriction that isn't desired by the Copyright holder, and is a violation of licensing terms, so the creator of the marker tells you to either unrestrict peoples' usage or stop selling it entirely.

Remember, the GPL is about Copyright, not contracts. If you fail to abide the terms, you're automatically in violation of federal Copyright laws because you have no implicit right to redistribute someone else's code unless you're abiding their terms.

Re:"We own it"

[Rakarra]

No one cares. When you follow a user around commenting on whatever he writes on, then you're the person with the problem.

Re:"We own it"

[Rakarra]

If you have good enough lawyers, illegal activities rarely results in a conviction. Just look at United States v. Microsoft (the anti-trust case). Even though Microsoft was convicted, their punishment was essentially a slap on the wrist.

They had the benefit of a change in the Justice Department before the punishment was decided. If the punishment phase was crafted with the Clinton Justice Department in charge, I wonder what would have happened.

Re:"We own it"

[JoelKatz]

How do you do that? If the application uses a library covered by the GPLv3, how do you release a closed source version of it exactly? I think you're missing the entire point of this -- Microsoft doesn't care if you release an open source version of the application. *They* don't want to be bound by the open source licenses. The problem is that in order to submit an application to Microsoft's market, you have to be able to give Microsoft the right to distribute it. If you received some parts of that work under the GPLv3, you have no ability to grant distribution rights to Microsoft.

Re:"We own it"

[JoelKatz]

I think what you're missing is that Microsoft has solved the copyright issue by insisting that those who post applications in the Windows market also grant Microsoft the right to distribute those applications. If you received a library under the GPLv3, you cannot grant anyone the right to distribute that library. Microsoft does not with to be bound by the GPLv3 and distributing works covered by it would bind Microsoft to it.

Re:"We own it"

[aviators99]

Please allow me to play the devil's advocate on this one:

Microsoft is a corporation and thus it has only one mandate: to maximize profit. As a shareholder of Microsoft, I expect it to do everything in its power to generate profit. I expect its CEO to spread FUD against FOSS at every chance, because that's part of his job description. I even expect it to utilize illegeal practices, as long as the expect profit is greater than the cost of settlement.

If Microsoft is not fighting against open source at every opportunity, the shareholders can sue the board of directors on the ground that they failed to fulfilled their duty of care. Microsoft already lost to FOSS in the server realm, and if it doesn't spread FUD it will completely lose the desktop realm as well.

So, as a shareholder, I'm sure you must be thrilled that Microsoft is working to limit the number of applications that will run in their mobile "ecosystem"? WP7 is already having trouble gaining the traction it will need. There's a pretty good argument that number of applications available can increase market share. I'll claim that limiting the number of applications that are available limits the potential market share.

Re:"We own it"

[badkarmadayaccount]

Microsoft is - they are a convicted monopolist, leveraging their position, and using anti-competitive practices. Anyone care to correct me? Oh, and don't look at my sig. Ever.

Re:"We own it"

[Chibi Merrow]

Parent post does not know what it is talking about.

Actually, I do. And you even admit so later:

So while I agree with parent post about the facts of the difference between PD and FOSS...

As far as your claims...

Public domain code may easily be "'taken away from you'" or from anyone else simply by making trivial modifications to it as it is mixed into development and not making those changes public. There is no requirement that the result be made public; there are no requirements at all on public domain material. Microsoft has done this back in the days of DOS, GeeWhiz BASIC, and woodburning computers. There is no reason to believe the practice has changed.

Except in that case nothing has been done to take the public domain code away from you. Even Microsoft, with its infinite capacity for evil, CANNOT PREVENT YOU FROM USING THE PUBLIC DOMAIN CODE! No amount of changes to their own copy of said public domain code will cause the original public domain source to cease being public domain. Their CHANGES will not be public domain, but that has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the PD status of the original source or your ability to make use of whatever you have invested in said source.

FOSS under GPL or similar viral licenses requires that any changes have to be made public if the product is going to be distributed (as opposed to strictly in house use).
  blah blah blah blah
...unless it manages to beat itself to death first with a business model that is 50 years or more out of date.

None of this has anything to do with my comment. I'm wondering if you even read my comment--much less comprehended its contents--in your rush to spew out your expert analysis on the software industry. I mean... I'm spewing FUD? Really? Facts can be FUD now? By stating facts I haven't thought things through? Do you even read your own posts?

GPLv3, bleh

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems that Microsoft is banning GPLv3 or similar licenses. The fact that they refer "GPLv3" by name and not simply "GPL", may mean that GPLv2 is allowed.

Re:GPLv3, bleh

[wizbit]

it says, "any equivalents" as well. i might argue that GPLv2 and GPLv3 are not "equivalent" but IANAL and that interpretation clearly leads a lot of wiggle room for MS lawyers.

Re:GPLv3, bleh

[nedlohs]

What does the term "not limited to" mean to your legal expert opinion?

How is the GPLv2 not covered by:

“Excluded License” means any license requiring, as a condition of use, modification and/or
distribution of the software subject to the license, that the software or other software combined
and/or distributed with it be (i) disclosed or distributed in source code form; (ii) licensed for the
purpose of making derivative works; or (iii) redistributable at no charge.

again in your expert legal opinion?

Re:GPLv3, bleh

[WrongSizeGlass]

again in your expert legal opinion?

My expert legal opinion is that you didn't much like his post, but keep in mind that IANAL.

Re:GPLv3, bleh

[gman003]

Well, the standard "this is GPLv3" text is "This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version." (with the version number replaced with whichever one is being used). Note that it does NOT say "or any prior version". This quite obviously means that, while the licenses are at least forward-compatible, they are not equivelent.

Re:GPLv3, bleh

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes they are banning the GPL, but it makes perfect sense given the case with VLC and Apple's store: they just don't want to be responsible for making available the source code along with the executables.

Good thing that free software is much more than just the GPL!

Re:GPLv3, bleh

[HungryHobo]

so would BSD be ok then?

Re:GPLv3, bleh

[shentino]

There's probably a "sole and final discretion" type clause that allows MS the right to exercise completely arbitrary fiat. Considering their motives, I have no doubt such will be used to plug any erstwhile loopholes in the license.

Re:GPLv3, bleh

[initdeep]

Good thing you're posting as AC.
It seems fitting.
Especially one of the words.

Re:GPLv3, bleh

[alexo]

How is the GPLv2 not covered by:

"Excluded License" means any license requiring, as a condition of use, modification and/or distribution of the software subject to the license, that the software or other software combined and/or distributed with it be (i) disclosed or distributed in source code form; (ii) licensed for the purpose of making derivative works; or (iii) redistributable at no charge.

How is any commercial license not covered (under subclause ii)?

Re:GPLv3, bleh

[s73v3r]

Here's a question: If I were to create something right now, could I still license it under GPLv2 if I wanted? Even though GPLv3 is out?

Re:GPLv3, bleh

[Chuck_McDevitt]

yes. BSD allows relicensing, even making the app closed source if that's what is desired. And it has no reuirement that source be available.

Re:GPLv3, bleh

[gman003]

Sure. It's not recommended, but quite a few people do it. Hell, you could use GPLv1 if you wanted. There's no licensing on the license itself - as long as you don't misrepresent anything (ie. write your own license, but call it GPL), you can do whatever you want with it.

Re:GPLv3, bleh

[MaDeR]

Of course. You can release it under any license. Enforcing it is of course different matter.

Re:GPLv3, bleh

[AvitarX]

It may be the patent portion of GPLv3, or fears a locked phone leads to tivoization.

There hands would be tied in disttributing of GPLv3 software if they sue over a patent against any GPLv3 software (I think).

And the tivoization portion may or may not apply, but if I were distributing signed software for locked hardwarex, it would give me pause even if I knew it was allowed.

Re:GPLv3, bleh

[shutdown -p now]

If you read through the clauses of the restriction, this can be summed up as a ban on copyleft and no-commercial-use in general - any license that requires derived code to be redistributed 1) under the same terms, or 2) under different terms but with source code being available regardless, or 3) for free. BSDL seems to be fine.

someone, please explain this to me

[craftycoder]

This makes no sense to me at all. Why would the status of the source code for software distributed through the app store interest Microsoft? Likely less than 1% of people would ever care to look at the source; many times fewer still would ever successfully compile it. I'm completely confused by this.

Re:someone, please explain this to me

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would the status of the source code for software distributed through the app store interest Microsoft?

When you redistribute a program under the GPLv3, you grant the receiver a license to any patents that you own and that are used by that program.

Re:someone, please explain this to me

[mr100percent]

I think the reason is that it may conflict with the Microsoft TOS.

Look at the trouble Apple had posting stuff like VLC into the App Store and then had it removed via a lawsuit. Can you host Open-sourced apps if the store adds DRM to them or doesn't bundle the code in with the app?

Re:someone, please explain this to me

[mysidia]

When you redistribute a program under the GPLv3, you grant the receiver a license to any patents that you own and that are used by that program.

Only if your only right to redistribute is the one provided by the GPLv3

If you are acting as an agent of the copyright owner, or you have been given your own redistribution license from the copyright owner, you do not necessarily have to follow the GPL in regards to your redistribution of the work.

For example, if the owner of the work hires another company called Content Delivery Network Co. to run the FTP/HTTP servers to distribute the owner's work, which the author will provide to them, and they'll provide web sites and mirror servers to make available.

Content Delivery Network Co distributes the work; however, they are not bound by the GPL in regards to redistribution. They are bound solely by their agreement with the copyright owner.

Re:someone, please explain this to me

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft doesn't want free/cheap apps ruining the market for developers, so they can redevelop existing apps and functionality and sell them for money.

It's as simple as that in my opinion. They want to foster a "pay for everything" ecosystem, so they ban the majority of free apps, libraries and so on out there. Basically like it was for the iPhone - at least in the early days - when every trivial app was a money-maker for developers (and by extension the store operator).

Re:someone, please explain this to me

[JWW]

Look at the trouble Apple had posting stuff like VLC into the App Store and then had it removed via a lawsuit. Can you host Open-sourced apps if the store adds DRM to them or doesn't bundle the code in with the app?

It depends. The flap over VLC was because another developer ported the code and put it in the app store. I am of the opinion that a link on the app to a website where you could get the code would have met GPL requirements. In that case, if you had a jailbroken iPhone, iPad, whatever, you could compile that code and run it.

I could definitely see an instance of a developer creating an open source app add submitting it to the app store. If they were the developer in charge of the app they could make the license call themselves. Interestingly enough, though, another person could conceivably download that code and make changes to it and then claim that Apple is violating the gpl even though the code's creator doesn't care. That, however would be a lot like patent trolling.

As someone who has (and will not delete) the VLC app, I think the VLC developers made a big mistake in not allowing it to exist with a path to the code linked in the app.

Yes, the DRM is evil. One would hope that Apple would create a method where free apps are totally free. I mean, the DRM is pointless for something anyone can get for free, so why have DRM on them. That would be the best solution.

Back on topic, though, I think Microsoft's open source ban is just due to how much they HATE open source.

Re:someone, please explain this to me

[Anonymous Coward]

As the distributor of the software, it would be up to Microsoft to provide the source to the application. Microsoft doesn't want to deal with having to gather and distribute source for the various applications so they prohibit things that would require them to do so.

Re:someone, please explain this to me

[Daniel Phillips]

This makes no sense to me at all. Why would the status of the source code for software distributed through the app store interest Microsoft?

It makes sense if you suppose that one of the prime directives Gates issued to Ballmer on handover was:

  1. Confront and eradicate open source wherever it gains a foothold regardless of the cost or collateral damage.

A few of the innumerable examples:

  * Microsoft expending credibility and undermining ISO by forcing through MOOXML
  * Microsoft killing off the low cost netbook market in order to prevent Linux distribution
  * Microsoft planting a mole at great legal risk to end Meego and QT development by Nokia
  * This one, Microsoft not allowing distribution of open source applications through its phone market

Its nice that nearly all these efforts have backfired and just served to inspire the community to greater efforts. I expect this one will backfire in a major way by preventing any open source community from forming around Microsoft's phones. So much the better I say.

Re:someone, please explain this to me

[zeroshade]

GPL does not require bundling the code with the app as long as when asked, a location to retrieve the code freely is provided.

Re:someone, please explain this to me

[Daniel Phillips]

Can you host Open-sourced apps if the store adds DRM to them or doesn't bundle the code in with the app?

Open source licenses do not require that the source code be bundled with the app, merely that it be available on request. I don't know about your DRM point, however I do know that pointing to Apple and saying "they do it too" is a logical fallacy for justifying evil. So is "you made me do it", which is what arguments revolving around the possibility of being sued for violating terms of an open source license amount to.

Re:someone, please explain this to me

[Daniel Phillips]

As someone who has (and will not delete) the VLC app, I think the VLC developers made a big mistake in not allowing it to exist with a path to the code linked in the app.

Disagree. This simple and reasonable freedom must be upheld. The Developers are right to prevent Apple from distributing the results of their hard work if Jobs wants to impose unreasonable restrictions on freedom. So now VLC benefits the Android community and not Apple. There's going to be more of that.

Re:someone, please explain this to me

[mR.bRiGhTsId3]

They need to have DRM for non-free apps. They don't need it for free ones. However, they get minimal revenue from from the free ones. Why should they spend additionally engineering manpower on something that isn't a revenue stream when the default situation works basically fine.

Re:someone, please explain this to me

[Daniel Phillips]

Microsoft doesn't want free/cheap apps ruining the market for developers, so they can redevelop existing apps and functionality and sell them for money.

Very insightful. Obviously self defeating for Microsoft, but Microsoft has been trying to defeat itself for the last ten years so nothing new there.

Re:someone, please explain this to me

[jellomizer]

Because this is a bad Slashdot summary and if you RTFA you will see it more to a ban of the GPL vs. Open Source Software. Oddly enough there are a lot of Fans of Open Source who still dislike GPL. and GPL is only a subset of all Open Source Software.

The GPL is more of a Leftist where the license is supposed to be a tool to push an ideal Vs. Other which are designed to protect the authors prevent them from being sued or just to make sure if there code is popular that they still get credit for it.

I just had to reject some 3rd party tools because it was GPL. Because by using it would force us to make our program GPL, and oddly enough we want to get paychecks and our business model is creating new software and selling it. (The software is designed that consulting services and other GNU business models will not work). We would much rather pay for a closed source company for such features so we can still maintain control of our code set.

Re:someone, please explain this to me

[Dynedain]

The GPL specifcially states that if you distribute the binaries, you also must provide access to the source code. As the app store operator, MS doesn't have the ability to do this without adding extra functionality.

Of course MS isn't going to want to take on extra responsibilities required of them by any random schmoe's copyright license. So instead, they require that anyone who wants to publish through them has to abide by their licensing requirements. If the license you want to release under doesn't meet their requirements, it doesn't matter if it's open-source or not, it's not going to fly.

Re:someone, please explain this to me

[PhilHibbs]

They aren't preventing the author from making the source code freely available. What they are saying is, "If you want us to distribute our software, don't apply a licence that forbids us from doing so."

I don't see the problem, really, it's a no-brainer.

Re:someone, please explain this to me

[Rockoon]

I do know that pointing to Apple and saying "they do it too" is a logical fallacy for justifying evil.

You seem to be forgetting precisely why Apple does it too. Its because the authors of GPL software went after them. It isnt that Apple didn't want GPL software in the App Store, its that they got more grief from the copyright holders than it was worth.

This idea that Apple is "evil" because they are disallowing GPL software is disingenuous at best. It began with GPL authors being the ones that disallowed their applications on the app store, so Apple says "We want to deal with only one entity, and entity that owns all the rights to the program. That GPL license just causes us grief. If you have the right to relicense it, then we can do business, otherwise we can't."

Re:someone, please explain this to me

[PhilHibbs]

And by "If you want us to distribute our software", I should have written "If you want us to distribute your software".

Re:someone, please explain this to me

[fractoid]

Whether or not they need DRM for free apps, free (as in open source) apps can still generate a revenue stream. They are providing a distribution network for the app as a service and may charge to cover the costs of that distribution. I have a feeling that may restrict them to being 'non profit' (ie. only covering their costs) but if so, maybe it's time that clause was changed to "you may charge to cover distribution and a fair profit margin on top of that."

Re:someone, please explain this to me

[Daniel Phillips]

You seem to be forgetting precisely why Apple does it too. Its because the authors of GPL software went after them.

So you get busted for jaywalking. Are you now going to stop walking on the streets for fear of getting busted again?

Re:someone, please explain this to me

[Rockoon]

But why doesnt the author simply re-license it as something other than GPLv3 for the App Stores version?

Light bulb! Its because he doesnt own all the copyrights. Thats the nature of GPL, after all. One person building on another, with no individual having any rights to change the terms of the license. The person submitting the App can show that he is claiming full ownership by simply changing the license. If they can't do that, then why does Apple or Microsoft want to deal with them?

Re:someone, please explain this to me

[Rockoon]

No, but I am more inclined to break the law for minor gains than Apple is. There is no shortage of non-GPL apps on their store.

Re:someone, please explain this to me

[icebraining]

Oddly enough there are a lot of Fans of Open Source who still dislike GPL.

How is that odd? They dislike it because their {Apache, BSD} licensed code can be distributed in a GPL licensed application, but they can't use such derivatives without changing the license of their own projects.

Now very different from how some Linux & GPL fans dislike the CDDL because it prevents ZFS from being included in the Linux kernel (intentionally, according to Danese Cooper).

Re:someone, please explain this to me

[Sique]

I just had to reject some 3rd party tools because it was GPL. Because by using it would force us to make our program GPL, and oddly enough we want to get paychecks and our business model is creating new software and selling it.

You just showed us, that you did not unterstand the GPL.
Usage of a GPLed tool doesn't make the result being under GPL.
Using GPLed code, copying it and modifying it does.
So either you were looking for code you could compile into your program, or you were looking for code you could modify to be part of your program, or you were looking for a library you could link your program to.

Those are the only cases where the resulting program has to be under GPL too.

Re:someone, please explain this to me

[mysidia]

But why doesnt the author simply re-license it as something other than GPLv3 for the App Stores version?

Because he doesn't want to? Because it's still possible for a distributor and a recipient of the APP to further redistribute and still comply with the GPL, as long as GPL-compliant access to the source code is provided through some method?

Microsoft is basically a third party here. They are neither a licensee nor a licensor of the software. They are a vendor who performs some important tasks required by the APP creator to redistribute their software.

Re:someone, please explain this to me

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a bit extreme to deprive iPhone users like me of VLC in some lame attempt to spite Steve Jobs.

Re:someone, please explain this to me

[Shin-LaC]

The flap over VLC was because another developer ported the code and put it in the app store.

Well, it's not that simple. By the terms of the GPL, anyone has the right to port the code, even if the original developers object. The issue was that distributing an application with DRM, even if for free, puts you outside the GPL, and thus at the mercy of any of the copyright holders to charge you with copyright infringement. In this case, there was one core VLC developer (and Nokia employee, lol) who really wanted VLC pulled from the App Store, and neither Apple nor the other developers felt like going to court over it, so they had to pull the app.

Re:someone, please explain this to me

[gnasher719]

Disagree. This simple and reasonable freedom must be upheld. The Developers are right to prevent Apple from distributing the results of their hard work if Jobs wants to impose unreasonable restrictions on freedom. So now VLC benefits the Android community and not Apple. There's going to be more of that.

The purpose of the GPL license is that anyone receiving the software can get the source code, can modify the source code, can use it wherever they like, and that if someone else wants a copy they can get it as well. The actual terms are slightly different, but what I wrote is the purpose. On Apple's App Store, we have exactly the opposite of the Tivo situation: On the Tivo, you had all the rights of the GPL 2.2 license, but then it turned out you couldn't run the code. With the App Store, it is argued that you don't have all the rights that the GPL license gives you (and Apple's attitude is: If you don't want your app in the App Store, go f*** yourself), but anyone downloading an app can actually do everything that the GPL wants them to be able to do. Complaining that you can't give me a copy of the software when I can just download it myself for free is plain idiotic.

Re:someone, please explain this to me

[initdeep]

They aren't doing it to spite Jobs.
They are doing it to prevent the license they released their code under from being changed and co-opted illegally.

Don't like it?
You do have options.
Just not the easy "i want it my way" option that co-opts the license.

Re:someone, please explain this to me

[initdeep]

There are a lot of free Apps that have extensive revenue streams for both the developer and Apple.
option 1: Develop free version that has limited functionality and offer in App upgrade to paid version with full functionality. Both Apple and developer get a cut of all upgrades.
Option 2: Develop free version that is Ad supported utilizing Apples iAd service. Every use of app makes money for both developer and Apple.
Option 3: Offer free version of App that has ability to purchase "stuff" in App. This is allowed within the context of Apples agreement and again, both developer and Apple will make money off of this. The Kindle, Sony Reader, and other eReader apps are/will be an example fo this. The apps are free, purchase of the books in App will net Apple 30% of the purchase price.

Re:someone, please explain this to me

[VGPowerlord]

I just had to reject some 3rd party tools because it was GPL. Because by using it would force us to make our program GPL, and oddly enough we want to get paychecks and our business model is creating new software and selling it.

You just showed us, that you did not unterstand the GPL.
Usage of a GPLed tool doesn't make the result being under GPL.
Using GPLed code, copying it and modifying it does.
So either you were looking for code you could compile into your program, or you were looking for code you could modify to be part of your program, or you were looking for a library you could link your program to.

Those are the only cases where the resulting program has to be under GPL too.

It really depends on if, by tools, he just meant tools, or if he also included libraries to interface with said tools... or just meant libraries to begin with.

If what he meant includes libraries at all, the GP would be correct, unless said libraries were LGPL.

Re:someone, please explain this to me

[Sique]

In all those cases he planned to include at least a part or a derivative of the original work into his distribution, and thus was bound by the licenses that come with the work. Nothing to see here.
If he was planning to use the tools to create the work, but was not planning to distribute the tools themselves (or a part or a derivative of it), then the question of licensing does not occur, as the Paragraph 2 (Basic Permissions) of the GPLv3 explicitely states: " This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the unmodified Program. The output from running a covered work is covered by this License only if the output, given its content, constitutes a covered work."

Re:someone, please explain this to me

[BitZtream]

It doesn't require that it is 'freely provided'. It simply requires it to be available. You are in fact able to charge any fee you like for distributing the source.

Re:someone, please explain this to me

[BitZtream]

Now very different from how some Linux & GPL fans dislike the CDDL because it prevents ZFS from being included in the Linux kernel (intentionally, according to Danese Cooper).

Actually, its GPL that prevents it. Yes, CDDL was designed that way, but it is a restriction in GPL that prevents it, not a restricting in CDDL. CDDL just took advantage of one of the obvious (to those outside the cult) dumbshit things in the GPL license to ensure it doesn't get mixed in with it.

Its pretty much the exact same thing. Its neat that you try to blame it on someone else, but GPL is what is preventing it, not the other way around.

Re:someone, please explain this to me

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Look at the trouble Apple had posting stuff like VLC into the App Store and then had it removed via a lawsuit. Can you host Open-sourced apps if the store adds DRM to them or doesn't bundle the code in with the app?

Yes, as long as you make the source freely and easily available; and make sure the customer knows how to get it.

Re:someone, please explain this to me

[petermgreen]

---- begin quote From GPLv2

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

        a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
        b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
        c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.

If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place counts as distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the object code.

-------- end quote from GPLv2

Seems pretty clear to me that if you aren't distributing the source at the same time the binaries you have to provide the offer to supply a copy (for 4b or 4c) or the access to copy (for the exception given in unnumbered paragraph at the end) upfront, not only when asked. It is not clear on what counts as the "same place".

GPLv3 is similar except it provides clarification on what exactly counts as the same place and is explicit that the access to copy the source code must be at no extra charge.

Re:someone, please explain this to me

[Chuck_McDevitt]

Because Microsoft, as the distributor, would need to make the source code available, and they have no ability to insure this.

Re:someone, please explain this to me

[Rockoon]

Because he doesn't want to?

Thats just not good enough. Its an excuse to moan about Apple/Microsoft, rather than an excuse not to do business with them.

The author could make the source available as GPL without distributing it through an app store as GPL-licensed. Thats all there is to it. Not wanting to is the same as not wanting to sell your application on the app store. The author losing NOTHING by using a separate license for the app store distribution. Refusing to do so it cry-baby shit, unless of course the person doesnt have the rights to do it.. in which case they also do not have the rights to sell other peoples GPLv3 works on a locked down system.

Microsoft is basically a third party here.

This has nothing to do with the party-status of Apple/Microsoft. The GPLv3 is most definitely not compatible with a locked down ecosystem. Either waive the GPLv3 license from the app stores distribution (if you have the rights to do so) or dont cry about it (because you dont have the right as defined by the license of the code portions that arent yours)

Its as if you think you get to take from the GPL without honoring the full terms of the license yourself while calling Apple/Microsoft evil because they wont allow you to violate the license terms you specified.

Here's an idea.. honor the fucking license and don't do business with Microsoft or Apple, or don't use the license. If you can't avoid using the license, its because its not your fucking work.

Re:someone, please explain this to me

[nschubach]

This is Microsoft we are talking about... you may have been right on the first post. ;)

Re:someone, please explain this to me

[h4rr4r]

I think they only dislike it as it was intentional. I can understand why Sun did that, and in a world with no software patents I would have no problem with it.

Re:someone, please explain this to me

[h4rr4r]

I suggest you get your money back you spent on VLC.

You are not being deprived of anything, you selected a device that will not let you install your own software then you expect apple to give you free stuff. This is madness.

Re:someone, please explain this to me

[atisss]

There is GPL software with dual licenses, for example Digium owns full copyright on Asterisk, so they are both selling it for commercial use as well as distributing under GPL. They would have no problem licensing it for app store.

The point is that all the contributors have to sign and grant permission to Digium for re-licensing purposes.

Re:someone, please explain this to me

[toriver]

... in which case the VLC port could be distributed in source to other iOS developers, to build at their leisure and put on their devices...

Re:someone, please explain this to me

[AmbushBug]

As has been pointed out in many comments above, you do not have to distribute the source code with the binaries! Just put it up on your website. Microsoft doesn't have to do anything to support this.

Re:someone, please explain this to me

[squallbsr]

It isn't the source code redistribution or availability that is the problem with GPL on an app store.

From GPLv2:
You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form...

The app stores do not allow you to copy and distribute the Program in executable form, since they are wrapped up in DRM layers and I would bet there are also license verbiage that says you are not allowed to copy the apps downloaded from the app store. It is very easy to provide the distribution of source code for an app on the app store, you just point to a file on the internet, a phone number to call or an address to write to asking for the source.

Re:someone, please explain this to me

[zeroshade]

Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code.

It seems as long as the developer provided the information as to the location for access and microsoft allows developers to comment and display descriptions (which could contain a link to the source code) then they're all good.

Re:someone, please explain this to me

[petermgreen]

Notice the strings attatched to that option. In particular the fact it only applies to offers made in accordance with section 2B and that it only applies to noncommercial distribution. IANAL buy I don't think providing a link back to the developers site would satisfy 2B, it may satisfy 2C depending on the exact defintion of same place.

Re:someone, please explain this to me

[Brian Feldman]

and in the case of the "real world" you don't know if any of those are the actual case, or if in fact the poster does not understand how GPL tools work. Bundling the GPL software tools unmodified is certainly allowed, as long as you retain the original source code associated with those binaries to satisfy the GPL's requirements for being able to provide that on demand (in the case where the ORIGINAL source code for the GPL project used is no longer available, that is)

Re:someone, please explain this to me

[Dynedain]

I didn't say they have to distribute with the binaries, I said they have to provide access, which is what you described. They don't want to deal with complying or enforcing this condition of the GPL.

Imagine if a rogue publisher packaged up a GPL project, got it listed on the MS Marketplace, and didn't provide access to the source (it's happened with other online distributors). Because the GPL requires that the distributor comply with the terms, MS is liable for the actions of the rogue developer, even though they had no direct control over his actions.

The GPL is different from most EULAs and the BSD/MIT licenses in that it makes requirements on distributors, not just the users or those that want to monkey around with the source.

MS is covering their asses here because they don't want to do code reviews and license audits of every app submitted to them. That's not an unreasonable position to take, and is the exact same thing Apple did over VLC for these exact reasons.

Re:someone, please explain this to me

[BitZtream]

Interestingly enough, though, another person could conceivably download that code and make changes to it and then claim that Apple is violating the gpl

No, you can't. The changed code is not on the app store, so the author of the new code has no claim to whats on the app store, nor does the author of the changed code have any right to say how the original code is used/distributed, how the author chooses to license it or anything else about it. GPL does not give you the right to tell someone else what to do with their code, it only allows you to redistribute, change, and use code that has been given to you. Nothing more, it is not all inclusive. You still don't get to tell someone else what to do.

You aren't entitled to anything, stop acting like you are.

Re:someone, please explain this to me

[icebraining]

My understanding was that the CDDL was designed to be Linux incompatible, and the GPL was simply the license it used.

Yes, CDDL was designed that way, but it is a restriction in GPL that prevents it, not a restricting in CDDL.

Isn't the article 3.4 of the CDDL imposing a restriction on such mix?

And you have every right to dislike the GPL, but calling it a cult is rather childish.

Re:someone, please explain this to me

[Darinbob]

Yes, you can redistribute GPLd executables without providing source code, as long as you also provide the original offer to supply the source code.

Ie, Bob gives me an executable of Emacs along with the GPL license and an offer to supply the source code if I ask. If I give Charley the same executable/license and also pass along the same offer from Bob, then I don't ever have to supply source code to Charley. The only time I would have to is if I take the source code and make my own modifications and pass along a different executable.

However if I charge a fee for distributing Bob's executable then I'm going to have to provide the source code. Which is one of the sticking points for Microsoft I presume. (this is a bit iffy though, not sure if just saying "go to Bob's web site" is enough, or what happens to your liability if Bob shuts down his web site and takes a vow of silence).

Re:someone, please explain this to me

[WorBlux]

require open source apps to include a file called package-source.tar.gz. Problem solved.

Re:someone, please explain this to me

[MikeBabcock]

There's a reason "sale of stolen goods" is illegal. The "i'm just a third party" excuse doesn't work.

There are exceptions for ISPs in Copyright law, but those are specific and on common carrier grounds. Microsoft is not one. Since Microsoft vettes the software they permit into their store, they lose common carrier status, they become a re-distributor of the work themselves, and they're held to the GPL.

IANAL.

Re:someone, please explain this to me

[MikeBabcock]

Microsoft is incapable of running an FTP server with a "go here to check for source code" link?

Its good enough for Dell, Intel, DLink, etc. ...

Re:someone, please explain this to me

[petermgreen]

"it may satisfy 2C depending on the exact defintion of same place"
That should have said it may satisfy the unnumbered paragraph at the end.

Re:someone, please explain this to me

[Dynedain]

One that's integrated with the store, only allows access to the people who have purchased, and only to the items they have purchased? That's a bit more complex than a simple FTP server.

And, they don't want to be responsible for hosting that stuff. If they take on that responsibility, they also must take on some kind of safeguards to protect them against the rogue developer I mentioned. That requires code and license auditing and other kinds of overhead and review which involve costly labor and management. Lawyers to read the fine print of every license submitted to them, additional servers in the data center (plus all the management and oversight that involves), account tracking, reps to deal with the developers when there's a difference of opinion, developers to review code submissions, etc. etc.

I doubt the potential financial gains offsets the costs.

Re:someone, please explain this to me

[mysidia]

There's a reason "sale of stolen goods" is illegal. The "i'm just a third party" excuse doesn't work.

If that were true, all the pawn store owners in town would be in jail, and eBay would be among the web sites shut down by the feds for facilitating trafficking in stolen goods.

You're talking about people aiding and abetting a criminal act, which is an entirely different story.

If you are a content delivery network, and you allow people to engage your services to distribute their content you are not distributing their content

Your agreement with them can also include a requirement that they actually have the right to distribute the content.

If they cannot, you as service provider are protected by the DMCA safe harbor, unless your company has employees knowing that certain content a customer is distributing is illegal for them to redistribute.

Re:someone, please explain this to me

[Chuck_McDevitt]

Not so simple. If someone uploads an app, and it turns out to be missing the source, or the .tar.gz is garbage or unrelated to the app, Microsoft is still liable. Legal issues are nasty for this.

Re:someone, please explain this to me

[WorBlux]

When has FOSS enforcement ever been nasty? I don't think anyones ever gone for statutory damages, or even for damages, but it's almost always settled informally with distribution being stopped, or the problem being fixed. Nobody has lost serious dough to a GPL licenses unless they were being bull-nosed about it. IF they are extremely worried they could set up something where a person wanted to put an app into the store would pay the FSF 50-100 dollars to verify compliance.

Re:someone, please explain this to me

[MikeBabcock]

I think you'll find I covered your points in my statement, and it remains true. There is a difference between an ISP (who is exempt under the DMCA) and an actual distributor (who is not).

PS a quick Wikipedia result on pawn brokers for you:

The pawnbroker assumes the risk that an item purchased was actually stolen property. However, laws exist in many jurisdictions that protect both the community at large and the brokers from unknowingly engaging in criminal activity(buying and selling stolen goods, also known as "fencing"). These laws often require the pawnbroker to establish positive identification of the seller through photo identification (such as a driver's license or government-issued identity document), as well as a holding period placed on an item purchased by a pawnbroker (to allow for local law enforcement authorities to track down stolen items).

Feel free to tell me how Microsoft would feel about doing the same for software that may or may contain Copyrighted portions they don't have the right to redistribute.

Re:someone, please explain this to me

[MikeBabcock]

One that's integrated with the store, only allows access to the people who have purchased, and only to the items they have purchased? That's a bit more complex than a simple FTP server.

Why is any of that required?

Hypothetically: "Software may contain GPL or other open source materials. Source code available at ftp://ftp.microsoft.com/oss/."

Then require authors to upload related source code with their software when they choose an open source license in the store, and Microsoft dumps the source in that folder. So simple.

Incorrect.

[gcnaddict]

Microsoft banned the GPL, not open source overall.

It's standard operating procedure for many companies to prohibit licenses which propagate themselves. Licenses such as BSD and Creative Commons are not prohibited.

Re:Incorrect.

[Anonymous Coward]

The GPL do not propagate, as long as you use it as a proprietary software, which means you don't use the source at all.

Re:Incorrect.

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft banned the GPL, not open source overall.

It's standard operating procedure for many companies to prohibit licenses which propagate themselves. Licenses such as BSD and Creative Commons are not prohibited.

The GPL is the most common open source license. So maybe they didnt exclude all of the licenses but the effect is far reaching, its use is in perhaps 80-90% of all open source software applications. Even those applications that have a different license bay be GPL compatible and contain GPL code. Firefox is an example, Im sure others could name BSD and Creative Commons applications that include GPL code.

Re:Incorrect.

[xaxa]

Microsoft banned the GPL, not open source overall.

No, Microsoft banned all open source:

“Excluded License” means any license requiring, as a condition of use, modification and/or distribution of the software subject to the license, that the software or other software combined and/or distributed with it be (i) disclosed or distributed in source code form; (ii) licensed for the purpose of making derivative works; or (iii) redistributable at no charge.

GPLv3 is just given as an example.

Re:Incorrect.

[ewieling]

Does not sound like the BSD or MIT license would be covered by this.

Re:Incorrect.

[klapaucjusz]

Microsoft banned the GPL, not open source overall.

No, Microsoft banned all open source:

It would appear that Microsoft banned all copyleft licenses, notably all versions of the (L)GPL. It did not ban non-copyleft Free Software licenses, such as BSD or MIT/X11.

Re:Incorrect.

[Anonymous Coward]

It sounds like the BSD license would be just fine, unless I'm missing something.

Re:Incorrect.

[LWATCDR]

I wonder why no one has produced or if they have publicized Synaptic for Windows.
Of course there is already an app store for Windows. Steam! Maybe Valve would like to open it up to none game apps. "If they have not already". They could even open it up for FOSS programs. It might even offer a source of revenue up for the projects them. I would be glad to pay say $1.99 for Gimp on Windows, or LibreOffice, or any number of other FOSS programs I use on Windows.
Truth is that I don't use windows much at home anymore but I always thought that a good app store combined with a good repository like system could work really well for Windows and even Linux. Selling FOSS software is completely approved of in the GPL and an easy way to buy it may actually encourage people to pay for it and encourage people to write it.

Re:Incorrect.

[mister_playboy]

its use is in perhaps 80-90% of all open source software applications.

That number seems too high to me... any source for that claim?

Wikipedia has a few numbers:
As of August 2007, the GPL accounted for nearly 65% of the 43,442 free software projects listed on Freshmeat, and as of January 2006, about 68% of the projects listed on SourceForge.net. Similarly, a 2001 survey of Red Hat Linux 7.1 found that 50% of the source code was licensed under the GPL and a 1997 survey of MetaLab, then the largest free software archive, showed that the GPL accounted for about half of the software licensed therein.

Re:Incorrect.

[xaxa]

Microsoft banned the GPL, not open source overall.

No, Microsoft banned all open source:

It would appear that Microsoft banned all copyleft licenses, notably all versions of the (L)GPL. It did not ban non-copyleft Free Software licenses, such as BSD or MIT/X11.

Sorry, I should be more careful with my language...

Re:Incorrect.

[Dunbal]

Imagine if Microsoft wrote a EULA prohibiting the Blue Screen of Death (BSD)! Oh, wait...

Re:Incorrect.

[Anonymous Coward]

They banned any licence which would require Microsoft, as a condition of distributing the application binaries through the marketplace, to also make available the source code for redistribution.

This doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

Re:Incorrect.

[maitai]

My guess is that including GPL'd software in their store would require Microsoft to make the source code available (since Microsoft would be the entity distributing the binary, they would be required to distribute the source code to said binary also). The BSD license does not have that requirement.

Re:Incorrect.

[somersault]

Selling FOSS software is completely approved of in the GPL and an easy way to buy it may actually encourage people to pay for it and encourage people to write it.

What guarantee do you have that the software is going to the people who wrote it though? Anyone is allowed to sell GPLed code.. and I don't see every single person that's ever contributed a patch to GIMP, LibreOffice etc getting recompensed for their work (plus many of them obviously don't require, and possibly don't even want such compensation).

Re:Incorrect.

[molo]

This also excludes licenses published by Microsoft, such as the Microsoft Reciprocal License (MS-RL), which is approved as an Open Source license by OSI and a Free Software license by FSF (although incompatible with the GPL).

-molo

Re:Incorrect.

[canajin56]

Excluded License” means any license requiring, as a condition of use, modification and/or distribution of the software subject to the license, that the software or other software combined and/or distributed with it be (i) disclosed or distributed in source code form; (ii) licensed for the purpose of making derivative works; or (iii) redistributable at no charge. Excluded Licenses include, but are not limited to the GPLv3 Licenses. For the purpose of this definition, “GPLv3 Licenses” means the GNU General Public License version 3, the GNU Affero General Public License version 3, the GNU Lesser General Public License version 3, and any equivalents to the foregoing.

Pay attention to the part I bolded. That's the opposite of your claim, isn't it? You said it's limited to GPLv3, and Microsoft specifically says it isn't. Anyway, BSD isn't an Open Source license, it's a Free Software license. BSD is allowed because all you have to do is keep the copyright notice at the top. You don't have to allow others to redistribute it. Creative Commons licenses are not allowed because they all allow redistribution. But, you can always use a CC license (except non-commercial if you are selling it, obviously) as long as you strip the license off of it, which you can do if it isn't a Share-Alike license. But technically that makes you wrong. Because you are still forbidden from using a Creative Commons license on your art, your music, and your user manual. You can use CC licensed stuff, but you must strip the license first.

Any Open Source license, however, is forbidden. Because, look at the 3 requirements of the Microsoft license: First, no redistirbution allowed. Second, source code may not be disclosed. Third, modification is not allowed. Look at the first 3 requirements to call something OSS (with capital letters). First, redistribution allowed. Second, source code must be included with distribution. Third, modifications must be allowed. Microsoft specifically forbids anything that meets even one of the three most fundamental aspects of being Open Source.

Re:Incorrect.

[Creepy]

The real target seems to be GPLv3, but the problem is the legalese is terrible, and the inclusion of an "or" instead of an "and" I would argue means each of these is mutually exclusive, which is much worse - it bans all free software, anything available in source form (even if dual-licensed), or, say, commercial game engines (which violate ii). Even if read as an "and" it still forbids all downloadable free libraries or plugins* where the source is available that have any license whatsoever.

The terms for exclusion:
(i) disclosed or distributed in source code form;
(ii) licensed for the purpose of making derivative works; or
(iii) redistributable at no charge.

* speaking of plugins, they are not considered GPL-able software despite many of them existing with GPL licenses - I suggested adding it during v3 ratification, but they did not feel there was a need (there are several clauses that make them not applicable), so if you write GPL plugins, I suggest moving to another license because the one you're using is not valid.

Re:Incorrect.

[Seakip18]

To me, this sounds like MS has no f'ing clue what they are doing as a whole. They're pushing open source via MPL in other areas with codeplex such as MVC.

Then crap like this happens. I gotta imagine that there are software folks at MS wondering why they still work there.

Re:Incorrect.

[Anonymous Coward]

GPL usage is even lower once you look at libraries only. It's almost meaningless to look at applications because there's so much crap.

Re:Incorrect.

[Deathlizard]

I also find it hard to believe that they would exclude their own open source licenses on their own platform.

Microsoft Public License (Ms-PL)
Microsoft Reciprocal License

Considering that Microsoft is more anti-copyleft than anti-open source, I would have to agree that the language is specifically against copyleft licenses.

Re:Incorrect.

[shentino]

Is it legal? yes, barring anti-trust implications.

Is it a dick move? You bet.

Re:Incorrect.

[Anonymous Coward]

you can give the source in LIBRE do whatfuckingever form though.

if hardcore open source people would stop looking for PERSONAL GAIN and FAME for every fart they make, they'd have achieved so much more. just don't attach any license to it and underline the parts that were hard to make - WRITE A BOOK about how to do your software. that's how things used to roll!

Re:Incorrect.

[Compholio]

Does not sound like the BSD or MIT license would be covered by this.

There's an "or" in the list of "things that make a license excluded, one of those items is:

(ii) licensed for the purpose of making derivative works

I don't know about you, but that sounds to me like all the OSS licenses, including BSD and MIT, are covered. If you want to put up software that is licensed in any way to allow for modification and redistribution then they're not going to let you.

Re:Incorrect.

[Anonymous Coward]

Plenty of open source software is currently in their marketplace. They are not banning all Open Source. They are banning the ones that have requirements that would make it impossible for Microsoft to maintain a closed marketplace if they allowed them in.

All they are trying to do is have a closed single marketplace. There are plenty of open source licenses that are still allowed under these restrictions. There are plenty of frameworks being used in these applications that are open source.

Re:Incorrect.

[grahamm]

BSD licensed software would be banned under the "iii) redistributable at no charge." clause. While BSD (as with GPL) does not mandate that the software be redistributable at no charge, someone receiving a BSD licensed work is at liberty to redistribute it free of charge.

Re:Incorrect.

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft banned the GPL, not open source overall.

No, Microsoft banned all open source:

any license requiring [...] source code form [...] for the purpose of making derivative works [...] at no charge.

GPLv3 is just given as an example.

Open source does not mean what you think it means. Go research this further.
Example: I like open source, but I dislike the GPL (though I will of course defend your right to use it).

Re:Incorrect.

[Anonymous Coward]

or (iii) redistributable at no charge.

Sounds like that covers BSD, at least.

Re:Incorrect.

[sqlrob]

The license allows that, it doesn't require it. There's was (still is?) a lot of BSD code in Windows.

Re:Incorrect.

[Sique]

The part you are missing is (ii): licensed for the purpose of making derivative works

Which covers BSD.

Re:Incorrect.

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.arktronic.com/cms/blog-entries/2011-02-17/relax-microsoft-has-not-banned-open-source-from-marketplace

Re:Incorrect.

[maxume]

You hopped, skipped and jumped over the "requiring".

Re:Incorrect.

[GodWasAnAlien]

"prohibit licenses which propagate themselves"

This is a common myth that companies and people have.

An open source license does not propagate itself more than a closed source license.

If a closed source license says do not distribute source, and you add your code to it, what is the restriction of the combined code?
You cannot distribute it. Oh no, it propagated. It's viral!

With any software license you have agreed to, you do assume you are free to do whatever you want with it?
You read the license, and follow them in order use the source legally.

Re:Incorrect.

[ChrisMounce]

* speaking of plugins, they are not considered GPL-able software despite many of them existing with GPL licenses - I suggested adding it during v3 ratification, but they did not feel there was a need (there are several clauses that make them not applicable), so if you write GPL plugins, I suggest moving to another license because the one you're using is not valid.

Could you explain this further? I'm not sure if you're saying that licensing a plugin under the GPL is (1) a legal mess, (2) a potential legal mess, (3) an impossibility,or (4) something else entirely.

Re:Incorrect.

[tm2b]

Wrong. BSD is not "Free Software," but it is "Open Source.". Free Software is a very specific term that RMS invented specifically to differentiate GPL from BSD and to highlight his philosophical differences with the latter, while the term Open Source was invented to encompass both BSD and GPL (and a range of other licenses).

http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd

http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical

Re:Incorrect.

[Anonymous Coward]

"The GPL do not propagate, as long as you use it as a proprietary software, which means you don't use the source at all." And how "free" is that? The GPL is full of constraints. So in the world of the "free", the GPL is not as "free" as others licenses fitting in somewhere between truly free and totally not free. No, GPL advocates need to realize they are not king of "freedom" at all. If you set something free, you have to accept you might not like what is done with that free gift, IMHO.

Re:Incorrect.

[Anonymous Coward]

“Excluded License” means any license requiring, as a condition of use, modification and/or distribution of the software subject to the license,

But the GPL (either version) does not require anything as a condition of use of the software. In fact, you don't have to accept the GPL to use the software at all; you only have to accept it to distribute it or create derivative works.

Microsoft is being disingenious here on top of everything else.

Re:Incorrect.

[Anonymous Coward]

What about (large portions) of the internet? There is quite a bit of Open Source/LGPL software powering the internet. So, these companies are going offline?

Re:Incorrect.

[BitZtream]

Which covers BSD.

Which would cover the license to any library used in software, essentially meaning no one could possibly pull in Windows Phone libraries since their sole purpose is to provide a foundation for derivative works. So if you read that the way you want to read it, you can't write an app for WP7 at all.

It would also prevent you from using pretty much any MS library anyway since most of them have some form of BSD code in them somewhere.

Your reading comprehension skills suck.

Re:Incorrect.

[not already in use]

No, Microsoft banned all open source:

Wrong. They banned any license that would place responsibility on Microsoft to distribute the source for 3rd party apps. In typical slashdot fashion, they take a completely reasonable clause and turn it into a war on open source. You can license your app under anything that wouldn't require Microsoft to distribute the source. Apple does the same exact thing.

Sorry to rain on your outrage.

Re:Incorrect.

[BitZtream]

Anyway, BSD isn't an Open Source license, it's a Free Software license. BSD is allowed because all you have to do is keep the copyright notice at the top.

Then your definition of open source is clearly wrong. Better grab a dictionary and possibly a cluepon, maybe visit the FSF website to get an education.

Re:Incorrect.

[BitZtream]

This is a common myth that companies and people have.

True, its just GPL that acts like a virus.

If a closed source license says do not distribute source, and you add your code to it, what is the restriction of the combined code?
You cannot distribute it. Oh no, it propagated. It's viral!

Funny, I distribute several libraries under closed source terms ... they do nothing of the kind. You are more than welcome to redistribute the source to my libraries with your project ... assuming the person you're distributing too has a license as well. GPL more or less requires you to change your license to GPL to be compatible with it. No closed source licenses that have ever seen have that restriction, its simply not profitable.

You're making up things and situations that simply don't exist in order to argue a point that isn't in contention by even anyone with a clue, including the guys who wrote it.

Re:Incorrect.

[Kjella]

You omitted the "license requires" part, which makes it quite different. The source code of a BSD app may be disclosed, but it's not required by the BSD license. While open source is typically redistributed at no cost, it's not a requirement of the license.

So there's no problem with BSD apps or freeware. The only one with teeth is (ii), which bans all libraries, engines and copyleft licenses but for an end user store only copyleft is really relevant. So it's basically down to (L)GPL, CDDL and maybe a few more that are banned.

* speaking of plugins, they are not considered GPL-able software despite many of them existing with GPL licenses - I suggested adding it during v3 ratification, but they did not feel there was a need (there are several clauses that make them not applicable), so if you write GPL plugins, I suggest moving to another license because the one you're using is not valid.

Bullshit. Worst case you've created an impossible situation where you can't legally use the plug-in, but the license on the source itself is as valid as any other. If I take any source from your plugin to use in my completely unrelated project, the GPL applies. The FSF also has several questions in the FAQ about this, so I don't know where you ever got your ideas from.

Re:Incorrect.

[LWATCDR]

Well one solution would be only to allow FOSS programs to charge that have a foundation like OpenBSD, Mozilla, and so on. They would then could use the money how they see fit.
Of course since it is FOSS I am sure that it will also be available for free as well so paying for it would be an option.

Re:Incorrect.

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft banned the GPL, not open source overall.

No, Microsoft banned all open source:

“Excluded License” means any license requiring, as a condition of use, modification and/or distribution of the software subject to the license, that the software or other software combined and/or distributed with it be (i) disclosed or distributed in source code form; (ii) licensed for the purpose of making derivative works; or (iii) redistributable at no charge.

That doesn't ban all open source. It only bans open source that requires that derivative works disclose their source code or require it to be for free. The BSD license doesn't have either of these restrictions, so it is compatible with this.

I don't understand why companies worry about the GPL. It is pretty trivial to avoid disclosing your source code under the GPL. It works like this:

Step 1: Create an organization. Let's call it Earth.
Step 2: Require people join your organization in order to access your software market.
Step 3: Have your organization download the source code for some GPL v2 licensed product.
Step 4: Modify it to your hearts content.
Step 5: Sell your new version, but only within your organization (which is everyone using your market). The GPL does not require you to disclose your source code. Because you are only using it within your organization, the software is not being distributed to a third party. Alternatively, sell a license key that allows access to your new features, but give the program itself away for free (but only within your organization). See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InternalDistribution
Step 6: Profit

Re:Incorrect.

[david_thornley]

Check the frippin' Gnu site. There's a list of Free Software license, and BSD without advertising clause is on it. In the list, there's discussion about copylefts and GPL compatibility, but no implication that a license can't be Free without being a copyleft. "Copyleft" is the only very specific term RMS invented (or at least popularized) to differentiate GPL and BSD.

Stallman has, in his published writings, no problems with the BSD license. He prefers GPL in general, because it ensured that derivative works stayed Free. The GPL FAQ in at least two questions recommends using something like the BSD license rather than the GPL.

Re:Incorrect.

[Chuck_McDevitt]

No. You can distribute BSD apps without source, and no requirement to make the app you build "licensed for the purpose of derivitive works"

Re:Incorrect.

[TheNinjaroach]

No, the GPL does not propagate as long as you aren't redistributing the software to anyone else.

Modify the source all you want, just don't deliver it in any shape or form to a third party.

Re:Incorrect.

[gh]

If it was prohibiting all open source it would also prohibit Microsoft's own open source licenses.

Case in point... Apps for Microsoft's app store are primarily written using Silverlight. On Microsoft's codeplex site, there are toolkits for both Silverlight and WP7 that most developers take advantage of. Those toolkits and libraries use either Microsoft's open source licenses or other comparable licenses like BSD and MIT licenses. This requirement would effectively block a large majority of the apps already in the app store.

In other words, Microsoft is targeting licenses like GPL v3 and not every open source license.

Re:Incorrect.

[jo_ham]

So how does that apply to the BSD licence?

Re:Incorrect.

[Anonymous Coward]

Read the TOS, MicroSoft banned all open source. Condition (ii) of the Excluded License. "(ii) licensed for the purpose of making derivative works;".

What is the point of open sourcing software other than allow people to make derivative works from it?

Re:Incorrect.

[tm2b]

No, that it a white-washing of the history. Stallman did (and probably still does privately, but I haven't talked to him privately for nearly 20 years) have problems with the BSD license. I have heard him, in person, go on and on about how he believes that it is wrong for companies to be able to provide software without giving programmers the ability to modify it, and the story of how he was inspired by his frustration with being unable to fix a print driver - and invented "Free Software" in the sense of programmer "freedom" to make those modifications and specifically railed aganst the fact that companies need not include source with BSD-licensed software (SunOS and Ultrix were prime examples back then).

He has softened his (and the FSF's) stance since for tactical reasons and focused his ire elsewhere, but that is the genesis. It is really funny what revisions of history one hears as time passes, but those of us who were in the BSD camp all those years ago can not fail to remember what actually happened.

Re:Incorrect.

[El_Muerte_TDS]

Creative Commons is not a license.

Re:Incorrect.

[Anonymous Coward]

"... assuming the person you're distributing too has a license as well."

This is more than an assumption, right? It's a requirement mandated by your license.
This is a requirement you place on receiver of the code. That requirement is propagated to any derivation of the code.

This same is true with GPL.

If someone had published code (under some open license, or with no stated license), and wanted to incorporate your code,
your license would more or less require them to change their license to be compatible with your license. (and stop publishing the result)

Your license propagates closed code. The GPL propagates open code.

Re:Incorrect.

[Anonymous Coward]

Legally, a piece of GPL software requires any plugins to be GPL, and likewise any GPL-licensed plugin can only be used with GPL software.

If you don't like this, that's what the LGPL is for. If you want to write a plugin for a closed-source program, and use GPL code in that plugin, you can't.

Re:Incorrect.

[Antimatter3009]

I think you missed the key phrase: "as a condition of use, modification and/or distribution of the software subject to the license". The GPL requires those things as a condition of distribution. The BSD license allows those things, but does not require them, and so would be allowed. I mean, seems to me that it has to be interpreted that way cause otherwise (iii) pretty much bans any free (as in beer) software.

Re:Incorrect.

[Jonner]

According to the article, the ban specifically mentions GPLv3 and LGPLv3 while not specifically mentioning earlier versions of those same licenses. I'm not sure what you mean by "licenses which propagate themselves" but I don't see how GPLv2 would differ from GPLv3 in that respect.

If by "licenses which propagate themselves" you mean Copyleft then this prohibition clearly has nothing to do with that. All versions of the GNU GPL are copyleft, as are at least two of Microsoft's own and Share-alike creative commons ones.

Re:Incorrect.

[orient]

BSD does not require the disclosure of the source as a condition of use => BSD is not excluded.

Re:Incorrect.

[squallbsr]

The GPL doesn't propagate as long as you don't distribute the program. It doesn't have anything to do with using it like proprietary software. If somebody can download your program, you have to honor the GPL.

Re:Incorrect.

[harryjohnston]

Nope. Software distributed in binary form whose source includes BSD-licensed source code is not required to be licensed for the purpose of making derivative works.

The BSD license only affects the source code, not the compiled binary.

Re:Incorrect.

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, yeah, that's sorta the point of the GPL. "Plugins" and "libraries" are basically the same thing. It's not a bug, it's a feature.

Re:Incorrect.

[sjames]

So none of those nasty viral proprietary licenses that require all derived works to be licensed in a manner no less restrictive than their own?

Re:Incorrect.

[Carewolf]

Funny, I distribute several libraries under closed source terms

Soooo..... I am free to relicense your libraries under any terms I want. I don't have to obey by your license, and I don't need to pay you??

That is very kind of you, but that isn't what we called closed software. Closed software is just as viral or more so than the GPL. You just don't think about it about, because you want the nice GPL things to be free for you to use as you please without paying the developers.

Re:Incorrect.

[Brian Feldman]

You hopped, skipped and jumped over the "requiring".

A thousand times, this.

Re:Incorrect.

[cbhacking]

Ms-RL is actually a copyleft license. It would appear to fall under this restriction. Ms-PL is probably fine, as are the MIT and BSD licenses.

Re:Incorrect.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know. I could see clause (ii), "licensed for the purpose of making derivative works", fitting the MIT/X11 and BSD licenses. They're designed to allow the recipient to do what they want, within reason, including making derivative works. At least, for packages that include the source in them. Does the Market Place block any application that includes source code, regardless of license?

It's plain to see why they don't want the (A/L)GPLv3, because the distributor grants patent indemnification. Microsoft would never do that, especially for things relating to Linux, as it would destroy their "Linux violates our patents!" claims.

Though I suppose if you want to get technical, the clauses don't necessarily apply to the LGPL. As long as LGPL code is not modified, it does not need to be distributed with source, and being distributed as binary only, it isn't for the purpose of making derivative works (any more than commercial closed source engines, anyway), nor is it required to be free. It does, however, still grant patent indemnification with v3.

Re:Incorrect.

[AvitarX]

Is this based on the combined/library thign? Meaning even lgpl works?

Just asking because I've not heard this before, but it makes sense.

What would the result be if I distribute someone else's gpl plugin? I suppose I'd be violating their copyright, which would mean they could sue me. Ineresting.

Re:Incorrect.

[BitZtream]

means any license requiring, as a condition of use,

Way to read, ignoring the 'requiring, as a condition of use,

and treating it as if it meant 'allowed'.

You suck at reading, as do all the idiots who modded you up.

Re:Incorrect.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you're reading it wrong. An application is excluded if its use or distribution, either alone or with other software, requires any of (i-iii).

For example, the BSD license allows (i-iii), but does not require its users/distributors to do any of these. However, the GPL requires all of (i-iii) for distributors (but not users), so it is banned.

The LGPL may also be banned, because IIRC it requires the library's object code (but not the linked application) to be redistributable. Furthermore, under some circumstances it requires that the user be allowed to install a modified version of the library, but I'm not sure if those circumstances apply here.

I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice.

Re:Incorrect.

[Darinbob]

Every single one of those three terms should have a "require" in front of it. As long as an open source license does not require any of those terms then it would be compatible. Ie, "require redistributable at no charge" doesn't even block GPL.

Re:Incorrect.

[shutdown -p now]

MS-RL is a copyleft license, so it is "like GPL" (difference being that it's applied on a per-file basis). From your link:

Reciprocal Grants- For any file you distribute that contains code from the software (in source code or binary format), you must provide recipients the source code to that file along with a copy of this license, which license will govern that file.

which would run afoul of EULA requirements for WP Marketplace.

Re:Incorrect.

[shutdown -p now]

You are misreading the wording. It bans licenses which require any of those three points for derived works, not applications to which these points would apply. Specifically:

“Excluded License” means any license requiring as a condition of use, modification and/or distribution ... that the software or other software combined and/or distributed with it be:

and then the points that you have listed follow.

Re:Incorrect.

[Sun]

It did not ban non-copyleft Free Software licenses, such as BSD or MIT/X11.

I thought so too, at first, but then I thought about it again.

They DID ban BSD and MIT licenses. You can still use code you received under the MIT license, but you will need to relicense it (which you are allowed to do) in order to get it into the store.

Shachar

Re:Incorrect.

[MikeBabcock]

The term is being incorrectly used. I'll use 'infect' rather than propagate for a minute ... people refer to the GPL "infecting" other software without realizing that you have to break the law for this to happen.

That is to say, what right do you have to use my source code that I have Copyright to in your works? None. Oh but look, I licensed it under the GPLv2, which means you can now freely use it so long as you also honour that license. If you don't want to "infect" your software with the GPL, write it yourself or arrange private licenses to the code from the authors of that code.

I fail to understand why any third party believes they have the right to steal someone else's source code without honouring their conditions.

Re:Incorrect.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is part of the FSF's disingenuous efforts to rebrand "open source" to mean "Free Software". Regardless of how you feel about Free Software, it's a very, very different thing from open source and FSF have long tried to conflate and intertwine the two. They want to give the impression that the only way to do open source is to play with their ball, and developers of say BSD are irrelevant.

As an open source developer who does not believe in the "Free Software" movement, I don't appreciate this.

Re:Incorrect.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not all OSS requires you to provide your source code when you distribute it. GPL is a 'copyleft' license and this is the thing about then that causes it to be termed 'viral'. While the GPL doesn't explicitly (clearly) state that software is considered a derivative if you link to GPL software the FSF does explain that is the case.

So stay away from GPL-type software unless your are sure that's really what you want.

Actually, it's about GPL3

[iznogud]

... and not about the open source in general

Re:Actually, it's about GPL3

[canajin56]

Wrong. See here for details. Any Open Source (with capital letters) license is forbidden, as is Creative Commons on your art, music, or even documentation.

Re:Actually, it's about GPL3

[shutdown -p now]

Still wrong. It's about any copyleft license (anything that requires source code to be provided for redistribution or derived works). It also bans CC-BY-NC and other similar licenses prohibiting commercial use (i.e. redistribution for money). Non-copyleft FOSS is not included.

At that point it becomes obvious that the restrictions are on licenses which would legally require Microsoft to do something extra (e.g. provide source code) for applications that it redistributes.

Misleading Article

[kwenf]

Only GPL was banned because of the ToS which is forbidden under the GPL. Same thing happened with Apple's AppStore.

Re:Misleading Article

[dave024]

It sounds like the license writers should come up with a license that is accepted in more distribution channels.

Re:Misleading Article

[jedidiah]

Why would they? That's not their intention.

If that was their intent, then they would not have bothered with the GPL to begin with.

This raises the same issues as it does with Apple including the banning of useful apps that normal users actually tend to download as well as other useful things like media plugins.

Re:Misleading Article

[Anonymous Coward]

But that would not guarantee user freedom, which is what the GPL is about.

Re:Misleading Article

[MontyApollo]

So has the "ire of the open source community" been raised (prior to this submission), or was that a lie too?

Re:Misleading Article

[Anonymous Coward]

Sound like you should go fuck yourself with you xbox controller dildo.

Re:Misleading Article

[Anonymous Coward]

That would defy the purpose of gplv3, particularly regarding the patent clauses.

The gpl was never designed to be microsoft-friendy, you could even argue that gplv3 was designed to prevent microsoft and simular companies to take advantage of open source -- Ofcourse they dont like it.

Re:Misleading Article

[Anonymous Coward]

Like the BSD license?

Re:Misleading Article

[betterunixthanunix]

Why? This is exactly what the GPL is supposed to do, and nobody ever claimed otherwise. The GPL is meant to give free software licenses teeth, it is not just about gaining as many users as is possible.

Re:Misleading Article

[beelsebob]

Except that the intent of the GPL is to restrict your freedom in a way that forces you to not restrict other people's freedom, except in a way that forces them to not restr.....

GPL is not an open license – if you want an open license, try BSD.

Re:Misleading Article

[Anonymous Coward]

Author assumes correctly that he is a substantial portion of the OSS community and is angry. *zing*

Re:Misleading Article

[Anonymous Coward]

Because if there's one thing Microsoft cares about, it's license openness.

Re:Misleading Article

[PhilHibbs]

Indeed, the whole point of the GPL is to protect the user's right to fix their software. Closed ecosystems with locked devices are fundamentally incompatible with this goal, so it's no surprise that the App Store and Windows Market exclude the GPL, since the GPL already excludes the App Store and Windows Market.

Re:Misleading Article

[robmv]

Wrong, they gave one example but not the only one

Excluded Licenses include, but are not limited to the GPLv3 Licenses

Re:Misleading Article

[Anonymous Coward]

RMS momentarily choked on the foot scab he was munching on, but otherwise, no.

Re:Misleading Article

[canajin56]

Misleading post. Any Open Source license is forbidden.

Re:Misleading Article

[Anonymous Coward]

So make an alternate source - a paid for app that manages free apps and is itself closed-source. Is this prevented by the license? Will it make money? Ultimately thats what this is about - its not a war on open source, and if it is its a terrible move with no foresight or planning involved. It strikes me as a move to not waste their money supporting things people can find for free elsewhere - bandwidth may not cost much, but Microsoft keeps it's business and charity separate, as they should to maintain the success in both they have had.

Re:Misleading Article

[dave024]

Then what's the point of this article? If software was never intended for this type of market, why are people surprised that their software is not allowed in this market?

Re:Misleading Article

[Anonymous Coward]

I find that difficult to believe, I'm sure it was actually a louse from his beard.

Re:Misleading Article

[elrous0]

Wait...they make an xbox controller dildo?!? Oh, happy days!

Re:Misleading Article

[moonbender]

Open, free, it's all just mincing words. BSD licenses work one way, GPL works another; different people can have a different point of view about which one works better in certain circumstances. Endless debates about which one-word-category describes them more accurately just cloud the issues.

Re:Misleading Article

[man_of_mr_e]

Funny, but you forgot the rest of it:

“Excluded License” means any license requiring, as a condition of use, modification and/or distribution of the software subject to the license, that the software or other software combined and/or distributed with it be (i) disclosed or distributed in source code form; (ii) licensed for the purpose of making derivative works; or (iii) redistributable at no charge.

Which is basically any GPL license, and several others, not every open source license. The BSD license has no requirements to do anything with it, nor does the X11 license. It's only licenses that require you to do things as part of the right to redistribute. Microsoft doesn't want to accept those requirements, therefore by law, they are not allowed to distribute such programs.

Re:Misleading Article

[robmv]

Where did I say "every open source license"?

Wrong, they gave one example but not the only one

I was just replying to

Only GPL was banned

Go and tell everything you wrote to the submitter and the poster, I never said that

Re:Misleading Article

[drinkypoo]

GPL is not an open license â" if you want an open license, try BSD.

False. Even the OSI will tell you (I hope) that the GPL is an Open Source license in addition to being a Free Software license. You can be Open without being Free, though you cannot be truly Free without being Open. Open means interoperable via published specification; Open Source means that the code is published. Free means that it cannot be closed, although it can be hidden.

GPL is not an attribution-only license. If you want an attribution-only license, try BSD. Even BSD is self-perpetuating, so that's not strictly true either. However, the damage BSD can do to your project is limited to comment cruft.

Re:Misleading Article

[icebraining]

Is this prevented by the license?

Maybe not directly, but "Microsoft has no obligation to submit any Application you submit".

And I'll doubt they'll allow competing app stores using such loopholes.

Re:Misleading Article

[gnasher719]

Indeed, the whole point of the GPL is to protect the user's right to fix their software. Closed ecosystems with locked devices are fundamentally incompatible with this goal, so it's no surprise that the App Store and Windows Market exclude the GPL, since the GPL already excludes the App Store and Windows Market.

The App Store most definitely doesn't exclude GPL licensed applications. The App Store terms say quite clearly that any license agreement is not between Apple and customer, but between the people creating the application and the customer. However, it has happened that a copyright holder, who was not one of the people creating the application, threatened to sue Apple, so Apple removed the application.

The App Store terms do however make it impossible to distribute GPL licensed apps and charge money, because their terms say that whatever money is paid is paid for the license. And you are not allowed to charge for the GPL license. You can charge as much as you like for the software, you can charge cost for the source code, but you can't charge for the license.

Re:Misleading Article

[beelsebob]

Open means interoperable via published specification

Indeed, and GPLed code is not interoperable, because it provides some pretty strict restrictions on what you can interoperate with.

Re:Misleading Article

[Anonymous Coward]

Misleading post. They aren't

Re:Misleading Article

[drinkypoo]

Indeed, and GPLed code is not interoperable

Understanding interoperability? You fail it.

Re:Misleading Article

[BitZtream]

Then what's the point of this article?

A bunch of GPL fanyboys are pissed off that the license worked as intended and they were too stupid to realize this when they jumped on the fanboy wagon?

Re:Misleading Article

[uigrad_2000]

And don't forget that VLC was removed from the iPhone app store for the same reasons.

I'm not really sure how this should work. Should everyone be allowed to upload "Tux Racer"? Should it be limited only to the original author? Should the person that ports it over be allowed to add ads for revenue for his work in porting the game?

I doubt that either Apple or MS want to ban free software. But allowing anyone to port open source over and upload it for profit (ads) just seems dangerous, legally.

Re:Misleading Article

[jo_ham]

Ah, so now the definition of "Open" is twisted yet again to fall on the side opposite MS/Apple/Sony. How convenient.

So, the GPLv3 is restrictive by design but still open.

H.264 is restricted by patents and royalties but it not an open standard in the eyes of the FSF and co, somehow.

Re:Misleading Article

[BitZtream]

Even BSD is self-perpetuating, so that's not strictly true either.

Wrong. 100%.

The BSD license requires copyright notices remain intact, thats it. You can relicense the code under any other license as long as you leave the copyright notice, not the license. It isn't self perpetuating considering you can take BSD code, relicense it as GPL and remove all reference to the BSD license except the copyright notice ... which is not license related anyway.

Re:Misleading Article

[BitZtream]

No, its not, only licenses that have clauses relating to distribution. But hey, reading comprehension is hard and its easy to act like MS is the evil bad dude, why let a little thing like the truth or accuracy stand in your way.

Re:Misleading Article

[gnasher719]

I doubt that either Apple or MS want to ban free software. But allowing anyone to port open source over and upload it for profit (ads) just seems dangerous, legally.

One thing that you can _not_ do is put GPL'd code on the Apple App Store, charge money, and conform to the GPL license. The reason: The App Store terms say clearly that any payment is _for the license_ and not for the software. And the GPL allows charging for software, but doesn't allow charging for the license.

Re:Misleading Article

[drinkypoo]

Ah, so now the definition of "Open" is twisted yet again to fall on the side opposite MS/Apple/Sony. How convenient.

uh no, I have been quite consistent

A "nasty suprise" ?

[o'reor]

but hides a nasty surprise for those who support open source ideals.

It may be nasty all right, but it's certainly not a surprise, just Microsoft business as usual.

Re:A "nasty suprise" ?

[PhilHibbs]

It's just GNU philosophy as usual, as well. The GPL is opposed to the whole locked-down philosophy of the App Store and Windows Market, so this is certainly not a surprise to me. It's like the USA banning the Communist Party. Sure, it's a breach of freedom, but an entirely expected and understandable one. And I'm sorry for bringing communism into it, I know the GPL isn't a commie plot, but it's too easy analogy to pass over.

Re:A "nasty suprise" ?

[BitZtream]

And I'm sorry for bringing communism into it, I know the GPL isn't a commie plot

Actually, GPL pretty much fits the definition of communism.

There is nothing wrong with communism, never has been, never will be. The reason America 'hates communism' is because some other countries that we were 'against' used it as the basis for their government, so that gave us something to hate ... communism.

Pretty much every government service offered falls under a communist/socialist style, not capitalism.

The only problem with communism is when those in power use it with corruption to maintain/increase power and luxuries for themselves. The idea isn't flawed, but its practically impossible to implement. To implement it properly would require that everyone participating in it was actually dedicated to the common good, but that isn't the way people are hardwired. We're hardwired, thanks to evolution, to try to take control over others and be the leader, so communism simply can't work due to human instinct.

Communism can't work until humans hit some sort of civilization changing realization like in StarTrek where people stop caring about money and power and start working towards something greater for the good of all. Socialism is in the same boat for the same reason. Both great ideas that simply can't be implemented by humans.

LAME

[Veritas1980]

Its this kind of underhanded BS that destroys healthy competition in the free market.

Wow, whoops. meant GPLv3

[gcnaddict]

Welcome to the world of tired mornings, I guess.

The actual terms

[xaxa]

See the PDF.

  1.l

“Excluded License” means any license requiring, as a condition of use, modification and/or distribution of the software subject to the license, that the software or other software combined and/or distributed with it be (i) disclosed or distributed in source code form; (ii) licensed for the purpose of making derivative works; or (iii) redistributable at no charge. Excluded Licenses include, but are not limited to the GPLv3 Licenses. For the purpose of this definition, “GPLv3 Licenses” means the GNU General Public License version 3, the GNU Affero General Public License version 3, the GNU Lesser General Public License version 3, and any equivalents to the foregoing.

5.e.

The Application must not include software, documentation, or other materials that, in whole or in part, are governed by or subject to an Excluded License, or that would otherwise cause the Application to be subject to the terms of an Excluded License.

Re:The actual terms

[Anonymous Coward]

"or other software.." Sounds like this covers libraries as well? That means no LGPL licensed libraries, like SDL or SFML. The "redistributable at no charge" part also seems to cover other Open Source licenses like BSD, meaning zlib and libpng and the like are also out. I can't see this going over well.

Re:The actual terms

[Jonner]

Reading the actual terms (which were not in the article), it seems that what MS is specifically trying to do is to disallow any copyleft software in their marketplace, including that released under their own copyleft licenses. This isn't really surprising, since they've benefited from permissively-licensed Free Software for decades. It's only licenses that require them to share alike that they don't like.

No, it doesn't prohibit open-source...

[Anonymous Coward]

The clause is intended to prohibit VIRAL licenses that would require the source code of the entire project to be disclosed (including Microsoft's own contributions to the code). Projects that are open-source but are licensed under a less prohibitive license would pass muster.

Re:No, it doesn't prohibit open-source...

[serviscope_minor]

The clause is intended to prohibit VIRAL licenses

That's abosoloute rot. It is copyright LAW, not any license which is viral. Anything touched in infected as a derivative work. Almost no licenses, open or otherwise put no restrictions on distribution (exceptions being BSD, X11 and WTFPL).

  A few licenses (and certainly none of Microsoft's) ive that right.

that would require the source code of the entire project to be disclosed (including Microsoft's own contributions to the code).

What fool modded this as informative. Copyright simply doesn't work that way. Third party A cannot force you to open your code simply by messing around with third party B's code.

The worst case is that third party A simply has no right to distribute B's code.

Hahahahaha !! ok fire justifications ...

[unity100]

when microsoft has made various moves towards 'open source friendly' stance in the past 2 years, some of us have always been wary and critical of their moves, saying that microsoft was not a bunch to be trusted, based on their record. there were others who were slapping us with labels ranging from zealots to morons this, that. with numerous justifications.

so, then. what's the justification this time ? im sure microsoft is doing this in good faith, and what they are doing is open source friendly.

Re:Hahahahaha !! ok fire justifications ...

[Runaway1956]

I don't believe there is a justification. IMO, MS is a two-faced, underhanded opponent of open source. Sorry, I'm not going to waste time digging into the rationale - this is just something that I expect from Microsoft. What I see, is, Microsoft has bowed - at least temporarily - to the inevitability of open source software being in competition with their offerings. But, they want to steer the path that open source takes, as much as possible. Hence, the agreements with SUSE, and the restriction on the GPLv3 in the app store. They hope to scare people away from releasing their code under GPLv3. Again, I'm not up on the nuances of the various licenses - there is something about v3 that they can't live with, but v2 is bearable to them. I say, "screw them". If you're going to release something to the public, there are other avenues to release. Go to Debian, or Ubuntu, or whatever - there are plenty of communities that are freindly to GPLvx

Re:Hahahahaha !! ok fire justifications ...

[amliebsch]

The justification is very obvious: Microsoft doesn't want to violate the GPL. Since it feels that it cannot redistribute software in a manner that would comply with the GPL, it will not redistribute that software. This is how the GPL is *supposed* to work.

Re:Hahahahaha !! ok fire justifications ...

[Archangel Michael]

This is how it is supposed to work, just not as it was intended to work. The difference is that GPL3 is a VERY restrictive license, one that will prevent, through legal licensing restrictions, distributions via anything resembling an "app store". Don't blame Apple or Microsoft on this one, blame that idiots who didn't see this coming when they wrote the GPL3.

Apple and Microsoft are protecting themselves from the anti-corporate measures in the GPL3 (and similar) licenses. Which is exactly what the GPL3 was supposed to do. The authors of GPL3 just didn't see this contingency. They have no right to complain.

Re:Hahahahaha !! ok fire justifications ...

[man_of_mr_e]

Actually, if you bothered to actually read the terms of service, you would realize that yes. Microsoft *IS* doing this in good faith. Licenses like the GPL make certain legal demands upon those that distribute the code. Microsoft does not wish to take on those responsibilities (namely that they have to be responsible for providing source code). There is also a more important legal risk. If any of those open source programs use technology covered by one of the patents Microsoft owns, then if they distributed the app they would be implicitly granting a royalty free, redistributabel patent license.

Because Microsoft doesn't want to do those things, they are doing what is required of them by the license, and electing to not distribute the code.

So are you really going to be bitter that microsoft is choosing to HONOR the terms of the licensing? Seriously?

Re:Hahahahaha !! ok fire justifications ...

[adamfranco]

This is how it is supposed to work, just not as it was intended to work. The difference is that GPL3 is a VERY restrictive license, one that will prevent, through legal licensing restrictions, distributions via anything resembling an "app store".

Exactly what part of the GPLv3 prevents distribution via an "app store"? The only thing I can find is a restriction on only allowing distribution via an app-store. If MS and/or Apple allow 'side-loading' of applications, then as far as I can tell they would be perfectly in the clear with regard to the GPLv3 (as the Android store is). Its not the concept of the app-store, but enforcing a single app-store as the only way to distribute any applications that is the problem.

Re:Hahahahaha !! ok fire justifications ...

[Draek]

Sorry, but no. Microsoft, like most other companies, will sometimes do things that are in our benefit and sometimes will do things that are not, and treating their beneficial actions with complete paranoia is as stupid as treating these kind of developments with open approval so no, you're still a nutjob, sorry.

Re:Hahahahaha !! ok fire justifications ...

[amliebsch]

I think everybody understood that I meant they cannot, within the context of their business plan and product vision.

Re:Hahahahaha !! ok fire justifications ...

[Rich0]

How do you figure?

All they have to do is have a website where the source can be downloaded. MS can put in the agreement that to distribute software with an extended license that an author has to provide a link to the source with the download. Boom - no more problems.

Oh, and if the license has the anti-Tivo clause then they just need to ensure that users have the ability to install their own software (unsigned, or with a known key). Then that clause doesn't kick in either.

It really isn't a big deal. The GPL is doing what it was intended to do - keep people from distributing binaries without making source available, or utilizing free software to enhance a platform that users can't modify. Some people just don't like that ideal and thus call it a design flaw. It is in fact a design that meets the requirements, and it is the requirements that people really have a problem with.

Re:Hahahahaha !! ok fire justifications ...

[Archangel Michael]

How about this passage ... for starts ..

12. No Surrender of Others' Freedom.

If conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot convey a covered work so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not convey it at all. For example, if you agree to terms that obligate you to collect a royalty for further conveying from those to whom you convey the Program, the only way you could satisfy both those terms and this License would be to refrain entirely from conveying the Program.

The Application of this license supersedes all other licenses or other general conditions outlined by terms of service of an Ap Store. It is sad when I get modded troll by people who don't know the GPL3. I'm a huge fan of GPL2, but I don't like the GPL3 at all.

And this is where you tell me I am wrong about the meaning of the clause.

Re:Hahahahaha !! ok fire justifications ...

[Archangel Michael]

See Section 12. GPL3 claims superiority to all other agreements/licenses and if you don't agree, you can't distribute the code. It is fairly simple problem that is built into the GPL3. And I wouldn't distribute any GPL3 code for this reason alone. I much prefer GPL2 or Berkeley licenses.

GPL3 is the very thing that Open Source Community advocates against. Use GPL2 instead.

Re:Hahahahaha !! ok fire justifications ...

[BitZtream]

Exactly what part of the GPLv3 prevents distribution via an "app store"?

Off the top of my head? Putting it on their store makes them a distributor, distribution requires that you grant the person you're giving the software too the rights to use the software regardless of any infringment it may do on YOUR patents.

So ... if you are infringing on an MS patent, and they distribute it, then realize you're using their patents, they can't do anything about it.

At which point any intelligent company then preceeds to tell you to go fuck yourself, like Apple and Microsoft have done, to protect their own interests.

GPLv3 is very clearly and intentionally designed to fuck over anyone trying to use it in any sort of commercial setting. That was the intention from day one, no one anywhere tried to hide the fact, it was the reason that GPL was updated.

only way to distribute any applications that is the problem.

Its not really a problem for anyone but GPLv3 fanboys really. There isn't a single 'must have' GPL'd software package as 99.9% of them are just remakes of existing commercial software packages. End result? Instead of using GPL license software, people just use software under a more restrictive license since even though the license is more restrictive, it actually provides them what they want rather than requiring the user to believe in the authors idealogical bullshit.

This isn't a problem for anyone that matters, just zealots who cut off their own nose to spite their face. You got exactly what you wanted out of GPLv3, now STFU.

Re:Hahahahaha !! ok fire justifications ...

[Rich0]

I don't see how section 12 is such a big problem.

I distribute software, with source. Court tells me I can't give away the source any more for some reason, so I don't distribute the software any more. Boom - I don't violate the law. The only issue that might come up is if somebody I distributed the software to in the past asks for the source. In that case I probably refuse their request, and I doubt anybody could do anything to me about it since I am doing so in compliance with a court order. What court is going to punish you for obeying a court order? At most they might vacate the first order and then tell you to do something else in another?

Section 12 is only an issue if somebody wants to try to find some reason to redistribute GPL software without otherwise obeying the terms of the license, or using measures like patents/etc to distribute software but not allow others to do the same. The bottom line is that if you are interested in distributing encumbered technology, then you can't make any use of GPL v3 code.

The biggest problem with GPL v3 is that there is already a ton of stuff out there under GPL v2 so people don't really have to accept the new version to get things done. Maybe in 10 years choosing to not license under GPL v3 will be more painful, much like refusing to go with GPL v2 is today. Over time quite a library of code will build up on v3+ and your choice then becomes to reinvent the wheel, or comply. Either is fine with FOSS advocates.

Re:Hahahahaha !! ok fire justifications ...

[BitZtream]

It's not that they feel they are not able to comply with GPL, they don't want to.

Okay, they don't want to, that really doesn't change anything does it?

GPL places additional requirements that go against what MS wants to do, so MS is evil? Why doesn't GPL change itself to be compatible with the MS and Apple stores? OH WAIT, it did change recently ... and went the opposite direction, making it impossible to use in such environments.

I guess I'm evil because I won't let GPL software anywhere near my company. Love my FreeBSD though, and I contribute patches to several BSD licensed projects.

I will never however, redistribute or contribute to a GPL project, so I must be an evil bastard by your definition.

Re:Hahahahaha !! ok fire justifications ...

[Darinbob]

Big deal. I don't want to comply with it either, therefore I am not spending my own money to make a web site to provide you with copies of my software mods. It's just not worth the hassle to me to supply GPL software to others. And I suspect it's not worth the hassle to Microsoft (enough so that they gave their already overworked legal team the task of coming up with these restrictions).

Re:Hahahahaha !! ok fire justifications ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Practical aspects of GPL aside, it's different to portray it as "oh we couldn't comply so we are not gonna distribute GPL, sorry", when in reality its "GPL? Hell no, bugger off, we don't want to touch that shite." That's what I'm addressing.

To put it even more clearer, I'm not challenging their decision to exclude GPL software. I'm challenging the mindset which claims they couldn't include GPL software, because they could.

The rest of your post is a strawman. Albeit mostly valid, it addresses different question.

Re:Hahahahaha !! ok fire justifications ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Fair enough, as long as you say it that way, that's perfectly fine. But don't pretend you couldn't include GPL-licenced software if you wanted. Which is my point.

Re:Hahahahaha !! ok fire justifications ...

[Archangel Michael]

You missed the point. Section 12 is a superiority clause, saying that if ALL of the terms of the GPL3 cannot be superceeded by any other agreement. There is a risk involve if you want to put in any other agreement (Ap Store TOS) along side the GPL3. The simplest solution is to not allow GPL3 along side any other agreement, because the GPL3 takes precedence over the other agreements (TOS), in effect, either nullifying the TOS or breaking GPL3 compliance.

This doesn't affect the Software authors, except restrict the means of distribution of their GPL3 software. Which is fine if you want to GPL3 your works, just don't expect to be able to distribute those works in commercial stores with TOS agreements. I the sure heck wouldn't allow GPL3 on my Ap Store, not because I don't want GPL3 code, I don't want the FSF or other OSS supporters coming after me because my TOS violates the GPL3. Its not worth the potential headache.

The GPL3 is too restrictive, and isn't about Free software, it is about control and is just as insidious as any other EULA, IMHO. Use the GPL2 instead.

Re:Hahahahaha !! ok fire justifications ...

[Rich0]

Uh, why does an app store or whatever need to set up a TOS on software they distribute? Why not just distribute the software and what the user does with it is on them?

If you're afraid that they'll abuse your mobile network or whatever, you already have a remedy - you just suspend customer accounts, block traffic, or stop distributing the app - since your wireless service has its own TOS that has nothing to do with the software.

Again, I'd argue that the GPL is doing exactly what it was intended to do here. If you want to use my code in your project, then you can't place restrictions on how your users use my code (it is still my code even if you borrow some of it and add to it).

More of the Same

[Foofoobar]

For every single C*O and marketing person that stands up and says how Microsoft LOVES open source, for every time Techcrunch and Techflash spouts how Microsoft is now open source friendly, things like this continue to happen. Their excuse no doubt is that no one would be making money when an open source product can sell just as well; not everyone wants to compile the source code!!

But I suppose now I will have the 'mandated by Microsoft' attacks because I stated the obvious and get modded down. So be it. Someone has to speak up and state what everyone is thinking.

vs. App Store for GPL?

[mah!]

Can anyone explain in plain non-legalese the difference between Apple's App Store and this Windows Marketplace, in terms of open source? Does either one allow GPL applications distributed? For a fee? IANAL and AFAIK, doesn't GPL 2 allow charging for distribution of executable code, as long as the source is available somewhere? Thanks---

Re:vs. App Store for GPL?

[peteblair]

Apple's App Store does not allow GPLv3 either, without digging though I can't remember if it is just GPLv3 or GPLv2 as well. They have to do it to protect themselves from lawsuit trolls, so Microsoft isnt doing anything wrong.

Re:vs. App Store for GPL?

[adamfranco]

Apple's App Store does not allow GPLv3 either, without digging though I can't remember if it is just GPLv3 or GPLv2 as well. They have to do it to protect themselves from lawsuit trolls, so Microsoft isnt doing anything wrong.

If Apple and MS would allow installing of applications via mechanisms other than the App Store (e.g. side-loading), then there wouldn't be any conflict with the GPLv3 (which requires that recipients be able to install the software (and derivatives) without proprietary keys or distribution-control mechanisms.

This is not about lawsuit trolls, but about keeping an iron grip on the distribution channel.

Re:vs. App Store for GPL?

[BitZtream]

This is not about lawsuit trolls, but about keeping an iron grip on the distribution channel.

Actually, this is more along the lines of you wanting to tell MS how to run their business, which you don't get to do.

You don't get to tell someone how to run their business, even if its against your idealogical view of the world. You get the choice to not use what they offer, but you don't get to define what they offer.

The only problem here is that people don't like the way MS (and Apple) have decided to run their stores, and the fact that the GPLv3 was intentionally designed to not be allowed in these situations. So go piss up a rope and see how far that gets you.

If you think GPLv3 is so great, you don't get to bitch about things like this when GPLv3 does exactly what it was intended to do. Its not MS or Apples problem, its yours.

Re:vs. App Store for GPL?

[gnasher719]

Can anyone explain in plain non-legalese the difference between Apple's App Store and this Windows Marketplace, in terms of open source? Does either one allow GPL applications distributed? For a fee? IANAL and AFAIK, doesn't GPL 2 allow charging for distribution of executable code, as long as the source is available somewhere? Thanks---

Windows Marketplace says "no GPL allowed". App Store doesn't mention GPL at all. Apple says that any license agreement is between developer and end user, and Apple is just helping to put the app onto the end user's device. So if the copyright holder puts an app onto the app store with a GPL license, then Apple is fine with it, the copyright holder is obviously fine with it, so nobody who would have a right to complain is complaining, and everyone is happy.

In the case of VLC, one copyright holder was complaining. So we have the copyright holder, we have the guys who created the port to iOS, and we have Apple. The guys who wrote the port obviously believed they had the right to put it on the App Store. The copyright holder says they don't. Apple says "we don't care, you sort it out between you". So there are four possibilities: a. VLC stays off the App Store. b. The guys writing the port remove all code of the complainer. c. The guys writing the port take the complainer to court and win a judgement that putting the app on the App Store does _not_ violate the GPL. d. Complainer loses his job with Nokia, looks for a job with Apple, and therefore withdraws his complaint. Not saying anything about the likelihood of each outcome, just enumerating the possibilities.

So with Windows Marketplace the situation is: No GPL. With App Store the situation is: GPL unless someone threatens to take Apple to court. Why the difference? Two possibilities: One that Microsoft believes putting GPL'd apps on their store _will_ open them up to a lawsuit. Two that Microsoft doesn't want GPL code on their store.

Re:vs. App Store for GPL?

[DrVxD]

Does either one allow GPL applications distributed?

The Apple AppStore most certainly does - see, for example, the wonderful MobileOrg which is GPLv2 (certainly not the only example - just the first one that came to mind)

IANAL and AFAIK, doesn't GPL 2 allow charging for distribution of executable code, as long as the source is available somewhere?

All versions of the GPL allow charging for distribution - see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
In particular the bit that says: "Actually, we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can".

Thanks

You're very welcome.

Re:vs. App Store for GPL?

[JoelKatz]

"Apple says that any license agreement is between developer and end user, and Apple is just helping to put the app onto the end user's device."

This is called "distributing" and it is illegal to do without permission of the copyright holder. If you take a work that has elements that you received under any version of the GPL, you cannot authorize Apple or Microsoft to distribute those elements that you did not author. Only the GPL can do that, so Apple or Microsoft would have to comply with the GPL. They cannot make the work available to the public without obtaining the right to do that somehow. See 17 USC 106(1) and (3).

I see no issue here

[Richard_at_work]

The license specifically mentioned is the GPL, which if allowed would put the onus on Microsoft, as the distributor, to fulfill the requirements of the license even tho it was chosen by a developer. Microsoft is covering their own back here, nothing more imho - they could be up for some serious issues if they cocked up GPL compliance, so they are just not going there.

Re:I see no issue here

[i.r.id10t]

Easy enough to get around by requiring 2 apps from devs who want to use GPL stuff - the binary app, and the source app as a tarball or equivalent. Sorta like using "apt-get source packagefoo"

Re:I see no issue here

[Richard_at_work]

Microsoft would still be on the hook for identifying those apps, linking the apps and dealing with source code requests. All extra work, all with the potential for cockups. They are just avoiding the entire issue.

Re:I see no issue here

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, because MS wants to pollute marketplace with tons of useless packages just to pander to delicate sensibilities of small bunch of nerds.

Re:I see no issue here

[tuppe666]

lol yes it would be so incredibly difficult to say simply include the source at the same time. That's like unheard of!

Re:I see no issue here

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see why Microsoft would be any more liable for copyright issues as a distributor than Best Buy.

Re:I see no issue here

[zeroshade]

Wouldn't the ONLY thing they have to do is direct any requests for source to the developer who would have to respond?

Re:I see no issue here

[ogrizzo]

That's completely bogus: they would just need contributors to upload a source app, and sell it for a reasonable distribution price.

Re:I see no issue here

[man_of_mr_e]

No. Take, for instance, the case of Mepis. The author of Mepis lost a lawsuit in this regard, and was forced to provide the source code himself, not simply point upstream.

Re:I see no issue here

[man_of_mr_e]

And what if the tarball included wasn't actually the real source code? Now Microsoft would have to verify that the application shipped was actually of the compiled source code provided. Plus, they would also have to grant any patent rights the software might use, if Microsoft owned a patent covering that work.

Re:I see no issue here

[amliebsch]

You do realize there is more to the GPLv3 than the source code distribution requirement, right?

Re:I see no issue here

[Rich0]

No, all they need to do is put a field on the submission form to upload the source, or have a link to them (and just make sure the link returns something valid). They can require compliance with this in the form.

But, you ask, what keeps somebody from putting a bogus link in the form with the wrong source and getting MS in trouble. The answer is simple - the same thing that keeps somebody from uploading GPL software in the first place contrary to the legal agreement - nothing at all.

Re:I see no issue here

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

They could just as easily include in their agreement that the developer must make freely available any required source code or other files to meet the conditions of the OSS license; that the developer do so in such a way that is obvious to the customer; and that when the source code et al is no longer available, the app can no longer be sold via MS's store.

That's more expensive though, as it requires actual people to fllow up. On the other hand, I can't picture that the number of OSS apps are *that* numerous for the Win mobile platform...

Re:I see no issue here

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope it bans all open source software.

See comment http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2000384&cid=35232328 as it explains the issue much better than I could.

Re:I see no issue here

[BitZtream]

And if the contributors don't, MS is legally responsible still.

And either way, why bother? Its just easier to say no. None of their customers are going to care.

Being realistic, no GPL zealot was going to buy a MS phone anyway, so this entire article and thread are amazingly silly and just a bunch of BS name calling.

If you don't like the situation and that your favorite license is constantly cutting itself out of potential places then I suggest you pick a new license to fanboy for, this one is working exactly as intended even if you don't want to admit to it.

Re:I see no issue here

[cbhacking]

It actually applies to any copyleft license (GPLvAnything being the most common of these). The reasoning is probably exactly as you say.

Validation of GPLv3

[drinkypoo]

Well, now we know for sure that GPLv3 is desirable... Microsoft is against it. If only they could have taken this stance back when we were fighting over it, then we would have accepted GPLv3 without question.

Re:Validation of GPLv3

[ToasterMonkey]

Well, now we know for sure that GPLv3 is desirable... Microsoft is against it. If only they could have taken this stance back when we were fighting over it, then we would have accepted GPLv3 without question.

They are also against killing puppies, you should look into that.

Re:Validation of GPLv3

[maxume]

The surface justification here is that they don't want the obligation to distribute the source files.

Re:Validation of GPLv3

[drinkypoo]

They are also against killing puppies,

[citation needed]

Re:Validation of GPLv3

[AliasMarlowe]

Microsoft is against it.

They are also against killing puppies

Any evidence or citation for this assertion?

Re:Validation of GPLv3

[drinkypoo]

The surface justification here is that they don't want the obligation to distribute the source files.

You have that with GPLv2 also. In either case there are ways to solve this problem other than blacklisting.

Re:Validation of GPLv3

[maxume]

They specifically call out GPL3, but they also make it clear that the exclusion is not limited to GPL3 (after all, if they were using enumeration, I could sneak an app in by renaming the license...).

Re:Validation of GPLv3

[Foofoobar]

sure... here you go. [insert deity here] bless the internet.

Re:Validation of GPLv3

[drinkypoo]

Right, but they are naming the GPLv3 specifically, and not naming the GPLv2 specifically. To me that says that there is something specifically in the GPLv3 that is not in the GPLv2 to which they object. Three guesses what it has to do with, and all three had best be "patents". Microsoft is near the center of the axis of evil in the IP wars.

Re:Validation of GPLv3

[Anonymous Coward]

Well I could try emailing Steve Ballmer but that could be considered original research.

Re:Validation of GPLv3

[maxume]

Or the lawyer who wrote that part picked the most recent version of the GPL as an example, I'm not going to spend a lot of energy speculating about the motivations of a megacorp.

Of course, if it is about patents, it is a success for GPLv3, they have made a company with many software patents paranoid and defensive.

Re:Validation of GPLv3

[BitZtream]

it is a success for GPLv3, they have made a company with many software patents paranoid and defensive.

You and I have different definitions of success.

To me, successful is not limiting yourself to obscurity, which is more or less what GPLv3 does. It ensures the code isn't going to be touched with someone elses 10 foot pole when companies start getting involved.

Retarded shit like the VLC incident on the Apple store reenforce that fact. Anyone with something to lose just stays away from GPL software, the companies who adopt it are typically ones that have already lost and are struggling to come up with a survival plan.

Re:Validation of GPLv3

[maxume]

The 2 goals of the GPL are to get people to use it and to confront the people that don't.

Of course, it doesn't work very well because software is usually very cheap (relative to the value it provides) and people do not universally share Stallman's vision of a doomed future if they use a little bit of closed software today.

Re:Validation of GPLv3

[91degrees]

Indeed they do. And your rationale makes sense. It does strike me as odd that it is just this version that is explicitly mentioned. I'm sure GPL v2 is still substantially more common and I see absolutely no reason why MS didn't explicitly include v2 since they did include other GPL variants.

Re:Validation of GPLv3

[shentino]

The obligation wouldn't fall upon them. The vendor could just pack the source up into a tarball or something as part and parcel of the app download. Or, the offer to provide a download location for said source.

Unless MS itself modifies the package, they do not become a licensee of the package they are offering. They are in effect merely an e-distributor.

So the "no open source licenses" thing is a totally dick move, as such an obligation is a pile of horse shit for an excuse. Their lawyers should, and almost certainly do know better.

Re:Validation of GPLv3

[Darinbob]

That's a dog, not a puppy. Microsoft loves puppies. Until they grow up.

Re:Validation of GPLv3

[maxume]

The "no open source licenses" thing is Slashdot hyperbole, they are only excluding licenses with copyleft like terms.

And have you read the GPL? If Microsoft hosted binary code for the apps, they would be the ones distributing the software and be on the hook for providing source code (this is clear from the text of either GPL2 or GPL3, GPL2 even talks about it in terms of distribution!).

They could work to ensure that apps that use GPL (or the like) code are providing the source, but why bother doing that auditing when those apps aren't exactly going to be high revenue?

Re:Validation of GPLv3

[drinkypoo]

Here, I found some related news from 2007 which hammers home what I'm saying about Microsoft, patents, and GPLv3.

I wonder

[polyp2000]

If this is really the case ?

Having RTFA , It appears that they mention specifically the GPL. It does not however mention other Open Sources licenses.

If this is really true , then you can expect it to be quite some time before you find many software packages you would think
might appear in a short time in the market place. Emulators for example - most of the ones we all use are covered by Open Source
license - so dont expect ports of your favorite Open Source projects to appear on Windows Mobile 7. ScummVM , MAME ... forget it ...

You would be developing those from scratch - and these are projects that took years to come into fruition.

Microsoft would be making a huge mistake banning outright Open Source - and no matter how much they hate it - its an ecosystem they cannot afford to ignore - especially when they are trying to woo developers away from Android.

N.

Re:I wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

The flip side to that; they've legally given themselves an avenue to block those apps which are copy-pasted buggy reinterpretations of tutorials - licensed under the open-source model - that pollute the Android Market....

Might be good business sense; a balanced lines between Apple's nazism and Android's hackware.

Re:I wonder

[Gaygirlie]

Having RTFA , It appears that they mention specifically the GPL. It does not however mention other Open Sources licenses.

GPL is only given as an example, the actual clause would cover a lot more licenses. Not all of them though, from the wording of the clause it would seem that for example BSD license is not excluded as BSD license does not impose any extra regulations on a distributor.

If this is really true , then you can expect it to be quite some time before you find many software packages you would think
might appear in a short time in the market place. Emulators for example - most of the ones we all use are covered by Open Source
license - so dont expect ports of your favorite Open Source projects to appear on Windows Mobile 7. ScummVM , MAME ... forget it ...

It is true indeed. And you're only listing complete application suites whereas Microsoft's clause also prohibits applications from even using GPL-licensed libraries too. This has a huge impact on developers as there's plenty of popular high-quality GPL-licensed libraries in use and will mean that the developers will either have to rewrite the whole thing themselves or hire someone else to do it. This is a really bad move.

Re:I wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

Having RTFA , It appears that they mention specifically the GPL. It does not however mention other Open Sources licenses.

That's why you don't trust TFA more than TFL:

“Excluded License” means any license requiring, as a condition of use, modification and/or distribution of the software subject to the license, that the software or other software combined and/or distributed with it be (i) disclosed or distributed in source code form; (ii) licensed for the purpose of making derivative works; or (iii) redistributable at no charge. Excluded Licenses include, but are not limited to the GPLv3 Licenses. For the purpose of this definition, “GPLv3 Licenses” means the GNU General Public License version 3, the GNU Affero General Public License version 3, the GNU Lesser General Public License version 3, and any equivalents to the foregoing.

The boldfaced passages are the legal equivalent of "hooks" in a program: places where things can be added, post hoc, without breaking the contract.

Re:I wonder

[BitZtream]

there's plenty of popular high-quality GPL-licensed libraries in use

Thats not really a big issue, for any library that is sufficiently popular and common then there are alternatively licensed OSS packages that do the same thing without a viral license.

Those of us who dislike GPL and prefer BSD have simply written the libraries ourselves with a proper OSS license and just completely ignore GPL. Its far easier than worrying about meeting the demands of the cult of Stallman. Its not as if there is a GPLd library that does something entirely unique, pretty much all of it is rehashes of something that was already done under a different license. I challenge you to show me something GPL'd that is an original work, not a clear copy of someone elses previous work or idea.

Re:I wonder

[Gaygirlie]

I challenge you to show me something GPL'd that is an original work, not a clear copy of someone elses previous work or idea.

That more or less applies to EVERYTHING imaginable: it simply is more or less impossible to find anything anymore that doesn't somehow copy from someone else's work or idea, even though you are trying to imply that BSD software somehow differs in this regard from others.

Re:I wonder

[JoelKatz]

"I challenge you to show me something GPL'd that is an original work, not a clear copy of someone elses previous work or idea."

By "work", we mean the work for copyright purposes. That specifically excludes any and all ideas. You can copy someone else's idea exactly and it can still be an entirely original work for copyright purposes. Ideas cannot be protected by copyright, only by patent.

GPL != Open Source

[Anonymous Coward]

It really isn't.

Re:GPL != Open Source

[Anonymous Coward]

GPL is indeed Open Source.

It is not, however, Free Software.

Re:GPL != Open Source

[Anonymous Coward]

GPL is open source, but his point was that GPL is not *equal* to open source.

Just like a horse is an animal, but an animal is not necessary a horse.

"is" means "subset", folks!

No libraries or frameworks either

[ithyus]

“Excluded License” means any license requiring, as a condition of use, modification and/or distribution of the software subject to the license, that the software or other software combined and/or distributed with it be (i) disclosed or distributed in source code form; (ii) licensed for the purpose of making derivative works; or (iii) redistributable at no charge.

Doesn't item ii prohibit the use of DirectX, .Net and ActiveX since all of those things were designed and licensed for the sole purpose of making "derivative works"?

Re:No libraries or frameworks either

[polyp2000]

Yep

So Count out anything making use of SDL , XVid, no port of Quakes Engine ... no WinUAE

the list could go on...

N.

Re:No libraries or frameworks either

[jrumney]

DirectX, .NET and ActiveX redistributables are explicitly not licensed to downstream users for the purpose of making derivative works. Making derivative works requires the SDK, which you have to get from Microsoft and do not have the right to redistribute.

Re:No libraries or frameworks either

[Creepy]

Yes - because they used an "or" instead of an "and" it bans all free libraries including their own. It also bans commercial game engines, plug-ins, dual-licensed software where source is available under one license, any free object such as books with expired copyrights, etc.

Re:No libraries or frameworks either

[BitZtream]

No it doesn't.

It bans libraries that require you to redistribute them if you use them. It doesn't ban any library for instance that you are not allowed to redistribute outside of your app, or any library you aren't allowed to redistribute at all.

You are, for instance, not allowed to redistribute the .NET runtime or DirectX layers for Windows Phone, so therefore they are not excluded.

It bans things that require MS to redistribute something other than the app in order to comply with the license.

Re:No libraries or frameworks either

[shutdown -p now]

Doesn't item ii prohibit the use of DirectX, .Net and ActiveX since all of those things were designed and licensed for the sole purpose of making "derivative works"?

No, because the points list the requirements which the license must make in order to be considered "excluded".

In other words, if the license requires that "software subject to the license" or "other software combined and/or distributed with it" must be "licensed for the purpose of making derivative works" - then that license is "excluded".

Re:No libraries or frameworks either

[JoelKatz]

You're misreading the sentence, look closely at the "license *requiring* part". No license requires that DirectX be licensed for the purpose of making derivative works as a condition of using it. You can use DirectX without licensing anyone to make derivative works of it.

Guess again

[Stan Vassilev]

Do you intentionally post wrong information so we can rush to angrily correct you in the comments?

They ban only GPL variations and licenses like it that have *enforced* right to redistribute source. Licenses like Apache, MIT, BSD are not affected.

This is the same as Apple's App Store. The line of thought that GPL is "infectious" and represents a risk for their closed source components is well known. Right or wrong, that's their motive, and they are taking precautions to protect themselves from lawsuit trolls.

Re:Guess again

[Anonymous Coward]

Congrats, you're only the what, 20th person to make that mistake and rant at people about it.
Scroll up. It's all open source licenses.

Re:Guess again

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft is making verboten specifically those licenses ("Excluded Licenses") which put a burden on the distributor of the software. This includes some Open Source licenses, but probably also includes some that arent Open Source licenses. Period and full stop.

So GPL is out because its license puts burdens on the distributor, but BSD is in because its license does not.

The upshot of this is that a hack trying to leverage other peoples GPL-based work cannot send it towards the app store (only the 100% original authors can do that by re-licensing the distributors copy to remove the distributor burdens) but Open Source in general is not disallowed at all.

Re:Guess again

[canajin56]

Did YOU intentionally post wrong information? Apache MIT and BSD are not Open Source licenses. To be Open Source you NEED that *enforced* right to redistribute the software. If you don't have that, it isn't Open Source. Microsoft is banning that requirement, so anything that is Open Source with capitals is forbidden. Lower case open source is allowed, in that they will not send goons to rough you up if you release your source code independent of the Windows Market.

Re:Guess again

[Daniel Phillips]

The line of thought that GPL is "infectious"

Wow, a virus that only attacks evil, what a concept.

Re:Guess again

[Carewolf]

Actually it forbids any licence that *allows* the right to redistribute the source. I don't see how they could ever enforce that though, but it is what it says.

Re:Guess again

[bwcbwc]

Uh, no, they ban any license that " (i) disclosed or distributed in source code form; (ii) licensed for the purpose of making derivative works; or (iii) redistributable at no charge. Excluded Licenses include, but are not limited to the GPLv3 Licenses..."

Any CC "Share-alike" is banned by (ii) and (iii). Any CC "non-commercial" license is banned by (iii), as well as any CC license that allows derivatives is banned by (ii).

And finally, while Apache/BSD/MIT might squeak in, under (iii) a buyer couldn't redistribute the product, even though the Apache license would normally allow it. So the buyer is losing rights by going to the MS store that they would normally have for Apache based products.

Re:Guess again

[tm2b]

You keep repeating that - you are wrong. In fact, the term "Open Source" was invented to include BSD and GPL under the same general term.

http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd

http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical

Re:Guess again

[maxume]

You are misreading the terms. They ban any license that requires one of those clauses, not any license that allows one of the clauses.

Re:Guess again

[buchanmilne]

The line of thought that GPL is "infectious" and represents a risk for their closed source components is well known. Right or wrong, that's their motive, and they are taking precautions to protect themselves from lawsuit trolls.

Really? You don't think it's that they don't want users to be able to legally be able to get the same apps for free?

There are risks in distributing *any* source code you haven't adequately licensed, but it doesn't say you can't sell software which includes proprietary code you stole and don't allow redistribution of. So, I doubt this is about source code copyright compliance. It's about *money*. Surprise surprise.

“Excluded License” means any license requiring, as a condition of use, modification and/or distribution of the software subject to the license, that the software or other software combined and/or distributed with it be ... redistributable at no charge.

Well, I guess no firefox for WP7 then ... I'll stick with my N900 for now.

Re:Guess again

[BitZtream]

You can't read apparently.

“Excluded License” means any license requiring , as a condition of use,

The word used is REQUIRING, not ALLOWING.

Re:Guess again

[BitZtream]

Now back up to the words RIGHT BEFORE what you decided to quote, here I'll do it for you:

“Excluded License” means any license requiring , as a condition of use,

Nice try though, but you suck and misleading people who can actually read for themselves.

Re:Guess again

[Jonner]

It does seem that Microsoft is trying to prevent any copyleft software. This includes that under such popular licenses as the Mozilla Public License and Eclipse Public License. It would also include anything released under Microsoft's own Microsoft Public License and Microsoft Reciprocal License.

I haven't studied it carefully, but my understanding is that Apple's terms don't explicitly ban certain types of licenses but do have requirements that are incompatible with the GPL. It seems that MS is being more explicit than Apple, though the effect is quite similar.

Re:Guess again

[Carewolf]

True. The part that covers BSD. Is that BSD requires the license to be distributed with the _source_ code, and since the license text defines the license, the BSD does put requirements on the license of redestributed source-code.

I don't think MS intented the BSD or LGPLv2 to be excluded, because they used such code everywhere themselves, but BSD does put requirements on the redistribution and derived works of the software, just only on the source-code form of the software, but it is a requirement on (some forms of) redistribution. So they vague terms MS uses here does seem to forbid the BSD as well. Probably unintended though.

Re:Guess again

[BitZtream]

but it doesn't say you can't sell software which includes proprietary code you stole and don't allow redistribution of.

It doesn't have to say it, thats covered by law, not license agreements and they can't change that law regardless.

They don't need to state that you aren't allowed to kill your wife because its already illegal to kill your wife, just like it is to steal and redistribute source code you are not authorized to do so.

Re:Guess again

[shutdown -p now]

No, it doesn't. It forbids any license which requires that software, or any derived work of it, must allow the right to distribute the source.

Microsoft can choose their own policies

[LiquidCoooled]

Microsoft, like any other company are free to choose their own policies of course.
This puts the onus on the open source communities to actually show innovation and for users to speak up and expect specific apps and features.

In many environments around Open Source, companies often use the term "differentiation" to clearly mark their closed source products as superior and reason to hide away.

Is it possible for Open Source to actually differentiate?
What apps or must have features are created and exist in the Open Source world that users of Microsoft phones will need?

As a long time slashdot reader and wise community member, I hear everyday how Open Source gives us freedom, however that is not really a must-have app as most regular people would not know or care where the source came from as long as it were actively maintained and had people at the other end supporting it.

(disclaimer, I am an OSS developer working for Collabora, contracted to Nokia around MeeGo)

Re:Microsoft can choose their own policies

[tuppe666]

I loved your post so much. It must sting that you talk about differentiation when your companies phones sport a Microsoft Logo on them. Why would I care whether its an LG or Samsung or a HTC.

Re:Microsoft can choose their own policies

[Jerry]

(disclaimer, I am an OSS developer working for Collabora, contracted to Nokia around MeeGo)

IF you are an OSS developer working on MeeGo you've learned that Nokia has dumped MeeGo. Unless Intel pick up your contract you will be looking for a new job.

But, I doubt you are. A statement like "I hear everyday how Open Source gives us freedom..." is precisely how someone who is not familiar with OSS and the GPL would write about it, not understanding about the FOUR FREEDOMS.

Your post is too blasé.

Re:Microsoft can choose their own policies

[Anonymous Coward]

What apps or must have features are created and exist in the Open Source world that users of Microsoft phones will need?

Need? Well, I don't know about that. But there obviously is a demand for FOSS software, even among MS-users. Emulators, for one, and perhaps Firefox. Gimp's popular among people that can't pay the premium for photoshop. Vlc, mplayer, pidgin, vim, emacs...

I'm sure there's plenty of FOSS that even the most hardcore proprietary software users might enjoy. But apps that they need on their MS phones? You don't need any apps on your phone. You've phrased your question so to guarantee a "no" answer.

Is it possible for Open Source to actually differentiate?

Why wouldn't it be? Do you have any reason to think that foss wouldn't be able to "differentiate"? And did Glen Beck really kill that girl?

(disclaimer, I am a fat ass, typing this in my command center /mom's basement)

Open or Viral?

[tpstigers]

Is it really a problem with open licensing, or is it a problem with viral licensing?

Re:Open or Viral?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a problem with the GPL and other copyleft licenses. The GPL was written so that the distributor would be on the hook for fulfilling the requirements, regardless of whether the distributor is a developer, software company, or an online store acting on the behalf of a developer or software company. To allow software to be distributed in the various App Stores, an exception would have to be added or the GPL would have to be revised again. The latter would be preferable though, since it automatically is applied to most GPLed software and would be examined more closely for other potential problems (the GPL is long).

On the other hand, permissively licensed software, such as software licensed under the BSD license or a derivative, does not have this problem. Those licenses are generally short and don't impose all sorts of requirements for distribution. Usually, only attribution has to be included in the documentation, and that's the developer's job, not the distributor's.

Re:Open or Viral?

[The Moof]

It's neither open nor viral, but licenses that place additional requirements on distributing the software (ie, requiring the distributor make source code available such as GPL).

Re:Open or Viral?

[serviscope_minor]

or is it a problem with viral licensing?

Well it's certainly not a problem with "viral licensing". Everything else on market place will be "virally licensed". In otherwords, you try making a derivative work of a random app you downloaded and see how far you get before being sued.

Re:Open or Viral?

[tpstigers]

Umm.. that's what 'viral' means.

Huh?

[Lose]

Does that include the WTFPL?

I guess not

[Gripp]

just when i started to think that M$ was finally getting their heads out of their asses.

This is good for Android.

[miffo.swe]

This is good for Android more than its bad for Microsoft. Their goal seems to be making all apps costing money to avoid having a store like Androids where you can find both free excellent apps and very good paid apps living side by side.

Im not sure this will work out as planned because tons of developers wont help if you dont have the userbase to support them.

Re:This is good for Android.

[shutdown -p now]

There are many free apps in WP7 marketplace already. This does not restrict your ability to provide apps for free.

Furthermore, iOS is the one with the biggest app store at the moment, and they have similar restrictions on GPL in place (see: VLC ).

All open source != GPL3

[Anonymous Coward]

GPL3 is but one possible open source license and is in fact a pretty restrictive one for commercial software. I have never actually gone to the MS application store, but I could see how GPL3 requirements might not fit with MS's software distribution model.

Looks like Apache license is just fine. I'd argue GPL2 might be fine as well. If GPL3 was really equivalent to GPL2 there would be no need to even have GPL3.

So. All we know for sure is that one open source license has been banned....

I think we can move the MS threat alert back down to mostly evil.

Source code?

[ArhcAngel]

Perhaps Microsoft doesn't want to be burdened with hosting the requisite source code on their servers since they would be required to under the GPL.

Re:Source code?

[GuldKalle]

I'm thinking the same.
On one hand, it's understandable, given that they probably aren't going to make a ton of money on GPL apps anyway.
But on the other hand, WP7 is late to the smartphone game, and they are going to need all the developers, developers, developers they can get.
They are acting like they own the market (well they are used to owning the PC market).

Re:Source code?

[Daniel Phillips]

Perhaps Microsoft doesn't want to be burdened with hosting the requisite source code on their servers since they would be required to under the GPL.

As if that would be a blip in comparison to the bloat they normally serve. (How much bandwidth does the Bing background image waste?)

Re:Source code?

[man_of_mr_e]

It's unlikely to be a bandwidth issue, but rather having to validate they are always in compliance with the GPL in 100's of thousands of apps.

Re:Source code?

[Daniel Phillips]

It's unlikely to be a bandwidth issue, but rather having to validate they are always in compliance with the GPL in 100's of thousands of apps.

Right, because being in compliance with anything is antithetical to Microsoft's culture.

Re:Source code?

[Jonner]

If Microsoft would go to the trouble of writing legalese because they don't have enough hard drive space, they're in much bigger trouble than I'd imagined.

STOP IT

[Jorl17]

Stop Giving Power To These Idiots: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1999586&cid=35231854

Re:STOP IT

[Anonymous Coward]

Two lessons to be learned:

1) The context of your statement implies that the person in the linked post is the idiot. (I doubt that was purposeful as you are the poster for both)

2) I feel my initial interpretation is more accurate than the correct one.

Re:STOP IT

[Anonymous Coward]

What's funny is when you linked this, I thought you were referring to the idiot that made the comment.

Re:STOP IT

[Anonymous Coward]

You're visibly upset.

If you were really open

[Anonymous Coward]

You'd just public domain your work. There's nothing in this against that.

Real men don't use GPL anything.

Re:If you were really open

[Rockoon]

Man I 100% agree with you.

Even BSD is restrictive, and thats way more open than GPL v2/v3.

The sad fact is that BSD is losing vs GPL precisely because BSD licensed source code can be used in GPL software, but not vise-versa. That right there is proof that the GPL is anything but "open," that it is in fact "viral" as has been pointed out numerous times.

Re:If you were really open

[Daniel Phillips]

You'd just public domain your work. There's nothing in this against that.

And thereby try to gain wider distribution in return for having fewer developers join your project. Good luck coding everything yourself.

Re:If you were really open

[grahamm]

You'd just public domain your work. There's nothing in this against that..

Yes there is. A public domain work is redistributable at no cost, and therefore excluded.

Re:If you were really open

[amliebsch]

It doesn't *REQUIRE* redistribution at no cost, and therefore is NOT excluded.

Re:If you were really open

[Anonymous Coward]

I want developers with a vision, not egomaniacs who'd shy from my project based on your excuse.

Re:If you were really open

[Daniel Phillips]

I want developers with a vision, not egomaniacs who'd shy from my project based on your excuse.

Too bad for you that most developers with vision also want to uphold their right not to have their creative work taken private.

Re:If you were really open

[BitZtream]

“Excluded License” means any license requiring , as a condition of use,

If you could read, you would see that the ban is on things that REQUIRE not ALLOW.

Public domain requires absolutely nothing and allows everything. It would certainly be allowed.

Ban those who hurt you.

[Murdoch5]

There just worried that people will start seeing how much better open source is as an over all concept, so it's just better to ban it before Microsoft needs to explain why there not open source.

Get the record straight

[Anonymous Coward]

I know it is too much to expect Slashdot editors to do more than just copy & paste submissions, but for the record:

Microsoft hardly copied Apple's App Store. Windows Marketplace opened in 2004, and had digital downloads from day one. The Apple App Store opened in 2008, almost exactly four years later.

Or if you want to set the date based on just iTunes, iTunes opened in 2003. At the time, there were already dozens of downloadable music stores available on Windows. I used Rhapsody in 2001, and I believe MusicMatch started their online jukebox around 1998.

Now if you were talking about who had the first wildly successful App Store, Apple would be the one! But then I don't think you would say that Microsoft has copied them quite yet...

MS Protection; Not an open source slam

[Kurusuki]

It's not saying Open Source is banned. The idea of open source does not make something free to distribute or make derivative works. The clauses copied in other comments are simply license requirements which cannot be used in licenses intended to be used in software distributed on Microsoft's network. Think of it this way, you can open your source; you can't require source distribution in your license, you can't allow derivative works to be created of your software, and you can't allow redistribution at no cost. These are clearly protecting Microsoft's interests as a marketplace. If someone were to purchase your software off their marketplace, and the licenses allowed free redistribution, nothing would prevent that individual from then giving away the 'app' to all his or her friends for free. If it was licensed for derivative works the individual could make a minor change and freely distribute the derivative work. The source code clause has me a bit confounded, but I believe it may be to mitigate risks and liability for Microsoft.

This legalese would not limit an app author from releasing the source, on their own website for example. Lastly, remember open source does not implicitly mean free. See Unix.

Re:MS Protection; Not an open source slam

[BitZtream]

Actually, if you replaced the word 'allow' everytime you use it with 'require' then your post would actually be accurate.

“Excluded License” means any license requiring , as a condition of use,

See that word ... 'requiring' followed by 'as a condition of use'

See Unix.

The source code to UNIX is not open, never has been.

Linux != UNIX

The source code to UNIX has been available, for a fee (soemtimes free, depends on your agreement), under NDA forever, but it has never been open, which you should know after the whole SCO fiasco.

Flaming summary much?

[Anonymous Coward]

company's copy of Apple's App Store

Not much respect for Microsoft coming late to the game, but articles about BB, Android, Amazon et al. always leave out the "copy of Apple's" part.

Re:Flaming summary much?

[morgauxo]

Agreed! The "Apple's App Store" barb really added nothing to the overall point of the summary. Furthermore, it is incorrect. The AppStore is hardly an Apple invention. It is just a crappy copy of the repositories that Linux distros have been using since the late 90s. There are only three things to the app store which MIGHT be an Apple invention. Locking the user into only using the app store, using the name 'App Store' and actually charging for things in the store as opposed to being all free. I'm not sure Apple is even original on that last point, I think Lindows may have done that but I'm not sure. You can't even make the argument that Apple was the first to do this on a mobile device, OpenZaurus and later Familiar Linux did that. Those mostly ran on PDAs but I bet someone somewhere had them on a cellphone at some point. GPE did have a phone edition after all.

At least the Apple fanbois can still claim Apple invented the GUI... er.. wait... or did they Xerox it?

Re:Flaming summary much?

[drinkypoo]

"App Stores" as we know them today have been around as long as long as a web browser has been a typical feature of handsets. I would argue that any phone with a web browser and some functionality for running downloaded applications (e.g. Java MIDlets) is a "smartphone", and further that practically every phone sold today is one of those. Most of them have app stores, and most of them had them before Apple had one. They are provided as a simple web application and billing is handled via your cellphone provider. The provider is responsible for delivering compatible applications. I've played with MIDlets quite a bit on my Motorola phones, pretty much all games as practically every phone is locked down or missing some critical functionality. Motorola is very stingy in general and they often leave out important pieces of Java (like camera access) in order to drive users to more expensive phones.

Re:Flaming summary much?

[morgauxo]

I still say that the only thing that is novel about that is that the user has to pay for some things. Repositories have been around longer than smartphones and mobile interent and other than charging the user the good ones have everything you mention here. It's like an app store where everything is free. Ok, the ease of having the provider take care of all the billing is nice but not nicer than free! I would be willing to grant that billing is a novel new feature added to repositories for the smartphone market, that it is an upgrade to allow the commercial vendors to participate. That doesn't make app stores a whole new idea that Apple, or as you point out the smartphone market invented. It's just a new take on the older repository concept.

Re:Flaming summary much?

[toriver]

"Crappy copy"? Do the Linux distro repositories
- show you what the apps look like?
- allow easy search?
- make suggestions on what other apps you might like?
- tell you what apps are outdated and let you easily upgrade all with a single click?

Sour grapes do not a convincing argument make.

Re:Flaming summary much?

[drinkypoo]

Yes, and the repository is just a new take on the older "store full of boxes" concept, which is a new take on the "all my software are belong to IBM" concept. But wait, there are significant and novel differences between each of these things including an app store, which last notably provides a means to funnel payment to authors/publishers.

Re:Flaming summary much?

[morgauxo]

I agree with you that the payment option is a significant difference but I disagree that it is a novel one. People have been paying for things since before recorded history. In a sane world I don't think adding a payments system would pass the non-obvious test. Although I do realize that we do not live in a sane world. I see the addition of a payment system as an obvious side-effect of the repository model which had been developed in the free and open source world being adopted by commercial companies, not an invention.

I'm also not sure that payments in an 'app store' did or didn't hit the smartphone market first either. Lindow's "Click and Buy" did that in 2003. I don't know exactly what their arrangement was with the software authors but I'm pretty sure they didn't get to just sell copies of the product without paying the copyright holders. The money must have been funneled back somehow. Maybe some of the non-Apple smartphones running java apps already did that before "Click and Buy"? I'm not entirely sure.

"Included, but NOT LIMITED to GPL"

[mangu]

OK, it's a PDF, but it would be nice if everybody (including those who modded it "informative") tried to RTFToS (http://create.msdn.com/downloads/?id=638 see item "L")

Re:"Included, but NOT LIMITED to GPL"

[Anonymous Coward]

The example cited is GPL. Of course in their legalese, MS doesn't limit it to GPL but it doesn't specifically cite other open source licenses. You have to read and interpret what is excluded. My reading is that GPL is incompatible with the MS license but not BSD due the additional requirements imposed by GPL on modifications and distribution. IANAL. It would be nice to get an opinion by one.

Copyleft

[Per Abrahamsen]

The wording would include all strong or weak copyleft licenses, like GPL, LGPL, MPL, and QPL, but not permissive licenses like the MIT, BSD, or Apache licenses.

Re:Copyleft

[Sique]

The part you are missing is (ii): licensed for the purpose of making derivative works

Which covers BSD et. al.

Re:Copyleft

[Anonymous Coward]

The part you are missing is reading the whole fucking document instead of being a typical anti-MS cock sucking slashfag.

Re:Copyleft

[Anonymous Coward]

This! Vulgar, but true.

Perhaps "We restrict it"

[aug24]

Take a look at:

http://www.fsf.org/news/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store-gpl-enforcement

It appears the most likely reason is that they* wish to add more terms and conditions to the download, and the GPL specifically forbids it. So rather than ease their terms for GPL, they just don't play.

*they == both Apple and Microsoft, but presumably not Android Marketplace

Re:Perhaps "We restrict it"

[Carewolf]

The LGPL and BSD licenses are not incompatible with app stores, but MS has banned them all*

(*) depending on your interpretation of the words used which seems deliberately vague.

Re:Perhaps "We restrict it"

[initdeep]

which is most likely due to the assertion that those developing apps probably don't even look at the license their using and would therefore potentially cause problems, just like the VLC issue was a problem for Apple.

Rather than have to scrutinize each app that would contain Open Source code to determine which License is being used or rely on notoriously unreliable developers to follow rules on which OS licenses were acceptable, and thus open themselves to lawsuits/etc, they took the step of saying "not in our store" to prevent future legal problems.

seems harsh, but also seem rather smart.

Limiting your liability is one of the biggest issues most modern coporations face on a day to day basis.

Re:Perhaps "We restrict it"

[BitZtream]

The BSD license software can be relicensed in a way that is compatible with their requirements.

As is pretty typical, this is a GPL problem, not an OSS problem.

Re:Perhaps "We restrict it"

[aliquis]

Can you install applications from other sources than Microsofts market on WP?

Re:Perhaps "We restrict it"

[s73v3r]

Wouldn't the LGPL be incompatible if you statically linked the LGPL library in your app, which just about all mobile platforms require you to do?

Re:Perhaps "We restrict it"

[s73v3r]

I don't think so. I remember there being a "homebrew" crack in the beginning, but then MS drove a dump truck full of money up to the author's house, and it went away.

Hey, he's not made of stone!

Re:Perhaps "We restrict it"

[Schadrach]

If we here, it would have been a dump truck full of lawyers, ala Sony v geohot.

Re:Perhaps "We restrict it"

[jo_ham]

The iOS App Store is compatible with the GPLv2 and several other open source style licences, and contains a fair amount of software distributed under them.

Here's a short list (with links to source code and to iTunes store)

http://maniacdev.com/2010/06/35-open-source-iphone-app-store-apps-updated-with-10-new-apps/

The FSF can moan as much as it likes - the "disappointment" that Apple complied with their request to remove Gnu Go rather than change their licensing terms at that time was amusing. What did they expect Apple to do when they demanded it be taken down because the licence was being violated?!

FSF: Remove Gnu Go! The GPL is incompatible with your store!
Apple: ok, done.
FSF: Aww you removed it rather than change the licence!
Apple: You said remove it, so we did.
FSF: Apple hates freedom! They aren't doing what we are demanding that they do!

They fixed it in later iterations of the App Store terms though. Apple itself has no aversion to Open Source as a concept - it makes use of and contributes heavily to many open source projects, including several that it started itself and released into the wild. It's just been a tricky integration with the walled ecosystem of the App Store. It's never going to be GPLv3 compatible, but that doesn't mean it's not deliberately hostile to open source.

Re:Perhaps "We restrict it"

[Carewolf]

But they use the text: Whole application or part of application. You can not relicense anything that is not yours, you may however use BSD-licensed code it in a derived work under a different license, but then original BSD part of the larger work is technically still under BSD license.

Re:Perhaps "We restrict it"

[MaDeR]

"MS drove a dump truck full of money up to the author's house, and it went away." Seems carrot is more successful than stick, judging how other homebrew cases ended up...

Re:Perhaps "We restrict it"

[BitZtream]

The LGPL and BSD licenses are not incompatible with app stores, but MS has banned them all*

The BSD license is not incompatible and is in fact used with MANY software packages on the Apple app store. Apple is fully aware of it. I know they are, I've told them every single time I've submitted a new App.

Neither is it incompatible with the MS store for that matter, but hey, why stop spreading the FUD when you're on a roll, eh?

The only problem is with GPL and GPL-like licenses which prevent you from adding any other restrictions. This is an intentional feature of GPL.

If you don't like it, you shouldn't be using GPL.

Re:Perhaps "We restrict it"

[Anonymous Coward]

Fund Microsoft, get shafted. What's the problem?

Re:Perhaps "We restrict it"

[Darinbob]

The way I read it, the non-GPL stuff is not banned. There's nothing "Excluded" in BSD license. The original article is clearly biased towards GPL by making the broad assertion that all open source is banned.

Re:Perhaps "We restrict it"

[blarkon]

I'm sure that Long Zheng will be surprised to hear about the dump truck as he said the most he got out of it was a T-Shirt.

Re:Perhaps "We restrict it"

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be a troll.

This is a Microsoft problem.

Re:Perhaps "We restrict it"

[shutdown -p now]

The "vague words" clearly ban copyleft licenses, and BSDL isn't one.

Re:Perhaps "We restrict it"

[Anonymous Coward]

BSD = BullShiD

Re:Perhaps "We restrict it"

[MikeBabcock]

Precisely. People license software under the GPL to prevent others from having their freedoms curtailed. If you own the software, you can relicense it as something else. If you don't, you can't restrict others any more than you were restricted by the GPL.

That is to say, if Bob writes a GPL program, and Alice wants to use it to make a Windows Mobile app, but the Windows Mobile app has to have a more restrictive license attached, Alice cannot publish that app with those restrictions because the GPL forbids it.

However, if Bob's functionality were in the form of an LGPL library, Alice can link to it from a more restrictive application without problems so long as the library itself is not modified.

but hides a nasty surprise for those who support o

[ledow]

"but hides a nasty surprise for those who support open source ideals"

"Surprise" - I do not think it means what *you* think it means.

MS not allowing OpenSource stuff in some fashion? Well, pinch my nipples and send me to Alaska. I never would have guessed.

This isnt surprising, nor is it particuarly evil

[jonwil]

Basically what Microsoft is banning is code covered by licenses that contain terms that would subject Microsoft code to the license or that contain terms that are incompatible with the Microsoft Windows Phone DRM and lockdowns (i.e. any license where its a violation to distribute the software in a way that cant be copied or modified or whatever)

In simple terms it says that any code covered under a license that is incompatible with the marketplace rules is not allowed in the marketplace.

The same thing happened with a GPLv3 app in the Apple App Store, it was removed because the GPLv3 is not compatible with the App Store DRM.

The sign of evil, you got to look deeper

[SmallFurryCreature]

Evil triumphs, when good men do nothing. Note what this says, evil is not just what you do, it can also be what you don't do.

A LOT of people have been finding excuses for MS for why not to do this, basically because it would mean a little bit extra work.

Yes indeed, picking up someone who has fallen is extra work so that is a reason not to do it. But it makes you a pretty mean spirited person.

MS COULD comply and simply do a tiny bit of extra work and thereby showing it is NO longer the bitter enemy of open source that is claims not to be.

So, we got the same MS apologists claiming that since MS stated open source and the GPL are no longer its enemies who should forgive all past crimes. But the first chance MS has to go the extra mile and SHOW its changed nature, it doesn't.

And it is NOT like it is really all that hard, they could simply put in their TOS that it is up to the developer that they include the source code. Same as nobody is going to go after the Piratebay if an ISO of Ubuntu violates the GPL. There are lots of ways to work with the GPL and MS and Apple have shown their true nature by refusing to do so. Yes, it costs them a bit more. Being good often does. It is that extra step you have to take to get out of a blind person's way that show the difference between a social human being and an asshole.

So, MS still up to its old tricks (and the best trick is the trick where you do nothing and still achieve your goal). I am not surprised.

Re:The sign of evil, you got to look deeper

[Anonymous Coward]

Evil triumphs, when good men do nothing.

I don't see how this is evil. When you exagerrate like this you damage your argument and just cloud the issue with silly emotional rhetoric. Just because you don't like something, it does not make it evil - that's the difference between how children and adults looks at the world.

Re:The sign of evil, you got to look deeper

[bloodhawk]

NO tricks here, just like apples appstore the GPL is incompatible with a closed ecosystem that does not permit redistribution and hence the only thing MS can do to avoid lawsuits is not permit that sort of license just like apple.

Re:The sign of evil, you got to look deeper

[Anonymous Coward]

Note what this says, evil is not just what you do, it can also be what you don't do.

*Sigh* It doesn't say that at all. It says what it says, which is that evil triumphs when good men do nothing. Nowhere is it implied that the "good men" are in fact "evil men" because they do nothing. It specifically says they are "good men" FFS.

I laugh at your analogy. Richard Stallman is the most mean-spirited person in the world. The whole of GNU came about because he got angry at not being given something he thought he had a "right" to have and decided to dedicate his entire life to destroying the companies who wouldn't do things his way. Don't pretend it isn't true. The idealism came later, after he had time to think about how to enlist ethically naive students into his projects. GNU is little more than a religious cult. Copyleft is not required in order to pursue the technical ideals of programmers; it is an unnecessary addition, with a deep political motivation, justified with fear.

Microsoft do not have to embrace that which seeks to destroy it.

Re:The sign of evil, you got to look deeper

[elrous0]

Perhaps you should write Steve Jobs and Steve Ballmer a nasty letter.

Re:The sign of evil, you got to look deeper

[c0d3g33k]

By the same token, the absence of a moustachioed villain stroking his goatee and delivering a monolog about his plans for world conquest followed by booming out a "BWAHAHAHA!" doesn't mean something isn't evil, or not motivated by evil intent. Just because you aren't bothered by something does not make it not evil. That's the difference between how adults and insightful adults view the world.*

*(and the wise insist on a meaningful definition of 'evil' before engaging in debate. No point in arguing about something if nobody is talking about the same thing.)

Steal this film

[h00manist]

This movie had the best comments I ever saw about intellectual property. http://www.stealthisfilm.com/Part2/ Hmm right after Steve Jobs and Pablo Picasso's comment "Good artists copy, great artists steal".

standard operating procedureto ban the GPL

[doperative]

"Microsoft banned the GPL, not open source overall"

.. and the GPL isn't Open Source says MS :)

"It's standard operating procedure for many companies to prohibit licenses which propagate themselves

No it isn't, what business of Microsoft is it to decide what third parties get to distribute their own software on a so called public Marketplace ..

Re:standard operating procedureto ban the GPL

[BitZtream]

No it isn't, what business of Microsoft is it to decide what third parties get to distribute their own software on a so called public Marketplace

So let me get this straight ... Microsoft doesn't get to decide whats sold on their store? You think you can walk into Walmart and just start selling stuff that they don't want? Can someone walk into your house and just go to sleep for the night because its none of your damn business?

You made an absolutely fucking retarded statement. Its their store, they can do whatever the fuck they want to do with it. You don't get to tell them what to do in their store any more than they get to tell you what to do in your home.

It's easy to comply with the GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

It's easy to comply with the GPL. It's not easy to take GPL code and close it away. Therefore, if there IS a rationale behind blocking the GPL, it can't be complying with redistribution.

Maybe it's that they want to take your code and close it up.

Re:It's easy to comply with the GPL

[man_of_mr_e]

They *ARE* complying with the GPL. That's the point. The GPL explicitly says, that if you cannot meet the requirements the GPL requires, then you are not allowed to distribute it. They are not able to meet the requirements the GPL imposes, therefore they aren't distributing it.

Re:It's easy to comply with the GPL

[squallbsr]

The GPL goes beyond just the source code. There are clauses that prevent further restrictions on the licensed use of a program, there are licence grants that allow you to redistribute the binary form of the program (what was downloaded from the app store). You will not be able to do these things, the app store terms of use are going to have further restrictions on acceptable use of a program downloaded from the app store. GPL will be incompatible with the terms of the app store.

Re:It's easy to comply with the GPL

[Runaway1956]

"They are not able to meet the requirements the GPL imposes" What you mean is, "They are not willing to meet the requirements the GPL imposes"

Copy of Apple's app store?

[Anonymous Coward]

How come it isn't the copy of the first mobile application store, Nokia software market (established in 1990's)? This is what all the others copy.

Thanks For Blasting Off Your Own Foot Microsoft

[curmudgeon99]

How delightful that Microsoft goes and does something like this, thereby ensuring that the effort fails. Steve Ballmer should just close up the company and get a job that he's qualified for, flipping burgers.

Re:Thanks For Blasting Off Your Own Foot Microsoft

[Antisyzygy]

Hes probably qualified to be a used car salesman.

What about MS Public Lisence

[zombiechan]

What about Microsoft own public license. That's open source, is that banned too?

BSD MUST be OK

[scharkalvin]

I'm sure that there are bits of code derived from BSD inside of Windows, and legally this is OK under the BSD.
The BSD license has no copyleft provisions, it's almost a do whatever you want with it. The only important part of the BSD license is that the original source code can NEVER become NON FREE.

Re:BSD MUST be OK

[PPH]

Which makes BSD products perfect candidates for the embrace, extend and exterminate model. As a developer, you spend months (years?) putting an app together only to have Microsoft or one of its lackeys grab it, add a few features and take it proprietary. Now you're out of business and you can't even pick up work maintaining the 'enhanced' version.

In some cases, MS developers don't have the expertise to maintain the core functionality of the product (or even understand it). Sure, the new version integrates tightly with PowerPoint or MS Word. But the important stuff (the reason people want it in the first place) just stagnates.

Re:BSD MUST be OK

[BitZtream]

Right, because thats what actually happens.

Typically MS buys out the developers before taking over the project and employees them to continue working on it. There are plenty of examples of this out there, sysinternals is the first that comes to mind but thats just one.

Re:This isnt surprising, nor is it particuarly evi

[canajin56]

Yes, this is why. If your game music is Creative Commons Share-Alike, and Microsoft zips it up in DRM, then license be damned, anybody who bought the software cannot redistribute the assets. This violates the GPLv3 explicitly. It is also against the spirit of any other Open Source (with capitals) license, because you have Microsoft as a distributor both granting you the right to freely redistribute what you downloaded, while at the same time making all effort to prevent you from doing so. Even without explicit clauses, that might get them in legal trouble. So they more or less have to do this, or make the DRM optional. But it's their choice which of those two things to do.

There goes my idea for a WinMo7 app...

[jfbilodeau]

And here I was hoping to post a Linux Distro App on Windows Marketplace to install on users phone. The app would have provided security, stability and performance to the device. Oh well. Scratch that idea!

Re:There goes my idea for a WinMo7 app...

[natehoy]

I know you're kidding about the nature of your app, but to make a serious response...

Are Windows 7 phones locked into the Windows Marketplace like Apple phones are locked into the Apple App Store (with the obvious exception of jailbroken iPhones/iPads/iPods, of course)? I didn't think they were.

I was under the impression that, like Blackberry and Android, the Windows phones could install anything from anywhere, and the vendor's "app store" was simply a matter of convenience. I've only installed one thing on my BB using the Blackberry App World, and I uninstalled Blackberry App World because it's too slow and gobbles up too much RAM on my 3-year-old Blackberry 8300 (which is constantly running out of precious memory with just a few apps installed as it is!).

AFAIK there's nothing stopping you from writing and distributing your app. You just can't sell it in the Windows Marketplace. Big deal, there are plenty of fish in that sea. Sell or give it to any Windows 7 phone users you want, or make it available for install off your own server, SourceForge, freeware sites, etc.

Re:There goes my idea for a WinMo7 app...

[shutdown -p now]

Are Windows 7 phones locked into the Windows Marketplace like Apple phones are locked into the Apple App Store (with the obvious exception of jailbroken iPhones/iPads/iPods, of course)?

Yes, they are.

I was under the impression that, like Blackberry and Android, the Windows phones could install anything from anywhere, and the vendor's "app store" was simply a matter of convenience.

You're probably confusing Windows Mobile (the earlier incarnation, 6.5 and lower) and Windows Phone 7. WM did not have marketplace, but apps could come from any source and be freely installed manually (well, by running an installer). WP7 has marketplace, but no way to sideload apps other than having a developer account ($99/year, and, if I remember correctly, you can load up to 10 apps with a single one).

Re:There goes my idea for a WinMo7 app...

[Anonymous Coward]

Troll.

Nokia's about face

[ianare]

Nokia was developing Meego, an open source OS for their phones in collaboration with several other companies. It is more inclusive than even Android, and the app store was to be also inclusive. They had previously released the open source Maemo OS for several internet tablets and the N900 phone, which has an active community developing open source apps and even improving and updating to the core OS.

This is in addition to their development of Qt, and the open sourcing of Symbian.

Now they're using an OS for their phones which specificaly prohibits using open source, the very apps and developmnet process they were relying on previously.

Any developer love they may have had is now utterly gone ... what fools. But I suppose this is to be expected when you sleep with the devil.

Re:Nokia's about face

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe this is to be expected when you spend too much time going after "developer love" instead of making products to sell so you can pay your employees and bills.

BSD puts burden on the distributor.

[Anonymous Coward]

BSD puts burden on the distributor. You have to keep the copyright notice.

Please try again.

Re:BSD puts burden on the distributor.

[Rockoon]

BSD puts burden on the distributor. You have to keep the copyright notice.

No, BSD puts a burden on the author that uses BSD-licensed code to directly include said stuff within the distribution.

Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list
of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials
provided with the distribution.

Why are Anonymous Cowards always so often plainly wrong?

Knife the baby is different

[symbolset]

When Microsoft partners with somebody to make something (the baby) like a Nokia phone, a sendo phone, or IBM OS/2, and then deliberately kills the product to achieve some other strategic goal, that's a knife the baby strategy. This is something else.

MS does encourage open source, just hates GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

Full disclosure: I work as a consultant/contractor with Microsoft. I also do work with Apple, Oracle, and others, but most of my business is with MS.

People who say MS doesn't like open source are on some level wrong. Nearly every project we or other companies do, the stakeholders at Microsoft push us towards releasing the code. This is usually something that happens via codeplex or MSDN. What most people don't get is Microsoft sponsors a huge number of open source projects via other companies and they don't tag the "Microsoft" name on there always. With the new marketplace, MS has been pushing all of its partners that release marketplace solutions to release source. For example, add-ons for SharePoint and Dynamics CRM fall under this umbrella.

I think it is accurate to say MS in terms of its core products - Office, Windows, and various server products is not open source friendly. Their viewpoint is that they don't want to give away the secret sauce, or in some cases simply deal of course what others might see is a horrible mess. Still, when I think about the amount of source MS is personally responsible for pushing to the community, it dwarfs almost any other company. Yes, they should release the source for security purposes to especially Windows, but hell should also freeze over.

The reality is for most people in the business world, GPL is a horrible license. There, I said it and flame and downmod AC away, but it's true. I know companies that won't touch a lot of open source projects due to GPL. I think very few people have problems with MIT, BSD, or even the various MS licenses. For me, I personally go with the do whatever the fuck you want license, just don't blame me. Isn't that really the point - sharing and community? I get that people don't want corporations profiting from their work yada yada, but GPL has always seemed stupid to me.

This provision seems more of the usual we deal with when working with MS or others. If it's GPL, don't use it. If it's anything else and open source, no problem.

Re:MS does encourage open source, just hates GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

True, more money can be made from sloppy open source licenses, aka "take from the poor and give to myself". Just look at Apple: they took BSD and turned it into a pretty MAC-OS, completely proprietary, too.

However, that is not the reason for banning such software from app store. I am afraid the real reason is to get rid of direct competition such as Open Office. MS still dreams furiously about controlling 90% of software out there, even if it is only in their little app market.

Re:MS does encourage open source, just hates GPL

[PPH]

the stakeholders at Microsoft push us towards releasing the code.

'Releasing the code' doesn't make it open source as we in the software community have come to understand it. There can still be significant license encumbrances attached to source code I'm allowed to read.

The reality is for most people in the business world, GPL is a horrible license.

In your business world perhaps. For those of us who have to use and maintain products, the GPL has some advantages. Not becoming dependent on a sole source suppler being chief among them.

They stick to their rules....

[Anonymous Coward]

#1 - be evil....

I think that is why Gates is a giving person now. Trying to reverse all the evil karma he built up from his years at MSFT....

Never attribute to malice...

[jimicus]

anything which can be explained by stupidity. Or, for that matter, planning.

I suspect it's rather simpler than "Micro$oft hates GPL!!11oneone", and has nothing to do with any particular hatred of the GPL and related licenses.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, you're building an apps store in the style of Apple. It's going to look all pretty, it's going be dead simple to download anything, people can submit apps, they go through an approval process, they go on the store. Installing is a matter of "click once", and that's about the only thing you're going to make visible to the end user.

You anticipate having thousands of apps sooner rather than later, so the complicated part isn't going to be the website. It's going to be putting together the business logic and processes that drive it.

The problem with something like the GPL is that all of a sudden, your process for accepting for approval, approval itself and distributing software suddenly becomes a hell of a lot more complicated because you now need to keep track of whether or not an application requires the source code to be made available. Remember the GPL applies to anyone distributing the software, so you can't just palm this back to the developer. You now need a separate interface to your apps store from the developer site which allows downloading source code where available, you need to keep track of which apps have which licenses - and you need to track which licenses specifically state "You must distribute source code".

Unless you took this into account when you designed the apps store and the processes behind it (which is likely if you're Google, but vanishingly unlikely if you're Microsoft), you now have a problem. Your entire process is set up on the assumption that you are under no obligation to distribute the source code for apps, this throws a spanner in the works. What is the cheapest, quickest, easiest solution?

1. Ban licenses which demand you distribute source code such as the GPL.
2. Go back and rewrite all your processes to account for licensing issues. Any software developed around those processes will also need changing.

TL;DR : More likely that Microsoft don't care enough about F/OSS to bother accounting for it in their processes for their app store.

Re:Never attribute to malice...

[Anonymous Coward]

Simple solution with zero effort on Microsoft part:

  ask the developer to embed the source code in the distribution package.

Re:Never attribute to malice...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, you're right, providing the ability to download the source optionally alongside an app is definitely to difficult of an engineering task for Microsoft to handle.

Re:Never attribute to malice...

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem the only person here that understood the article.

Re:Never attribute to malice...

[Anonymous Coward]

Um,
All this noise about how hard it would be to support GPL in an app store:
How many of us sit in front of a Linux system with package management?
We can install software or source, no problem, without confusion.
The app store concept basically came from Linux package management. The old Add/Remove (gnome-app-install) and now Ubuntu put slick app store front-ends on package management.
Microsoft could have done it. (Hell, they could have borrowed code.)
They chose not to. They chose to forgo established high quality software.
They choose a closed system. They just made clear that they build a consumer system.

Bans LGPL Qt based applications...

[Anonymous Coward]

which were beginning to take a big slice out of Microsoft dev tools sales. With the Nokia - Microsoft announcement the staff devoted to R&D on Qt is going to be reduced and the platform it supported, Symbian, is headed toward oblivion. So is Nokia, since they have effectively emasculated themselves by eventually eliminating their software development capabilities and becoming dependent on MS dev tools. That makes them merely COMMODITY hardware manufacturers whose profit margins will be determined by Microsoft, just the way DELL and the other PC makers are. Nokia is a classic example of how to take a 44% market share and throw it away. After months of expensive pre-publicity and PR, collecting a lot of markers from "journalists" and media websites in exchange for favorable stories about the WP7 and continuing that campaign during the last four months of WP7 smartphone sales, Microsoft has less than 5% of the smartphone market, which has only 20% of the cellphone market. The public yawned at the release of the WP7 and its been yawning every since. The WP7 was still born and this deal with Nokia only kills Nokia, it won't resurrect the WP7. Microsoft did Apple, Google and RIM a big favor.

Nokia owns the commercial side of Qt (the LGPL side can be forked) so that gives Microsoft significant input on what Nokia will do with it, just the way they had "input" into how Walmart handled its exploding Linux powered netbook business (kill it), or how DELL handled its Linux powered PCs (kill them), or on how the ISO standards and the EMCA handled the their behaviors. So, Microsoft can either let the commercial version of Qt "die on Nokia's vine" or Microsoft can buy it, kill it, or incorporate it into MSVS, releasing a proprietary "write once, run anywhere" tools that will allow it to do what .NET/Mono hasn't been able to do -- make Microsoft's API a significant player on all three platforms. Or they can buy it and bury it. IF the Virgin Airlines fiasco turns out to be another colossal .NET FAIL, after the manner of the London Stock Exchange failure, then MS has good incentives to move to a well tried and tested tool like Qt.

Microsoft can't outlaw the use of LGPL Qt tools and applications on its OS but it now has the opportunity to limit the damage done by the commercial version to its ecosystem. I suspect that they came to the conclusion, after 4 months of efforts, that the WP7 was DOA, and now they are using it to kill commercial Qt, if not capture it.

Simple solution avoid M$ and their products...

[Anonymous Coward]

I see a simple solution - don't buy M$ or contribute to them in any way. Android is open and supports the open source movement - seems like there is an easy choice. Heck, I don't buy Apple products for the same reason - they hinder innovation and growth - not to the extent of M$ but a close second in my book. I put my money into things that I agree with - I'm a firm believer in starving the beast that lives in Redmond...

For the same reason I will not purchase anything made by Sony - if more people let their dollars show their support, this type of non-sense would stop. Till then, they can put as many draconian limitations on their tools as they want - if there are morons that agree to it, they are welcome to it. Stop complaining and let your money show what you support. It really is that simple...

Completely erroneous bullshit.

[Frosty Piss]

Microsoft is a corporation and thus it has only one mandate: to maximize profit.

Completely erroneous bullshit.

Re:Completely erroneous bullshit.

[BitZtream]

Uhm, their corporate charter says pretty much that exactly ... so wheres the bullshit?

Re:Completely erroneous bullshit.

[mswhippingboy]

Microsoft is a corporation and thus it has only one mandate: to maximize profit.

Completely erroneous bullshit.

Which part?

AFAIK, Microsoft IS a corporation.

Corporations (at least public corporations) have a legal mandate to maximize shareholder value which, usually, translates into maximizing profit.The only wiggle room I see on this point is that sometimes short-term value may be sacrificed for longer term value or vice-versa.

Seriously, I'm not challenging your viewpoint, but I'd be interested in exactly what that viewpoint is.

Re:Completely erroneous bullshit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Corporations (at least public corporations) have a legal mandate to maximize shareholder value which, usually, translates into maximizing profit.

No, they don't have any legal mandate of the sort.

Seriously, I'm not challenging your viewpoint, but I'd be interested in exactly what that viewpoint is.

I don't know what your parent poster's viewpoint is, but I'll simply tell you that corporations can have any mandate whatsoever, depending on what's written into their charter. Maximizing shareholder value can be one such mandate, but need not be, and it most certainly isn't a "legal mandate". Not everything in this world revolves around maximizing profit. Really.

(Note: It may well be the case that Microsoft specifically has written maximization of profit for its shareholder into the company charter, which is all well and good. Your parent poster wasn't objecting to that, but to the more general statement that this necessarily is the case for all corporations, which it is not.)

Re:Completely erroneous bullshit.

[Solandri]

Corporations have many mandates. Profit is the primary one, but rarely is it the only one. An obviously secondary one for Microsoft is to make software. That's why when the housing market boomed, Microsoft continued writing software instead of buying up real estate. When gold prices shot up, Microsoft continued writing software instead of buying up gold.

There's lots to criticize about corporations, but this level of reductionism of their driving motives deviates so much from reality that it's useless for analyzing any situation involving corporations, and makes one sound like you're from the loony conspiracy theory fringe.

Re:Completely erroneous bullshit.

[Lucidus]

If I may step in here: a corporation is granted a charter by the state, allowing it certain extraordinary benefits in exchange for the presumed advantage to the state (and society at large) of such economic activities. Although this process has become routine, we shouldn't forget that this give and take underlies the essential concept of the corporation. A corporation which does not benefit the larger culture, or which actively plunders and undermines the economy (as has become increasingly the norm), deserves to have its charter revoked.

At some point, I would like to believe this might start happening. Wishful thinking, I know, but one can always dream.

Re:Completely erroneous bullshit.

[Anonymous Coward]

So, in other words, it was an incomplete but not entirely untrue statement rather than "Completely erroneous bullshit."

Re:Completely erroneous bullshit.

[gbjbaanb]

you'd probably be surprised by the amount of property speculation going on in corporates. They may not sack all their staff and say "buildings and accountants only from now on", but while the staff continue to do the boring day jobs, the accountants do go and play monopoly.

Often they end up selling offices they own and renting them back, or vice versa. It also often doubles up as a tax dodge too.

Re:Completely erroneous bullshit.

[MrKaos]

Microsoft is a corporation and thus it has only one mandate: to maximize profit.

Completely erroneous bullshit.

Um, no. let's re-examine that comment but take the company name out;

................ a corporation ............ has only one mandate: to maximize profit.

This is a totally true statement. The fact is that the board of any corporation is legally obliged to do everything that it can to generate profits for the shareholders. Just because the sentence has *your favourite company name here* in it doesn't make it any less true. It's your personal opinion of the company that makes you say that it's erroneous, probably because you like them.

Have no doubt about it, corporations exist to make money, it's the *SOLE* reason a corporation exists and there is no room for idealistic jingoism. If they happen to make you love or hate them in the process it's just as irrelevant to their bottom line otherwise why would they have profit reports to the shareholders instead of a count of how many people love or hate their company.

Microsoft is a business as much as IBM, Apple, Oracle, Google, Intel and they all have one mandate: to maximize profit.

Re:Completely erroneous bullshit.

[Frosty Piss]

................ a corporation ............ has only one mandate: to maximize profit. This is a totally true statement.

No, it is not a "totally true statement". You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Try reading some of the other posts in this thread. And really, do some research before making statements that make you look like a moron.

Re:Completely erroneous bullshit.

[MrKaos]

................ a corporation ............ has only one mandate: to maximize profit. This is a totally true statement.

No, it is not a "totally true statement". Try reading some of the other posts in this thread.

Well I did, and none of the posts in this thread have anything to say about Corporations Law. Just because they have been moderated up doesn't change that *fact* that a businesses function is to generate profit, a Corporation with shareholders is a business designed to generate money. All other motivations are there to serve this outcome.

Unless you can provide some evidence that disputes the fact that a companies function is to generate profit I'll just have to assume you are naive. Unfortunately...

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. And really, do some research before making statements that make you look like a moron.

Oh such trollish behaviour FrostyPiss, such statements illustrate that your ability to argue is based on ad hominem attacks rather than the possession of any facts or the ability to reason. I spoke to you politely and you decide to flame me. You have created the impression that you are a fanboi, and that it's easier for you to attempt to modify reality than your perception of reality.

I'd suggest you do some study of Corporate Law, the function of a board and shareholders if you honestly believe that a business exists for any other reason than to generate profit as your earnest criticisms seem to say quite a bit about yourself.

Re:Completely erroneous bullshit.

[Hognoxious]

Corporations (at least public corporations) have a legal mandate to maximize shareholder value which, usually, translates into maximizing profit.

I presume you can provide a link to the appropriate statute.

[tumbleweed rolls across the shot. In the distance, a bell rings]

Just apply some common sense. Lots of corporations give financial and material support to charitable causes. That would be illegal if your claim was true.

It's only source code "for costs".

[Anonymous Coward]

It's only source code "for costs". You can charge what you like to deliver the binary, but if you don't give source as well, you have to supply it for free or cost.

That doesn't stop you charging $990 or whatever you like for the binary. What stops you charging that is that someone will get the source, compile it and offer it for $90 and undercutting your offering.

Just like the Free Market says you should.

Goodbye WP7

[callit]

And there's the final straw that makes sure my next phone won't be Windows Phone 7 based. It's too bad too, I liked some of the offerings. I just don't understand how Microsoft expects to compete as a huge underdog against the likes of Android and iPhone, and even Blackberry when they keep making decisions like this. iPhone has the market share, so they can make somewhat controversial moves without causing themselves too much trouble. Android has succeeded in large part because Google supported "openness" as a quality and characteristic of the platform. Microsoft, what's your plan? Mobile apps are being embraced in many ways as a way to establish a platform. Apple's "There's an app for that" is a perfect example. I'm curious to see how this decision will effect developers' willingness to program for WP7 - especially developers who feel strongly about open source. Also, I understand that this policy goes beyond the mobile marketplace, but Microsoft has plenty of leverage in the PC and Console gaming markets - they don't have that leverage in the mobile arena, and I often think that they forget that.

Re:This isnt surprising, nor is it particuarly evi

[Anonymous Coward]

WP7 uses DRM. GPLv3 forbids being used on devices with DRM. Therefore GPLv3 code cannot be on WP7. Blame RMS, not MS...

Re:This isnt surprising, nor is it particuarly evi

[Anonymous Coward]

Well it isn't intended as an evil or even hostile act.

It's just a side effect of closed systems.

RMS wrote a nice essay about this eons ago.

Never assign to malice...

[ravyne]

Lets not jump to assign this to malice just yet...

As a business, there are very good legal reasons to dissallow the GPL from *any* controlled (some would say "closed") platform. For one, most Open Source software has been contributed to by many, many people -- so why should the first guy to come along and port to this or that platform reap the rewards? You can counter that anyone can do the same, thereby reducing the profit motive for individuals to do so, but then you end up with a market flooded with 20 hasty ports of TuxRacer cluttering up your marketplace and potentially making it difficult for the user to find what they're looking for.

What this license may simply acknowledge, is that if someone has a legitimate claim to the source code themselves, then they are equally in a position to license it to themselves under different terms that would be compatible with the marketplace, and place the onus on them for support and continued development that would be the responsibility of the community otherwise. Also, the signed nature of Marketplace apps places a high burden on the marketplace owner, because they have to keep up with signing every release of every fork of every Open Source application.

Look at what's happened on Apple's AppStore -- not only do they see some of what I've mentioned above, but they've seen outright thievery of apps licensed under Open Source terms (such as Wolfire Games' Lugaru). I view this simply as the most-direct and least-burdensome way to prove ownership over a piece of code.

What they (as well as Google and Apple) should do, however, is to create a special category in their stores for open-source software that has slightly different requirements -- The app may only be made available for no cost for starters, and submitters would have to host/provide the source code packages.

Ultimately, though, Open Source supporters (and I do count myself among them more often than not) must accept the fact that liscences like the GPL aren't necessarily conducive to the usual business environment (largely by design), and that they represent a risk that many companies will not be eager to crawl into bed with.

OCILLA takedown process

[tepples]

Microsoft would still be on the hook for identifying those apps

I thought the whole purpose of OCILLA and foreign counterparts was to take Microsoft off the hook until Microsoft receives a takedown notice.

No set-top Android gaming box

[tepples]

This is good for Android more than its bad for Microsoft.

How is it good for Android? There isn't a set-top Android box to compete with Microsoft's Xbox 360. Really, the 360 is the only game in town for console game development by individuals.

Re:No set-top Android gaming box

[VortexCortex]

This is good for Android more than its bad for Microsoft.

How is it good for Android? There isn't a set-top Android box to compete with Microsoft's Xbox 360.

1. Android is not competing with consoles (yet).
2. All consoles are just computers.
3. Android Computers exist (Phones, Netbooks, Pads, Notebooks, etc.)
4. New TVs have integrated computers, many with USB, Ethernet, WIFI, etc.
5. Google TV exists.
6. Soon Android devices will be more powerful than MS's 360 due to Moore's Law.
7. How many more years will people put up with the dated Xbox hardware?

Really, the 360 is the only game in town for console game development by individuals.

Well, MS is doesn't make a hand held console -- In the space that Android and Windows App overlap, this is better for Android because they can use existing GPL code that MS App devs can't. Also: The Android and MS App stores do not only contain games...

I guess what you're saying is that in the very different markets (Consoles vs Smartphones / Pads / Portable Computers) Android isn't competing with MS? I don't really get your logic: Android allows GPL, MS doesn't, but it won't hurt WP7 App store because there's no competing Android game console. ???

I agree that the MS XNA is pretty neat, but many indie games I've played on the 360 could easily be created on Android as well. C# runs in a VM anyhow, so does Android -- but, wait, indie Android Devs can now use native code.

Or, do you mean there's no MFG approved, App store resident, GPL indie game/app developers for WP7 like there is on Android, so it won't matter?

Also: 360 isn't the only console in town -- Wii Homebrew comes to mind. So does PS2, PSP and PS3 homebrew.

I suppose that I agree: From an indie console game developer's perspective, who gives a damn about GPL because there's not much GPL code for indie game devs to use anyhow (in MS 360's C#).

So long as indie/casual gaming isn't done cheaply on devices OTHER than consoles, and there are no free to use (L)GPL game dev libs available on those devices, why should an indie game developer care? </sarcasm>

Re:No set-top Android gaming box

[tepples]

All consoles are just computers.

The retail units are appliances: special-purpose computers without an "Unknown sources" checkbox and without USB debugging.

Android Computers exist (Phones, Netbooks, Pads, Notebooks, etc.)

Google doesn't allow these to get onto the Market because they lack cellular data capability. Archos 43 has to make do with AppsLib, which has a far smaller selection and apparently even worse search than Android Market. End users are less likely to buy one device just to run major-label products purchased from the walled garden and a second device just to run micro-ISV products. Just look at the poor^W extremely niche sales of the GP32, GP2X, GP2X Wiz, and Archos 43 in North America. (I'm ignoring the Pandora because it's still out of stock years after its initial announced release date.)

New TVs have integrated computers, many with USB, Ethernet, WIFI, etc.

But to what extent do these new TVs have functionality comparable to the "Unknown sources" checkbox on a non-AT&T Android device?

Google TV exists.

With all major TV networks blocking Google TV by both its HTTP user agent (user changeable) and its Flash Player user agent (not user changeable), I don't see it as likely to take off in the marketplace. End users are less likely to buy one device just to watch major-label channels and a second device just to run micro-ISV products. Otherwise, the home theater PC would have taken off sooner.

There isn't a set-top Android box to compete with Microsoft's Xbox 360.

I guess what you're saying is that in the very different markets (Consoles vs Smartphones / Pads / Portable Computers) Android isn't competing with MS?

That's exactly what I'm saying. There is an Android counterpart to Windows Phone 7, but there is no Android counterpart to Xbox 360.

many indie games I've played on the 360 could easily be created on Android as well.

Not if they need a directional pad. Most Android tablets and phones that I've seen don't have a dedicated directional pad. Heck, some don't even have a capacitive multitouch screen, used by emulators' half-assed simulation of a directional pad where you can't even feel which button your thumb is currently over; instead, the screen on (say) an Archos 43 is the same sort of resistive screen seen on Pocket PC and Nintendo DS.

360 isn't the only console in town -- Wii Homebrew comes to mind.

Most people trying homebrew for the first time will come in with a fully updated console, but there have been entire months when the Homebrew Channel installer hasn't worked on a fully updated console. Besides, some video games are large enough in scope that developing the whole thing as a hobby project to be released as freeware is not viable, and there appears to be a stigma on wiibrew.org against charging for homebrew. What do you recommend for a video game developer too big to release an entire product as freeware but too small to qualify for the official Wii developer program?

So does PS2, PSP and PS3 homebrew.

Distributing instructions to run a PS3 homebrew program that you have developed will get you sued by Sony.

there's not much GPL code for indie game devs to use anyhow (in MS 360's C#).

Even if standard C++ can't be compiled to IL, Java can. There's a reason for this: C# is a direct descendant of J++.

So long as indie/casual gaming isn't done cheaply on devices OTHER than consoles

I had trouble parsing this part of your post.

Re:No set-top Android gaming box

[VortexCortex]

So long as indie/casual gaming isn't done cheaply on devices OTHER than consoles

I had trouble parsing this part of your post.

I was implying that indie & casual gaming is done just as easily on devices other than consoles... I hope you don't just develop for consoles -- it's a profit limiting move, esp. in the indie / casual market where game play trumps graphics (and thus reduces the need to tie your games to just one platform).

Even if you just go 360 only, surely you don't deny the indie & casual game markets that exist beyond your chosen platform... Competition is competition, even if (especially if?) the competition exists on different and possibly more accessible platforms.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Never(ALWAYS) attribute to malice...

[Anonymous Coward]

In what way is the burden you mention any more difficult than monitoring and charging for the various levels of licensing that Microsoft already administers within itself, i.e. "Student licenses" "academic licenses" etc?. No, the real reason is to make sure that they can make as much money as possible by taking advantage of the general public's ignorance through information hiding, obfuscation, misinformation, and implicit lies.

Corporations have LEADERS. Or at least some do

[SuperKendall]

Microsoft is a corporation and thus it has only one mandate: to maximize profit. As a shareholder of Microsoft, I expect it to do everything in its power to generate profit.

That may be your mandate, but you are a fool if you expect that to be Microsoft's mandate.

In fact corporations are generally headed by one person who makes lots of tactical choices. That person MIGHT be going for profit. But if you look at the history of corporations (at least in the tech industry) you'll find way more going on than the simple pursuit of "profit". There are rivalries, moves to built up public awareness, etc. Tons of things that are not directly devoted to increasing profit, not even on a long-term basis.

I expect its CEO to spread FUD against FOSS at every chance, because that's part of his job description

That's not "part of the job description" at all. After all Apple heavily embraces open source and contributes to a lot of projects. It's a personal choice on the part of Microsoft, and anyone considering investing needs to decide if the philosophy of the leader of the company matches their own (and will lead to some profit, for after all that IS generally the primary concern of the investor).

No problem

[Anonymous Coward]

I have no problem with this. I make money with my apps in the Android market, and will do the same in the WP7 market. Why would I ever want to release the source code?

Also, Microsoft exerts more control over their market place, but this means more exposure and higher profit margins and less crap drowning out my app. The submission and approval process completely facilitates this, and allowing any open source at all would undermine this.

What I've found is that the hackjob programmers out there that write unpolished, buggy, and poorly integrated code are the ones that dislike the approval process and want open source allowed. The Android market place is flooded with this shit, and I have to go out of my way to provide my own exposure of my apps. You don't have to do this on the WP7 market. If it gets approved, you WILL make money. Getting them approved is as SIMPLE as reading Microsoft's fucking documentation and adhering to it. It's the hackjob shit that most of you around here do that is outside of the DOCUMENTED EXPECTED BEHAVIOR that causes things to not get approved. Your utter lack of consistency with the Linux desktop is the poster child of why you can't get apps past Microsoft's approval process. It's that garbage (which floods the Android market) that diminishes the quality of everything else and cuts into the profit of the real developers.

I do this for a living and quit my shitty day job. I have a fucking life now, and that is because I play right along with the money making game rather than tout stupid assed semi-religious software beliefs. Everyone in my life is better off for it, and I applaud their decision to exclude OSS garbage.

Yes, I'm using Firefox and I use several other OSS apps. A very few are great, and I have no problem with them being available. Keep them the fuck out of the app stores that are my bread and butter.

Re:Corporations have LEADERS. Or at least some do

[zill]

But if you look at the history of corporations (at least in the tech industry) you'll find way more going on than the simple pursuit of "profit". There are rivalries, moves to built up public awareness, etc. Tons of things that are not directly devoted to increasing profit, not even on a long-term basis.

Can you please give me one or two concrete examples?
The last company that tried corporate philanthropy was sued by its shareholders and lost in court.

Please please please let this be true!

[ckaminski]

Apple gets away with the walled garden approach, because it's seen as being a way to be part of an exclusive club.

Microsoft won't get away with doing the same thing. People only use Microsoft because they have to, and in some cases, have software that they depend upon. (Plus they do make good software). Put up a wall, and people will more quickly jump ship from your platform to an open on.

I have a die-hard Windows Mobile 6.5 user who will NEVER touch a Windows Mobile 7 phone because of the Microsoft walled garden. He's going to the inferior open platform.

Now this won't affect the masses, but it'll push enough - and Microsoft is in a place where it can only lose. Why? I can only assume it's from revenue sharing reasons - they don't want to pay to support open source competitors to their or their customers products. So it makes sense in a way.

The ban is on GPLv3 not Open Source in General

[Anonymous Coward]

The subject of this posting is highly misleading. It should really be corrected.

Re:This isn't the way I remember it.

[Bing Tsher E]

That is not a win for Linux.

You're one of the most outspoken pro-Microsoft shills on Slashdot. And you're trying to define what is a 'win for Linux'??

The school incident cited could have been a learning experience. The kids could have been gathered up and they could have talked about respect for other people's systems, and to ask Dad before wiping the hard drive on the family computer. The kid giving out the Linux CDs could have been given an opportunity to demo how to use the disks without wiping out whatever else was on the system.

Go ahead, Miguel

[ThatsNotPudding]

Let's hear another artful apolgia for your masters.

Consumer Choices ?????

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft app marketplace restrictions will make sure my money goes to google. Good job MS for making it easier for me.

Then why...

[Anonymous Coward]

Then why has a Wordpress app, all GPL FTW, developed and launched for WP7 with all the bells and whistles both from MSFT and Wordpress? One thing is the Marketplace. The other is the WP7 platform. All people is doing giving credit to this story is harming open source, by scaring potentially AWESOME free software projects from the WP7 platform, when it's actually possible to do so. Way to go!

Re:Then why...

[h4rr4r]

That does not harm open source, at worst it is a little FUD back at MS. What's sauce for the goose....

Biased writer

[Anonymous Coward]

That quote brings in some nice bias that has nothing to do with the story. Was it really necessary to mention that Microsoft's is a copy of Apple's App Store. Stuff like this makes me cringe. I'm not debating whether or not that is true, I'm just saying it had no place in the article.

So they can't host Paint.NET?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does that mean Microsoft can't even serve up their own software, such as Paint.NET?

Re:This isn't the way I remember it.

[commodore6502]

>>>Keven the Teacher was doing the right thing.
>>>Little Johnny's Dad calls in to tell the
>>>Superintendent that his hard drive was wiped.

Sending a kid to detention because the Linux OS Discs he handed-out *might* be taken home and *might* be inserted into dad's computer and *might* wipe the hard drive (but very unlikely), is NOT the responsibility of the teacher. It is not her job to police the home, or the kid, or dad's computer, you stupid Gates-fucking Microsoft associate (ass. for short).

>>>Does you employer allow you to pass out software at work from unknown/untrusted sources?

Yes. Not for work use of course, but for home use is just fine. I've handed-out many Puppy Linux CDs, or links to them.

You prove my point with that link

[SuperKendall]

You are arguing companies are legally obligated to produce profit.

But your link proves my point. You simply linked to a company that got slapped for this; other companies do the same thing but no-one has brought suit. You could argue for example Apple's obsession with every component being recyclable costs more than it brings in in profit. But obviously no-one is going to sue over it.

It doesn't matter what companies can be legally held to do. What matters is what they actually do. And that is under the direction of the person in charge.

Tivo is not the same case.

[Rob Y.]

This is (I think) a red herring. The GPL3 restriction on tivoization refers to running GPL software on a system that doesn't allow changes to that software to be loaded and run. In the case of Tivo, they're talking about the linux 0S that tivo provides with the device. Tivo doesn't allow user-installed apps at all.

In the case of WP7, the user can install apps, and presumably modified apps can also be installed - though the way to install them is to get them into the app store. So, is the GPL3 problem that you can't install apps without using the app store? Isn't that true for iOs and locked Android phones as well?

Personally, I think Microsoft is deliberately misreading the spirit of the rule. Kind of like the way they implemented ODF formulas in Excel. "The spec doesn't say how to do it, so it's perfectly valid to do it in a way that's unusable". Sure, Microsoft. No bad intentions there...

The GPL is pretty flexible - hell, they let you link to closed source Windows libraries, don't they?

Cooperative...for now

[Rob Y.]

Microsoft is in the 'play nice to get into the game' phase. Sure, they'll cooperate with jailbreakers for the time being. Anything to make them more appealing than Apple. They always do this. Play nice upfront, grab market share, go all monopolist back-stabber later.

Re:This isnt surprising, nor is it particuarly evi

[BitZtream]

It is also against the spirit of any other Open Source

So BSD, Apache, MIT, X11, MPL and countless others who are considered OSI friendly licenses aren't Open Source (with capitals) ?

You need to jump off of Stallman's dick long enough to breath some air and get a clue.

Counterpoint

[SiliconViper]

The title of this newspost is misleading. Microsoft has not banned all open source software from the Marketplace, just explicitly disallowed 3 licenses known to be incompatible with how the Marketplace operates, and "equivalents" to those licenses. I've written a short piece on the subject here: http://chris.olstrom.com/opinion/windows-phone-marketplace-and-the-gplv3/ [olstrom.com]

As always Microsoft news was carefully researched

[Anonymous Coward]

We all do know that /. has close to 0% rating when it comes to researching the facts about news that present Microsoft in negative way. After all, why research - bad news is good news as long it is about bad gyus, even if they are not true: http://www.arktronic.com/cms/blog-entries/2011-02-17/relax-microsoft-has-not-banned-open-source-from-marketplace

"The only licenses that have been banned are GPLv3 and its derivatives and equivalents, including LGPLv3, and Affero GPLv3. Why these particular licenses, and why specifically version 3?

Because version 3 of the GPL family of licenses includes what has been dubbed the "anti-Tivoization" clause.[sic] Microsoft must therefore ban licenses with an "anti-Tivoization" clause because both the Xbox and Windows Phone 7 hardware perform "Tivoization". They only accept code that has been signed by Microsoft (unless the hardware is developer unlocked)."

MS can kiss my ass ..

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing lasts forever, bigger empires even more so, but all they really need now are friendly geeks to show the way :)

Basically, it comes down to...

[mark-t]

... If you make open source software, it must not be licensed in such a way that other people cannot legally deprive you of your copyright holder's rights.

The GPL is worded in such a way that the copyright holder retains his rights, at all times. The default status of a copyrighted work is that you cannot copy the work without permission from the copyright holder. The GPL does not change that. Rather, it explicitly grants permission to copy the work to anyone that agrees with the terms. If you don't agree/abide by the terms, then you don't have permission to copy it, per standard copyright law.

But with the BSD license, for example, a person can take BSD code, modify it, and distribute it under different terms, depriving the copyright holder of any rights to the new work as derivative, which, under normal copyright concepts, the original copyright holder would have legal rights to.

Of course, that's the intent of the BSD license, and there's nothing wrong with that, but I remain quite convinced that one cannot be both against the GPL and not also be against closed source or proprietary programs as well, since the copyright holder of a proprietary work certainly has no less control over who may be allowed to copy their work as a copyright holder who utilizes the GPL.

Without nefarious conspiracy theories...

[williamhb]

I work for a government organisation in Australia that writes a lot of open source code. But even my organisation tells me we should not release any binaries that contain open source code -- even when we also release our own source code open source. Why? Because the legal team cannot afford the time or cost to check for compliance in everything we produce.

Just look through this thread and you will see Slashdotters (perhaps the most pro-open source community on the Web) bickering about what the licences mean and getting it wrong. No company's legal team can just assume the developers understand the licence, especially if they are receiving code to distribute from the public (as Microsoft's app store does). And the cost to Microsoft of trying to verify compliance of everything in the app store would be horrendous. In fact, Microsoft are being more liberal than my organisation: MS has banned copyleft licenses; my organisation's legal team tells me they'd rather we didn't redistribute any third party open source code whatsoever whether in source or binary form (even when we legally could), but should instead instruct our customers on how to go and get it themselves and build our software themselves -- not exactly user-friendly!

Re:Without nefarious conspiracy theories...

[Daniel Phillips]

I work for a government organisation in Australia that writes a lot of open source code. But even my organisation tells me we should not release any binaries that contain open source code -- even when we also release our own source code open source. Why? Because the legal team cannot afford the time or cost to check for compliance in everything we produce.

Not really. It is more because Microsoft's FUD has been successful in scaring your organization. Do you really think it would be legally easier to release proprietary code? Think about that.

Tonight my kid had to spend several minutes scrolling throw Sony's latest evil network access agreement. That's not reading it, which no reasonable person would ever spend several hours doing, that's just scrolling through it as fast as it will scroll. Do you really think the GPL somehow more complex than that license?

When the world is run by lawyers then everything just gets miserable all round. It has nothing to do with open source per se. You are safer if anything releasing open source. Your intentions are clearly not malicious, if anything ever lands in court, and that counts for a lot.

Re:Without nefarious conspiracy theories...

[williamhb]

Not really. It is more because Microsoft's FUD has been successful in scaring your organization.

Nothing to do with MS at all (we haven't even heard their FUD). Everything to do with government organisations needing to be able to audit everything. Trust me, we do not need a "[My Organisation] accused of breaching the GPL" headline turning up on Slashdot just because a PhD student made a mistake and nobody ever checked our compliance before release.

Do you really think the GPL somehow more complex than that license?

The problem's not complexity; the problem is volume. Proprietary code doesn't even get near us without a lawyer in between, so we just don't use it. But every developer in the organisation can grab a dozen different open source libraries and build against them without legal even being aware of it. And that's where the lawyers start worrying about compliance verification and embarrassing headlines.

Do you really think it would be legally easier to release proprietary code? Think about that.

Pedantically, yes it would be. Why? Because if we were using some company's proprietary library then that would imply our legal team had already scrutinised an agreement with that company and were already monitoring our compliance with it. So in that case, it'd be no extra legal effort to distribute a binary. (Of course, we almost never use third party proprietary code in the first place, so it almost never happens.)

Re:This isn't the way I remember it.

[MikeBabcock]

The teacher contacted Ubuntu and railed on them. Do yourself a favor and read Ubuntu's info pages and then explain to me how you could come to the conclusion that they're bad people.

Thanks but no thanks on your interpretation of events.

Re:This isn't the way I remember it.

[MikeBabcock]

Excuse me for the double-reply but:

format /q/u/autotest is a much faster way to disable a hard drive, and it doesn't require Linux.

Windows also comes with fdisk, and has only a "press F8 if you're sure" blocking you from deleting your OS partition when you install it.

There's nothing safe about official software.

The problem with PC multiplayer

[tepples]

I was implying that indie & casual gaming is done just as easily on devices other than consoles

I wish this were true. I don't want to develop for consoles, but the PC platform is traditionally associated with online play rather than in-person multiplayer, and not all genres work well online. I could develop a PC game in a genre associated with same-screen multiplayer, such as a fighting game. But as I understand the market, it wouldn't sell. PCs tend to be connected to far smaller monitors than consoles; in fact many PC monitors aren't even big enough for two people to fit around comfortably. Home theater PCs exist, but I've been repeatedly told by CronoCloud that there aren't enough home theater PC owners to make a viable market.