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"

[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]

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"

[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"

[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"

[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"

[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"

[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"

[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"

[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"

[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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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.

[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.

[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.

[Dunbal]

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

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.

[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.

[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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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

[amliebsch]

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

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

[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.

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: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.

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

[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: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: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?

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.

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: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:GPLv3, bleh

[HungryHobo]

so would BSD be ok then?

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"

[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.

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.

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".

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!

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.

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.

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: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.

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]