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"

[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"

[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"

[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.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

Misleading Article

[kwenf]

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

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.

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.

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: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.

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.

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"

[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.

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.

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.