Slashdot Mirror
Windows 8 Store Will Allow Open Source Apps
MrSeb writes "Some interesting legalese found in the recent publication of the Windows Store Application Developer Agreement could signify a very big win for the open source community. The section in question states that apps released under a license from the Open Source Initiative (GPL, Apache, etc.) can be distributed in the Windows Store. Further, it says that the OSI license will trump the Microsoft Standard Application License Terms, namely the the restriction on sharing applications. As for the reasoning behind this big about-turn, it could be down to Microsoft trying to soften the blow of its Android patent litigation — or maybe Redmond is just trying to differentiate itself from Apple, which famously restricts open source-licensed apps from being sold in its iOS and Mac App Stores."
As for the reasoning behind this big about-turn, it could be down to Microsoft trying to soften the blow of its Android patent litigation — or maybe Redmond is just trying to differentiate itself from Apple, which famously restricts open source-licensed apps from being sold in its iOS and Mac App Stores.
Or what about if Microsoft just doesn't have anything against open source projects? They have several ones themselves, have helped writing some Linux code and in every other way have softened themselves about open source.
Microsoft has never really locked down their desktop OS either. It has always been open in a way that it lets you run anything you want. Be it open source or proprietary code. Microsoft doesn't care - they're primarily selling their OS, and their OS has always came with the promise of you're being able to run anything you want. That is also why Windows has such a large market place for all kinds of applications and games. Being able to run anything you want, from any vendor you want, has always been one of the largest selling points of Windows.
Allowing open source programs isn't really problem for Microsoft..
- Linux still cannot compete on desktop. Much larger competitor to MS is OSX, and even then MS does programs for Mac too.
- As far as mobiles go, Microsoft already gets lots of money for every Android device sold. Microsoft wins in either case, be it Android or Windows Phone that is selling better.
- OpenOffice is a toy compared to MS Office. It's missing lots of features, isn't user friendly, it's slow and generally just works badly.
- Visual Studio is much better programming IDE than open source ones, especially when you add visualAssist to it.
- There isn't any open source competitors for Xbox 360. None.
It isn't about "softening the blow" or anything to those lines. Microsoft has just seen that open source really cannot compete with quality products.
I'll bet 10,000$ that someone will say "Embrace, Extend and Extinguish" within the next 100 posts.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
because their competitors are getting stronger (Mac, Linux, Google).
Actually I like the "new Microsoft". They seem a great deal more willing to engage in community process than they used to.
Not sure where you got your information from, but Apple does not disallow open source apps from the app store at all. The iOS development community in fact is heavily based on numerous open source libraries that everyone uses...
You may have been mistaken from the case of VLC, which was pulled because of a copyright claim made by one of the VLC developers. It was not pulled because it was open source.
So it's nice that Microsoft will offer the same opportunity to open source developers, but hardly unique.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Point in fact. Case closed. Nothing to do about it. Obviously this is so. Fool to ever think otherwise.
It's a PR stunt - they're at grave risk of another anti-trust lawsuit with the extras they're building directly into Windows 8, so if they can show that they're not really trying to "knife the baby" (their words, not mine) then they're less likely to face the intense scrutiny they got in the last lawsuit. It's hard to be clear if the whole "EFI only boots Windows" scandal was real and Microsoft backed down or if it was simply a misinterpretation, but it's safe to say that stories like that emerging before things become a done deal will give MS' top execs and lawyers a case of the chills. They're not averse to complete pwnership of the computing industry, they're just averse to getting caught.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I think Microsoft is acknowledging something more important: that many good products are developed under open source licenses, but sold and maintained under commercial terms, a hybrid of philosophies that allows the programmers to keep eating!
As it turns out the patents Microsoft is pursing have nothing to do with the Linux kernel, GPL'd utilities, or Java implementation, the Microsoft lawsuits are just "business as usual" for the telecommunications industry as it has been for decades. The lawsuits are punishing; they're just the way telcos and their technology companies have dealt with the business landscape for decades. It's not a "nice" way of doing business, but it is "a" way of doing business.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
these are the same set of bastards that not only pulled illegal actions on Dr. Dos, Stacker, Novell, Netscape, Linux, but AS SOON as the feds released them from being monitored, they went right back to their old trick with Attacking Android via a number of questionable approaches.
I would have to say that any OSS developer, if not any developer, that works on MS is just plain foolish.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Microsoft has language in its agreement that excludes GPL.
Maybe you have missed all the hyper-aggressive fivilous patent lawsuits that microsoft routinely files against Android users?
Apple does add additional terms which violate the GPL (and especially v3) - the only people who can publish GPL applications on iPhones are the original copyright owners of the source code.
Open source licenses themselves restrict distribution in Apple's store. See VLC for iOS. Apple had no problem distributing it on the app store. It was developer infighting about licensing that resulted in VLC themselves making the request to take it down.
Probably when they called Linux and open source licenses 'cancer' http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/06/02/ballmer_linux_is_a_cancer
Kind of makes me wonder about a few things concerning the App Store and Visual Studio licensing.
Since the app store will be able to kill apps, will they use stricter controls on ownership of their compiler, or will they lower the price and open it up in hopes of pulling open source devs away from the Linux world and also increasing the number of available apps?
Will someone with a student license be able to freely disseminate compiled programs?
Would they be far sighted enough to allow a low price version of the IDE/compiler that isn't allowed to be used for generation of programs for sale, but is for free apps on the app store? (Given that they can kill apps, they could easily ensure that for-pay apps are compiled with a properly licensed version of the compiler; I'm sure they could embed that or have some validation process as part of their licensed developer program or whatever...)
Check your premises.
Of course the 'about turn' happened a long time ago. CodePlex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CodePlex) is pretty definitive proof that MS Supports Open Source, at least when it coincides with their business goals.
Ok, I'm naive and over 19. Can someone explain what these stores do and their purpose? There's one in Macs now but it seems pointless. We've already had online stores for applications. Maybe it's because these are "apps" and not full applications, a place to sell demos? Maybe this is the updated version of DOS shareware community (awful programs promoted as shareware because people thought they could get rich). I visited the Mac store and can't figure out the appeal, mostly mini games of the sort you'd see on facebook or g+ for free. So why would MS want to replicate this idea?
The statement that Apple disallowes free/open source in It's stores isn't FUD, It's just a plain lie.
As the iOS and Mac App Stores have restrictive licensing terms and are setup in a way which are incompatible with the GPL and LGPL. And as the GPL and LGPL represent the majority of open source software (about 57% combined). Yes, Apple does indeed restriuct open source apps from their app store.
Portable versions of Firefox, GIMP, LibreOffice, etc
Remember how I said that VLC was pulled NOT because it was open source but because a copyright claim was made by one of the VLC developers?
I guess you do not.
The reality is there are, as I said, a ton of apps in the app store that are heavily based on Open Source, some are even open source themselves (like the WordPress app).
EVEN IF the GPL caused a problem for some apps being released, that still leaves a LOT of other open source licenses.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
With the app store model, you are not the customer.
You are not even the product. You're just a dumb bitch who's going to bend over and take it up the ass for $0.99 at a time.
The licensing for these open source was done years ago. Two decades at this point in the case of the GPLv2, the world's most popular software license... well before iOS even existed. Apple designed their licensing for the iOS and Mac App Stores so that they are incompatible with said license. That's their own fault. So, even though a couple VLC devs tried to put it in the store, they didn't get the permission of all the copyright holders to violate the terms of the GPL and do so. Thus, those devs and Apple themselves violated the GPL.
Portable versions of Firefox, GIMP, LibreOffice, etc
The article does cover some of what Microsoft's strategy is, and I think goes a ways to explain it to average people.
For the developers of Open Source software, I don't think it matters very much. You have the Window's Freeware writing crowd which will probably buy in to it, but the rest of us know better.
To me, no matter what Microsoft does not it's going to be a toxin later on. That's their plan, that's how they do business. I personally boycott every product they sell and ask for friends, family, and co-workers to do the same. I have talked numerous prospective Xbox purchasers in to getting a PS3 instead (which they are always happy with the decision) and numerous Windows Phone prospects in to Android or IOS phones.
That is the power of our Capitalist society, and I wish more people were like me!
There are some issues with a very specific open source license and the Apple App store.
In practice I have seen no issue. However, as you note there's a potential problem only with a specific license (the GPL) which certainly dismisses the original claim that Apple disallows open source apps from the app store. You'd have to make the claim Apple disallows GPL apps from the app store, but you can't even make that claim since it is not true to date.
All apps in the app store have a non-obtrusive DRM in them, this means you canâ(TM)t hand someone a copy of the free app you downloaded.
Sure you can, you can send them the source. However this is not an Apple issue. This is technical issue related to redistribution. Again Apple is not stopping you from doing anything, it's the terms of the GPL if anything.
a version of the GPL license specifically dictates you canâ(TM)t block the user's ability to redistribute himself.
Once you have the source you can re-distribute to anyone.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
...
Funny, you say they are setup to restrict GPL ... I'm fairly certain you've no idea what you're talking about.
Perhaps you should read the discussions that have taken place while GPL was being created, and especially the ones related to GPLv3.
GPL was designed to not allow for this sort of thing. Why are you ignoring the fact that this outcome was designed intentionally into GPL before Apple even had an app store?
And for the record, there are multiple GPL software packages on the app store put up by the authors themselves. The only people that get fucked are people who use software by douchebags who are anti-apple and refuse to put their apps on the app store ... and thats their choice of course, but its in no way Apples fault that they choose not to do business with Apple.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
As the iOS and Mac App Stores have restrictive licensing terms and are setup in a way which are incompatible with the GPL and LGPL
Say what terms there are SPECIFICALLY that disallow this.
Yes, Apple does indeed restriuct open source apps from their app store.
You do realize you are responding to a post with a list of open source apps in the app store? And yet still you are willing to post under a real userID to make that broad claim which the very post you are responding to shows to be wrong?
Incredible.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It's a semantic argument. No, Apple doesn't specifically outlaw open-source programs from its app stores; however, its license agreement is in direct conflict with the GPL (and probably other open-source licenses). That doesn't mean there aren't GPL programs in the app store, but it does mean the people that put them there are violating the GPL.
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
I haven't read Microsoft's new terms, so I can't comment on them, but the iOS app store is incompatible with the terms of the GPL.
The App Store terms and conditions does allow for a third party license agreement (including FLOSS licenses) to be substituted for their default LICENSED APPLICATION END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT. However only that one section of the terms and services is substituted; the rest of it remains in force. The GPL prohibits you from placing any further restrictions than those in the GPL, and the App Store terms and conditions does just that: In particular
USE OF APP AND BOOK PRODUCTS AND THE APP AND BOOK SERVICES
You agree that the App and Book Services and certain App and Book Products include security technology that limits your use of App and Book Products and that, whether or not App and Book Products are limited by security technology, you shall use App and Book Products in compliance with the applicable usage rules established by Apple and its principals (âoeUsage Rulesâ), and that any other use of the App and Book Products may constitute a copyright infringement
CHANGES
Apple reserves the right at any time to modify this Agreement and to impose new or additional terms or conditions on your use of the App and Book Services. Such modifications and additional terms and conditions will be effective immediately and incorporated into this Agreement. Your continued use of the App and Book Services will be deemed acceptance thereof.
Other FLOSS licenses are compatible with the app store, and other GPL developers don't care about the incompatibility, and thus don't press the issue, but the VLC developer was correct in his claim that the GPL was being violated.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Wake up people. First post and this post are the same person.
M$ must realize much of the interesting things going on in the bit box are coming from open source.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Microsoft just hates anything they don't own.
Barnes and Noble hasn't rolled over on the Microsoft patent extortion.
Trying to come up with a feature in M$ Office had the OO doesn't have that I actually want.
Never been impressed with Visual Studio, and I've used every version since 4.
No competitor to the 360? Sure there is, its called a pickle. And guess which hole of yours you can stick it in? and if your of your holes doesn't work, try another.
+100000 on that comment
GPL is very much explicit what is not allowed - additional restrictions to GPL. Maybe you should read it.
/s
As for authors of the software - they are not bound by GPL in any way.
And of course it's not Apple's fault that they chose to lock down their platform all the way to hell and back.
As the licensing terms Apple chose to use deny access to the app store for over 50% of open source software worldwide by including language that attempts to place restrictions on software above and beyond what the contributors intend, there's really no other conclusion to come to. Apple and their lawyers know the GPL very well and were well aware of what they were doing. As to their intentions, I won't hazard a guess, but Apple's intentions are seldom honorable.
Portable versions of Firefox, GIMP, LibreOffice, etc
to get out of anit trust issues?
This may be just about that.
GPL IS a cancer, well, its more virus like than like cancer, but its still very parasitic none the less.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Again with the "open source == GPL" wrongness.
Can any iOS dev choose to provide the source to their iOS app to anyone? Yes. Therefore: Open source is fine on the App Store. You just won't get the source from Apple, but need some other mechanism (like a URL).
They will let them in, but not let them out (once they find out what they are)
Why does a freeware app of any kind "need" to be Tivo'ed.
It's simply an unnecessary bullshit constraint that doesn't serve the owner of the hardware, or the end user, but only serves the company that "owns the platform".
The crass control freak ads an extra layer of nonsense. So of course there is going to be some collateral damage. You don't get that kind of nonsense for free.
The only real question is whether or not "discriminating consumers" will put up with it or even better yet defend it.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
There are plenty of people like you!
For instance, I've talked plenty of people into getting Xbox 360s (or assembling their own PCs for gaming) instead of getting a PS3 due to the great Sony company's shenanigans over the pat two decades.
The additional terms violate GPLv2 at least as much as they violate the GPLv3, since one of the changes made in GPLv3 was creating some allowance for additional terms, whereas the GPLv2 expressly disallowed distributors from adding restrictions (without exceptions.)
All any DRM-enabled platform has to do to solve the GPLv3 incompatability is to allow their users to install non-DRM applications within the framework. With C#/.Net or Java this is achieved by deplying unsigned DLLs, EXEs, and Jars. Where Apple falls down on GPLv3 compatibility is in mandating that you must sign the code.
I didn't see the Microsoft article clarifying their position on unsigned code distribution and installation for Windows 8. The fact that they want to allow FOSS doesn't mean that they haven't stepped in the same DRM puddle as Apple.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
...Yet they will be able to remove any of your apps at will? No thanks.
Says the idiot posting on a website powered by GPL'd code...Here's hoping you get a parasite during your troll here.
If you wish to use an Ubuntu Distro for Production work, then you really should stick to the LTS releases, because at least this way major function providers will remain stable. Using the bleeding edge releases as they come out, particularly without verifying precisely what is changing on a new release, on anything other than a box for fiddling about with/web browsing and email only is bound to cause you unwanted headaches.
There's not always correlation between what they say, and what they actually corporately think. That statement is rhetoric, nothing more.
There are multiple foss licenses out there, you use theone that suits your needs. The GPL exists for this reason: Software released using it is meant to be free as in speech, free as in beer, but NOT free as in a free lunch for developers wanting to rip off the code and repackage it as something else. If you don't mind people getting rich off of your own work, you can use one of the many fine BSD licenses, or even lgpl. If you want to contribute without someone taking advantage, you use GPL. If the code is all your work others who want to license your code for other uses can always approach you with an offer.
"differentiate itself from Apple, which famously restricts open source-licensed apps from being sold in its iOS and Mac App Stores."
I've downloaded open source software such as mplayerX and growl from the mac app store.
Just imagine, soon we can run a webserver on Windows, and even use PHP! Soon we can even have an open source database on windows. Not to mention an open source office suite! All thanks to the windows 8 store! /sarcasm.
Seriously, why on earth is this news? Windows is not incompatible with open source, you know... Just download and install. Or will MS try to lock Win8 down so much that we seriously expect to get apps from the app store???
In which case: Tnxbutnotnx.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Parasites too have their uses. Leeches are useful for medical treatment. Tapeworms are a great way to lose weight.
Unfortunately for you, ignorance isn't a parasite, virus, cancer or anything else, but hopefully you're ignorance will still result in your life being shortened to the point that you stop wasting useful energy and oxygen.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
I'd rather buy a Windows Phone than a iPhone. Which was already true due to MS supporting unlocking. Of course, Android has a checkbox and Tizen has a root command so it's still some distance away.
Open source apps will set the standard and it will be up to the commercial developers to make apps with the added functionality customers are willing to pay for.
But expect individuals applying more and more for patents for simple obvious features.
...has a load of open source software.
Frogatto is a GPL platformer engine on which it has proprietary content and that has been able to be published on the iOS App Store.
You try to attribute incomatibility like it was not a reflexive chearacteristic. I have some news for you, both are incompatible. That means you can't put GPL software at the Apple App Store. There is no blame to be assigned.
Microsoft would be smart to simply do that, reduce their DRM requirements and let GPL software be available at their store. That would give them a huge competition advantage against Apple, and help level the plying field against Google.
Anyway, I don't trust them to keep their word here, as the only way to do that would be to open Windows 8 for other app stores.
Rethinking email