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."
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
Maybe you have missed all the hyper-aggressive fivilous patent lawsuits that microsoft routinely files against Android users?
GPL v2 or v3?
Sounds perfectly compatible with V2.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
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.
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
Games. Why do people always ask this? Most games don't work on Linux.*
* At least not without an excessive amount of fiddling and configuration and praying.
Check out my world simulator thingy.
What if Apple doesn't have anything against open source projects?
In fact, they contribute a LOT to open source.
http://opensource.apple.com/
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Apart from those, are there actually open source projects that can compete with proprietary counterparts? Especially on less popular niches like industry products or games (even though games is a popular niche, but there still isn't any good open source games or game engines).
ffmpeg and vlc, I can't think of any propriety program that can dream of competing.
PostgreSQL has who? Really... As well as OpenERP and a plethora of many OSS projects. Heck, Apache HTTPd became the dominant web server without any support from major players.
In addition, majority of software projects die anyway, OSS is no exception to the general trend. And most software is as horrible as OSS, making OSS just as successful as proprietary software.
The VLC developer made the claim because Apple's TOS is incompatible with the GPL. Apple is 100% to blame for that incompatibility.
If that's not obvious, try a thought experiment. Apple could change their TOS to be consistent with the GPL pretty easily. Apple would still have an app store, and VLC would still be free software. Clearly Apple can do something to resolve this incompatibility, so they bear at least some responsibility for it.
Now consider if VLC changed their license to be consistent with the app store TOS. VLC would be allowed on the app store, but it would no longer be free software. In that case, Apple's app store is still incompatible with free software. Nothing the VLC developers can do can change that, so they bear none of the responsibility for it.
P.S. A lot of folks are using "Free Software" and "Open Source" interchangably here. This is one of the times when the distinction matters. You might be able to get open source apps on the app store, but you'll never be able to exercise your fundamental software freedoms.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
It's very telling that Microsoft is one of three largest supporters of Apache. But these "little" facts are often forgotten when slashdotters bash Microsoft.
You have a strange idea of "contributing".
They BAN it from their devices.
That's what this article is about.
More accurately, Apple "takes advantage" of rather than "contributes to" open source. So do actual Apple and Microsoft users. Although it seems that Microsoft is more comfortable with this.
They are willing to leave the likes of ffmpeg and vlc and xbmc alone and not actively prevent their users from installing them.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
I can add:
XBMC
Snes9X
Vice
Stella
WinUAE
M.A.M.E.
You mean contributing by submitting all these source codes? Pretty sure that's not taking advantage of. But you can keep that to yourself.
From the 10.7 page, just the a* for the unix apps:
adv_cmds-147 APSL BSD
amavisd-124 GPL
apache-769 Apache
apache_mod_bonjour-15 APSL BSD
apache_mod_bw-201 Apache
apache_mod_encoding2-204 BSD
apache_mod_hfs_apple-11 APSL
apache_mod_jk-202 Apache
apache_mod_perl-105 Apache
apache_mod_php-66.1 PHP
apache_mod_python-202 Apache
apr-26 Apache
architecture-260 APSL
autofs-207 APSL CDDL
awk-18 Other
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure