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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Okay, so it is more accurate to say that Apple doesn't *accomodate* open-source licenses (particularly GPL it would seem.) But Microsoft does. That's still noteworthy.
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
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
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
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
Whats hard about it? At no point did anyone say it would be windows only, nor did anyone imply it. Some ignorant people made stupid assumptions. These are the same people who are continually making excuses for why Linux isn't the desktop dominator.
Its also a rather stupid assumption that mobo manufactures would all capitulate and not give an option to boot another OS. Non-Windows OSes are rather common OUTSIDE of the desktop, they aren't going to cut off a massive portion of income to play with Microsoft.
You really have a slanted view on the world if you ever think there was any doubt as to what is going to happen.
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
If you are a Linux person think of the store like a commercial+ software repository, where you can buy and then download/install via the internet, and if it is a perfect world you will be pushed timely updates on what you bought, so things don't break due to incompatibility. This does include full blown commercial programs, and all the restrictions that come with them (if not more as it is internet delivered/maintained.)
Some of the most obvious benefits:
a) can offer some cool software right at the get go (FOSS is a good bait, by slapping their corporate branding around the store -even if they do credit the creators- and people will start to assume that the company is responsible for those.)
b) reduce cost in packaging/distributing said software - of course that also means less manuals, and physical media for backup purposes.
c) get a piece of the commercial software pie from the publishers, through commissions, advertising, etc.
d) control the market to make their system shine by influencing who gets seen on the first page, etc.
e) Also with the draw to be the place to get software they can push their new products, and favor their stuff over the competition.
f) have an inside track on innovative and trending technologies of 3rd party products that are doing well at your store.
g) restrict unwanted access via through DRM or marketplace guidelines
"Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield
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!
Nope, the EULA ads restrictions that clash with GPL. Thus any project that doesn't have the permission of all contributors to publish will be yanked due to licensing reasons.
True that they don't disallow, they implicitly don't allow GPL.
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).
Provide a common place for Apps that meet a certain level of professionalism.
You can buy pretty much anything you want from some random website somewhere, but Apple and Microsoft are doing a bit of vetting before unleashing it on the world. Its not the end all be all of protecting users from rogue apps, but its a start in the right direction.
Grandma doesn't know how to Google for some random app, but she can probably figure out the OSX app store fairly easy, and she can safely assume that the really bad evil shit is weeded out from the start, all thats left is apps that sneak something in, and those get terminated as soon as someone notices.
Its the opposite of a virus scanner. Virus and Malware tools blacklist code, the App stores are more like a whitelist of reasonably safe apps in one consolidated location with a specific set of common guidelines so its easier to compare and contrast them.
While there are plenty of little craplets out there, you can get pretty much any app you want on the mac app store except for a few notable exceptions. I go look there first, and if not go somewhere else. You won't find too many Adobe products on the Mac AppStore as Adobe simply isn't capable of producing quality applications that meet Apples requirements, but pretty much everyone else does.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
So FreeBSD isn't free software? The BSD license isn't free? The Apache License? MIT? X11? All of the hundreds of others that aren't part of Stallman's hippie political agenda ... those all aren't free software licenses?
You're an idiot.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager