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.
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
While I agree to a degree, I have to point out that my open source applications run on Linux, Mac and Windows because I ACTUALLY care about customer freedoms. Why SHOULDN'T I accept patches to get my code running on windows?
I wouldn't call that foolish. I'd call it: Complete & total disdain of any OS loyalty whatsoever. If every dev worked this way there would never be a situation where you're forced to stop using the software you want/need just because you have issues with the underlying OS.
At the end of the day, there's a Windows user who tripple-boots Linux & Mac too, and he wants to use the FLOSS software I wrote for use with Linux on Windows. I believe it would be foolish to limit my exposure & thus donations. In fact, I think it foolish to ignore significant market segments altogether for trivial reasons. Even more foolish would be to fragment the user base and cause a fork due to my own OS preferences.
I'm not saying I'm going to distribute my applications in the Windows 8 store, but if anyone else wants to, and they can satisfy the AGPLv3 requirements, have at it.
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!