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."

Comments

Microsoft and open source

[InsightIn140Bytes]

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.

Re:Microsoft and open source

[webmistressrachel]

Hmmm, I was taken in right up until the end where you said that "open source really cannot compete with quality products"!

Nice bit of flamebait for Mozilla, Apache, Google devs to be trolled by, if I do say so myself!

Re:Microsoft and open source

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Microsoft has just seen that open source really cannot compete with quality products.

Mod parent funny.

Re:Microsoft and open source

[willaien]

Huge agreement on Visual Studio being superior to pretty much any other IDE I've ever encountered, but, I'll disagree with a few other points: - OpenOffice is, by and large, more than sufficient for most users. Yes, a few things are missing, but, for the average user, they wouldn't miss those features. - Microsoft would likely prefer that Android didn't exist and that they could corner that market. It's not just the money from sales, it's losing some developers to mobile phones, and not to -Microsoft- mobile phones. This likely doesn't sit well with them, for various reasons. While I don't think this is a "Post-PC" world, yet, Microsoft would do well to try to innovate and gain market share in the tablet and phone arenas.

Re:Microsoft and open source

[MrEricSir]

Visual Studio is much better programming IDE than open source ones, especially when you add visualAssist to it.

*sigh*
/goes back to adding a debug printf in gedit.

Re:Microsoft and open source

[Alwin Henseler]

Or what about if Microsoft just doesn't have anything against open source projects?

More precisely: maybe MS doesn't have anything against open source projects that don't compete with their own products. Another option might be that Apple is a bigger evil to MS than making room for a few open source apps in their app store. Or MS fears losing their share in some markets & makes some concessions in order to stay relevant.

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.

That's just flamebait... The primary reason for MS being dominant on the desktop is that newly bought computers nearly always come with it pre-installed, people got used to it, and it's good enough. Combined with a hefty dose of marketing, and perhaps a shady deal or two to make life hard for competitors. The landscape is changing, but anyone who believes otherwise is an idiot.

Re:Microsoft and open source

[ByOhTek]

More precisely: maybe MS doesn't have anything against open source projects that don't compete with their own products.

More precisely: maybe MS doesn't have anything against projects that don't compete with their own products.

Lets face it, in capitalism, no mater how much they claim otherwise, all companies hate competition against their products/services. And I don't believe MS has ever been dishonest enough claim or insinuate otherwise. They don't care about the source of the competition (open or closed), merely the quality and aggressiveness.

Re:Microsoft and open source

[gorzek]

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.

Re:Microsoft and open source

[isorox]

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.

Re:Microsoft and open source

[InsightIn140Bytes]

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.

Re:Microsoft and open source

[jedidiah]

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.

Apple does not disallow open source apps either

[SuperKendall]

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.

Re:Apple does not disallow open source apps either

[Tharsman]

There are some issues with a very specific open source license and the Apple App store. All apps in the app store have a non-obtrusive DRM in them, this means you can’t hand someone a copy of the free app you downloaded.

Mind you, you are entirely free to give the link to someone for them to download entirely free of charge, just as you did, but a version of the GPL license specifically dictates you can’t block the user's ability to redistribute himself. Even if Apple did have the said DRM, they also don’t allow you to install software from alternate sources, so that also hinders a user's ability to redistribute.

So the question is: will the windows app store give developers a flag they can set to not include a DRM in the specific app? And will they allow (in tablets) to install software from other sources? As it stands now, the Windows Phone 7 store should not be compatible with these specific clauses either (even with the sanctioned jailbreak available.)

Re:Apple does not disallow open source apps either

[BitZtream]

So what you're saying is that GPL is incompatible with the app store, not that the app store is incompatible with open source.

GPL is designed to not work with things like the app store, its funny when it works as intended people blame the other guy for the fact that its a rather restrictive license.

Re:Apple does not disallow open source apps either

[jedidiah]

Who came first?

GNU and the GPL has been around since Apple was still selling 8-bit computers.

It was Apple that decided to build a walled garden that clearly excludes Free Software. If you try to discriminate, you are the one at fault. You're trying to blame the victim.

Microsoft is more evil than ever

[walterbyrd]

Maybe you have missed all the hyper-aggressive fivilous patent lawsuits that microsoft routinely files against Android users?

Re:Not GPL

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

GPL v2 or v3?

Sounds perfectly compatible with V2.

Re:FUD - again.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:How funny that I already corrected you

[Hatta]

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.