Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Does Microsoft Have the Best App Store For Open Source Developers?

Posted by timothy on from the so-how-does-that-beat-android? dept.

WebMink writes "Microsoft seems to have been in combat against the GNU GPL throughout the history of free and open source software. But that may be changing. They have recently updated the terms of use for software developers in their Windows Phone app store to allow any OSI-approved open source license — even the GPL. They include extraordinarily broad language that gives the open source license priority over their own license terms, saying: 'If your Application or In-App Product includes FOSS, your license terms may conflict with the limitations set forth in Section 3 of the Standard Application License Terms, but only to the extent required by the FOSS that you use.' Could it be that the most open source friendly app stores will be the ones run my Microsoft?"

29 of 339 comments (clear)

  1. so they can steal your code by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    They want all the FOSS stuff first to have the first crack at stealing your code. That's what they've always been good at

    1. Re:so they can steal your code by kthreadd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They want all the FOSS stuff first to have the first crack at stealing your code. That's what they've always been good at

      Stealing FOSS code? What does that even mean?

    2. Re:so they can steal your code by kthreadd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I see what you mean but don't really buy it. Stealing implies that you don't keep your copy. You still do.

    3. Re:so they can steal your code by Runaway1956 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nope. A select few started using that word "steal, in relation to copyright infringement. A very select few. It's not a "language evolves" thing at all. It was a deliberate form of indoctrination. Non-savvy people read news articles about "stealing music", and they believed that nonsense.

      The indoctrination continues. I refuse to be indoctrinated, thank you very much.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    4. Re:so they can steal your code by davydagger · · Score: 3, Insightful

      agreed.

      So why did swat teams descend on Kim Dotcom's house, and why did the federal government take down the site with all our phone modding ROMs

    5. Re:so they can steal your code by Subjective · · Score: 3, Insightful

      To steal yourself away is to deny yourself from the current location
      When you steal a kiss, you deny someone else that kiss
      When you steal a look, you're looking at something before others do.
      When you steal an idea, you gain its advantages before the original creator

      There never were other meanings to 'steal'

      A woman has stolen my heart. Now my heart is not mine to command any more

      --
      My other .sig is also this bad
  2. Microsoft and Open Source don't mix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    I personally would never code open source software for Microsoft APP store to benefit... #deathtowidowsphone #longliveandroid

    1. Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix by kthreadd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I personally would never code open source software for Microsoft APP store to benefit... #deathtowidowsphone #longliveandroid

      Microsoft has published some of its software as open source, including their F# compiler and several .NET libraries like Entity Framework and ASP.NET MVC. They have also contributed to the Linux kernel.

      Microsft and Open Soure clearly mix; what could be said is that Microsoft is not (yet) open source first.

    2. Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      They have also contributed to the Linux kernel.

      That's a bit deceptive. Microsoft contributed code needed for its VMs to host Linux, nothing more.

    3. Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix by Dave+Emami · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They have also contributed to the Linux kernel.

      That's a bit deceptive. Microsoft contributed code needed for its VMs to host Linux, nothing more.

      If they contributed, they contributed. Does it matter that they did so because there is a demand for their VMs to run Linux, rather than out of the goodness of their hearts? One of the benefits of having something be open source is that numerous different parties can fix bugs or add functionality that may (per consensus) improve the project, but which only one party has the time, knowledge, and motivation for. For folks other than the project's core developers, that motivation will often be "I need it to do X" not "I want to help everyone who uses this and promote open source software."

      --

      "The Greens lynched a hacker in Chicago. Last month, but I think the body's still hanging from the old Water Tower."
    4. Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix by worldthinker · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sorry, but you deal with Microsoft at your peril. It is in their DNA to "steal", misappropriate,, strong arm, and every other dirty trick to disadvantage technical partners and they do it to this day. Ask Nokia how they feel about their business prospects. Or the legions of companies that have experienced the same rapacious partnerships.

      Ask HP how they feel about MS potentially buying Dell?

      Oh, and lest we forget, the legal suits against Linux are still winding their way through the courts and it was MS chief in the background backing those suits.

      I am in agreement with Admiral Akbar.

    5. Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix by kthreadd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They contributed code that only benefitted their product.

      Nothing wrong with that.

    6. Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix by whoever57 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If they contributed, they contributed. Does it matter that they did so because there is a demand for their VMs to run Linux, rather than out of the goodness of their hearts?

      Actually, the why may not matter, but the fact is that the code they contributed did not really improve Linux, it just allowed Linux to run under Microsoft's closed-source Hyper-V. The code was aimed at improving Microsoft's own platform, not Linux.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    7. Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix by stenvar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They based their engine on top of free software, despite that they didn't have to.

      If you think Apple had the capability of whipping up a working HTML engine from scratch and bring it to market in the time they needed, you're extremely naive. Apple has very limited and focused software development capabilities, and they certainly had nobody capable of creating a browser engine from scratch. They usually deal with this by buying up some company, but there are so few good independent browser makers that they didn't even have that option.

      What's offensive is that you portray Apple as some kind of open source hero. Jobs tried to rip off gcc and they tried to force the KHTML team to sign non-disclosure agreements over bug reports, and had a major falling out. That's on top of their generally offensive behaviors, like their look-and-feel lawsuits and their ridiculous patents. Apple has been a far greater bully and threat to open source than Microsoft.

  3. No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    No, it does not.

  4. No by EzInKy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Microsoft is about their bottom line, plain and simple. Even if open sourcing something today is profitable, they would not hesitate to close it tomorrow if it hurts profits.

    --
    Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    1. Re:No by DogDude · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So you cannot fathom how the Windows monopoly on 90+% of all PCs sold for the last couple of decades may have provided them a steady revenue source?

      So what are you saying? The Microsoft has been resting on its laurels and doing no long term planning, due to its domination of the desktop OS market? If that were the case, how have they maintained said "monopoly" while successfully expanding into other businesses? Their continued growth is due to short term profit taking? I don't think that any rational person could argue that to be true in any way, whatsoever. It sounds to me like you're just regurgitating the classic childish Microsoft hate, while not making any attempt to reconcile what you're saying with reality.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
  5. Apple bites the hand that created them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Apples entire software ecosystem rides on top of free and open source software. There aren't enough superlatives to describe the hight of their hypocrisy. Come on Apple, stop the the stupid bullshit. Your business was rescued from the trash bin of history by your decision to refactor your entire operating system strategy around open source components. The very genesis of Apple was the result of communal sharing of information. Now you stiff arm the very same developers who made your success possible. There is no excuse for this.

  6. People seem to forget by andydread · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ms has always tried to get popular FOSS applications running decent on their platform in a futile attempt to negate the need to run GNU/Linux for those said apps. Then when Linux became the killer app Ms went out of their way to accomodate Linux on their hyper-v system. This is not because they want Linux or FOSS around in the marketplace. They know that if they do not accomodate FOSS their system will become more and more marginalized by emerging tech.

  7. Not Bill Gates' Microsoft by MikeRT · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Let's look at the bigger picture...

    1) Windows 7 is arguably the best desktop OS out there right now for the vast majority of the public. Even many of the Apple fans I know, myself included, have been forced to concede that Windows 7 is better than OS X in many ways.
    2) Microsoft has started to really become an advocate for open standards to the point of throwing IE 9 under the bus and repeatedly rolling the bus over it in front of their customers.
    3) Microsoft's tools produce standards compliant web output.
    4) Microsoft has officially incorporated jQuery into their web process and extended it in an open way to make it really work with Visual Studio.
    5) Microsoft has never once threatened Mono or any open source .NET effort even as the Java world was nearly torn apart recently.
    6) Microsoft has spent the last decade really ramping up their security efforts in what amounts to a "come to Jesus experience" on security.
    7) Microsoft is starting to allow their own products like ASP.NET MVC to go FOSS.

    I give them credit as a former Microsoft-hated, Apple-loving Java/JavaScript/Groovy/Ruby developer. This isn't Bill Gates' Microsoft. It's actually a damn shame that it's not Steven Sinofsky's Microsoft because that might have played a truly dangerous stalking horse to Tim Cook's Apple.

    1. Re:Not Bill Gates' Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm sick and tired of people applauding Internet Explorers incredible changes. Yes, it's good! So what! The only reason that happened, is because Firefox and Chrome were forcing it off the market and into extinction. Years and tonnes of money later it's good, but still barely competing.

    2. Re:Not Bill Gates' Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      1) Windows 7 is arguably the best desktop OS out there right now for the vast majority of the public. Even many of the Apple fans I know, myself included, have been forced to concede that Windows 7 is better than OS X in many ways.

      Lurpak is arguable the best butter out there right now for the vast majority of the public. Even many of the butter fans I know, myself included, have been forced to concede that Lurpak is better than Kerrygold in many ways.

      Windows 7 is indeed a great release. It's good enough to finally move me and a lot of people from XP. Is it the best desktop OS? That's highly debatable, and would be more useful to say that Windows 7 is best for x use, while Mac OS X (or any OS) is better for x. Your willingness to speak for the majority is commendable, and I wish you luck at the upcoming Conference of the Workers' Party of Korea, supreme leader.

      On the other points; yes, this isn't the Microsoft of old. The very public embrace of FOSS is a relatively new phenomenon (and yes, I know they've been contributing code for quite some time now). Microsoft are doing it for the same reason I see Apple doing it - it makes business sense. Microsoft is no-longer able to steamroll standards through by becoming the de-facto standard. You remember back in the 90s when sites commonly had those "requires (or optimised for) x browser" badges? That's all but gone away, and modern sites largely render just fine except in niche browsers.

      Even in the areas where they maintain a monoculture, legal pressures prevent them from exploiting it as they would have back in the day. While .Net has seen some adoption, it lags way behind Java. It's in Microsoft's interests to allow Mono to proceed, and is indeed a good thing that in 2009 they announced that they wouldn't pursue patents in that area (only five years after Mono first appeared).

      I too give them credit for making some smart moves to grow their business and avoid antitrust issues. It's not as if either Microsoft or Apple execs one day wandered in to a board meeting and suggested FOSS and open standards because it's the morally best and spurs innovation.

    3. Re:Not Bill Gates' Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you're doing all those things on a day-to-day basis, you're doing it wrong. Badly wrong.

    4. Re:Not Bill Gates' Microsoft by _xeno_ · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "You know that feature you've been using for years and you said it's what makes Macs better, Windows does that now, too. So, see, Windows doesn't suck."

      Right click.

      Also true preemptive multitasking and virtual memory.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
  8. Your admission, not mine by EzInKy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Provide a list of companies that shows more of them succeded by partnering with Microsoft than failed and I'll consider admitting to short-sightedness. Nokia doing away with all but MS based phones is the most blatent result of doing deals with Microsoft.

    --
    Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
  9. No, Bill G's microsoft was growing where it wanted by CdBee · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is desperation in action, in a market where they arent a leader and probably never will be

    --
    I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
  10. Re:BSD License by geek · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Apple doesn't hide the BSD code. They freely distribute it as Darwin, which is OSS and freely available. Its the entire under system of the OS. Apple has contributed a great deal to OSS over the years. There is no "blame" for using a license that freely allows them to do what they need to do. The GPLv3 is a non starter in the enterprise world.

    Not everyone is a basement dweller like RMS. Some people have lives and families to feed.

  11. for now... because it's empty by stenvar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I have yet to find any useful app in the Microsoft app store. Microsoft is probably desperate to get anything in there.

    But they can change their TOS at the drop of a hat, so just because they may be "open source friendly" right now doesn't mean that they won't become quite open source unfriendly again when their app store picks up.

  12. Aptitude/Yum by RedHackTea · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm pretty sure that Linux Distros' Package Management Systems are the best "App Stores" for FOSS developers, or is that just me?

    --
    The G