Slashdot Mirror
Does Microsoft Have the Best App Store For Open Source Developers?
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?"
MS advertising coffers well spent, looks like.
Enjoy that new surface, timothy.
Could it be that the most open source friendly app stores will be the ones run my Microsoft?"
Bill, is that you?
Video of some good progressive thrash music
Who wants to write a new open source license which conflicts with these terms to the maximum possible extent?
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.
I'm a widow, you insensitive clod!
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.
Hash tags here? Really?
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.
The BSD licencse is to blame for this. Apple could not hide improvements to the open source they improve and distribute under the GPL.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
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. .NET effort even as the Java world was nearly torn apart recently.
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
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.
Gotta love forgetting to escape characters in your comments...
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.
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
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?
Don't trust them.
Don't help Microsoft by putting FOSS on their platform. It helps them by eroding the price difference between MS and FOSS platforms.
MS strategy is to embrace openness when it's not in a dominant position, and to restrict openness when it is. It's a strategy we've seen again and again - e.g. the ability of early versions of Office to import and export freely, to the point where now it's hard to export into earlier versions of Office! This is just another example; there's nothing to stop them changing the terms of their licence later.
Don't trust a scorpion. It's not your friend.
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.
Improving the code in a proprietary product without releasing the patches to the public. That's stealing. And that's what Microsoft had already done at least once: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=ms+gpl+violation
I see what you mean but don't really buy it. Stealing implies that you don't keep your copy. You still do.
Okay, at the second thought, it's a lame metaphor and I have to admit it. It's completely unethical though and it's obvious it's against the will of the original developer. Also, bear in mind that by using the Microsoft platform as your open source hacking platform, you give Microsoft some kind of control. And it's definitely not a corporation that could be trusted in free software distribution, knowing their history and share in a battle against the movement.
And here I thought that Linux's package managers were the best place for FOSS software. Guess I was wrong.
They are often not app stores, they are software archives which are usually not directly controlled by the software author. App stores are based on the idea that you publish a software product on the store for download in exchange for a fee or for free. You can submit updates at any time, sometimes with a review time. You can also stop distributing the software on the store if you so like.
The traditional Linux package manager is usually managed by the Linux distribution community. The original author is usually considered an external party, often called the "upstream". The original author has very little control over what happens with the software once it is distributed through the package manager. And it may also be modified or updated by the distribution independently of the original author.
"Stealing implies that you don't keep your copy. You still do." is that the same for downloading music?
The act of downloading music is not called stealing. If the download is done illegally then it may be called copying or sometimes more loosely piracy.
Although d33tah may be correct (dependant on the licence behind the code being "stolen"), your reply is exactly why I don't describe copyright/licence infringement as "stealing". Quite a few people seem to forget that the word has for a very long time had multiple meanings. Would you steal yourself away to steal a kiss? Ever stolen a look at something in the hope of stealing an idea?
-- Using the preview button since 2005
That's a bit deceptive. Microsoft contributed code needed for its VMs to host Linux, nothing more.
I don't see what's deceptive about it. You either contribute or you don't; they did.
Maybe I haven't woken up all the way, but I don't get the point of this article. All app stores (Amazon's, Google's, Apple's) have open source apps to some degree or another, and tons and tons more apps are built on open source libraries. So Microsoft's app store is on par with ... everybody else? Ok, great.
Linux's package managers are the best place for FOSS software. App stores are based on the idea of sell you stuff. When the only way you have to install software without void your warranty is the App Store, the idea is abuse the consumer.
Stop dreaming about NT 4 and Win95. That stuff is long gone. Microsoft of today is much cooler. =)
So Microsoft then company that wants to block any other operating system from running on computers by introducing their "safe" boot system. The same company claiming patents and is in my opinion blackmailing/extorting Linux companies, graciously want to let you sell your code through their APP store.... so that you can save them from going under.... pleeeeeeeeease! Somebody hurry and call the doctor I have this funny rippling effect going all through my body accompanied by odd abrupt sounds and I can't seem to get off the floor upon which I am rolling.
MS, ALS, Aphasia ? http://globability.org - Me http://einarpetersen.com
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."
I was hoping to read that if you promised to publish only FOSS on the app store you wouldn't have to pay for the yearly developer's account fee. Too bad, that's not there. To develop for windows phone 8 / windows 8 and be able to test on real phones and publish on the app store, you need:
- a yearly 99$ developer's account fee
- a windows 8 pro 64 bits installation to run visual studio 2012
- to test on the emulator, a computer with a CPU supporting SLAT; therefore either a pretty new PC or a virtualization software that supports it, like the latest Parallels Desktop, which is not free either
Once you pay for all that making your software not free anymore is almost natural.
My
ok, how about felonious infringement. feel better?
#octothorpe
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.
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
Again - nope. Copyright infringement has historically been a civil matter, argued in civil court. This "felony" nonsense must stop.
"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
Linux's package managers are the best place for FOSS software.
I completely agree, but I would also put in a good word for compressed tar files on ftp.
App stores are based on the idea of sell you stuff.
Selling software is obviously i feature, but the main idea would rather be to consolidate software distribution channels.
When the only way you have to install software without void your warranty is the App Store, the idea is abuse the consumer.
It can also enrich the user by simplifying software distribution and installation, which could be a benefit to the user. The average iOS user has somewhere between 20 and 40 third party applications installed; many of which would never install any software at all on a regular computer, where they would obviously have much more "software freedom".
It's way cooler among those who grew up indoctrinated in the Microsoft ecology, I guess. It's remotely possible that I'll forgive Microsoft, some day. I'll never forget.
"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
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.
Failure: there is always why the contribution was made to consider.
Microsoft has way too much past history to redeem. The fact that many younger people aren't aware of said nasty history is sad.
That is true. It is terrible that there is a generation of people who judge the company by their actions of today, and not by what the company did before they were born. Oh wait, no it isn't terrible.
Sorry, but that sounds like someone who would refuse to drive a BMW because they hate the Bosch. There comes a time when you start looking like some old fogie from an old peoples home ranting and raving about long dead issues that nobody cares about.
But to avoid problems with companies contributing to Linux in the future, perhaps the open source community needs to publish the list of approved reasons for doing so. In this case, Microsoft submitted changes to the Linux kernel to make it work better with their OS. Is that really so bad? If Nvidia or AMD did this to support their video cards, we would all be cheering about what a great thing this was. So why is it different for Microsoft?
Dont forget Ubuntu, that have an paid app store right in the distribution (and is very friendly with FOSS apps), and even if they use "app store" in the cellphone/tablet realm you will have it with the incoming ubuntu mobile.
They contributed code that only benefitted their product.
Nothing wrong with that.
To be fair, the argument that is always made in discussions about this topic is that that is in fact not theft, but copyright infringement. Let us remain impartial here, and not use one or the other interpretation depending on what is most convenient.
Can you take the binary from your phone, give it to your friend, and have him run it on his phone? No? Then it's sure not GPL friendly, whatever else it may be.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
They did so because their VM environment is playing catch up, and if it didn't support linux that would be even less reason for anyone to consider using it.
If their VM platform were the market leader, it's almost certain that they would intentionally not support linux and even go out of their way to break it in an attempt to coerce people away from linux.
They only ever do anything that aid interoperability when their own product is coming from behind. If they have cornered a market already, they do the exact opposite as has been shown time and time again.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Improving the code in a proprietary product without releasing the patches to the public. That's stealing. And that's what Microsoft had already done at least once: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=ms+gpl+violation
??? those google results show that Microsoft *DID* release their derived work to the public under GPLv2.
If you don't punish companies for their pas behaviour, and they can make a quick present day profit, why would they refrain from bad behaviour? They absolutely should be punished for past evil. If more people had longer memories, they'd need to behave better. This applies to politicions and many other things as well.
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!
It is different for Microsoft because they've shown they cannot be trusted. Just because you cannot see a downside doesn't mean MS hasn't thought it through and found a new way to screw FOSS.
As to their current behavior, what is it about them shaking down companies for patents on alleged MS IP in Linux that you don't understand. If they were honest, they'd wouldn't be refusing to show what the IP is so that the Linux devs could route around it. It is shameful and we can only assume the worse given their past behavior. Screw'em.
Always tell the truth, and as an added bonus, Microsoft hates it.
I don't see what's deceptive about it. You either contribute or you don't; they did.
They also contributed a lot of open standards and that's one of the most evil thing they did (and still do).
Because users are idiots who can not decide for themselves weather to pay.
It means grabbing it, possibly but not necessarily changing it, and then releasing only the binaries regardless if one charges for those binaries or not.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Technically you can't call yourself that until after your gender re-assignment operation is complete, and even then it is arguable.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
I was actually only going to post a LOL...
Does Microsoft Have the Best App Store For Open Source Developers?
Even if they do have the "best" "app store" for Open Source, all it really says is that the other app stores are terrible... and somehow or another, I strongly suspect that Google Play is a far more Open Source friendly app store than anything Microsoft deigns to allow Open Source in/on.
In other words, the question is wrong on so many levels that all it deserves is a LOL. I mean really, it seems to even presuppose that an "app store" is even a viable model for distributing software.
How much did Microsoft have to pay to get that headline even posted? ROFL. Seriously? Just wow. No shame at all. Microsoft? Open Source? Just kill me now. ( someone should take all the elements of this "should have taken my medication first" post and get an instant +5 insightful.)
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
The code was "written" by a contractor, and MIcrosoft immediately took action. I think turning that into "Microsoft has already stolen code" is unfair. Much as I dislike Microsoft and their business practices, I'm pretty sure they don't make a habit of "stealing" GPL code themselves. It would make very little sense for them to do so.
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/microsoft/microsoft-admits-its-gpl-violation-will-reissue-windows-7-tool-under-open-source-license/4547
Yes, motivation matters a great deal. You can contribute out of altruism, or because you think everybody wins (including yourself) when you contribute, or to advance only the interests of your own, proprietary products. Microsoft has mostly done the latter. (For that matter, so has Apple, since their open-source release have also largely been useless to non-Apple users.)
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
A bit hyperbolic perhaps; but the analogy is direct. As a developer, I wouldn't want an "app store". The PC inspired me to write software when I was younger. App stores just make me go, "meh!". Have fun jumping through proprietary hoops in the (usually) vain hope of some little morsel. The rest of us have already said so long and thanks for all the fish.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
That is true. It is terrible that there is a generation of people who judge the company by their actions of today, and not by what the company did before they were born. Oh wait, no it isn't terrible.
Word. My parents never kept any slaves, either. Slavery is a myth.
Breakfast served all day!
I hear rumors that Fedora and Argh have similar solutions.
I run Arch myself, and like it a lot - but perhaps I should give "Argh, Linux!" a go sometimes, it sounds interesting.
You want to deal with their crap, have fun. But don't paint it pink and put bows on it.
Fair enough, but similarly don't paint it brown and flush it down the toilet. Unjust or over-enthusiastic praise for something that Microsoft does would be wrong. Just as wrong as belittling every good thing that they do because decades ago they wouldn't allow a beta version of Windows 3.1 to run on DR-DOS (to use one of the complaints people have).
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?
If they contributed solely out of their own business interests, and their contributions add nothing of value other than compatibility with Microsoft's proprietary software, and nobody who doesn't want to use Microsoft's proprietary software will see any benefit whatsoever from any of the changes Microsoft contributed to the kernel, then yeah, I would say it's fair to rate Microsoft's contributions to the Linux kernel lower than those of a company like, say, Red Hat.
Those stories a couple years ago about how "Microsoft is now one of the top kernel contributors"? Look at it this way: That's how much Microsoft had to change the kernel to make it work with Microsoft's proprietary VM tech.
Fair enough. Microsoft's contributions are as welcome as anybody's, provided it plays by the rules. But are you saying we're supposed to congratulate them for it? Hardly, I say.
Breakfast served all day!
"Stealing implies that you don't keep your copy. You still do." is that the same for downloading music?
The act of downloading music is not called stealing. If the download is done illegally then it may be called copying or sometimes more loosely piracy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-wwqW37-gg
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
As far as I can tell Microsoft accidentally violated the terms of the GPL. When they were made aware of this they immediately ceased violating and worked hard to bring themselves into compliance. They might very well if there is a small damages claim by someone with standing pay.
That's what you would want violators to do.
If you don't punish companies for their pas behaviour, and they can make a quick present day profit, why would they refrain from bad behaviour?
I think that the huge fines that they have received for some of their past behaviour would be reason enough to prevent them from doing it again. And if you keep punishing them no matter whether they are being good or evil now, then what is the incentive for them to be good?
Another alternative is to punish them when they do something wrong. And don't punish them for doing things that everyone else does. For example, who doesn't bundle a browser with their OS these days?
Nokia turned a profit this past quarter for the first time in a long time. I would say that their shareholders feel pretty good about that.
not if you need to have your code signed by MS to let it run on RT, without hacking it, which there is a hack.
so they can censor and pull your apps like apple does?
MS is desperate cause no one gives a shit about their product. Same with nokia and there free case designs.
Just because you cannot see a downside doesn't mean MS hasn't thought it through and found a new way to screw FOSS.
It also doesn't mean that they have found a way to screw FOSS. People keep quoting Embrace, Extend, Extinguish when they create ties with the FOSS community, but nobody has ever been able to tell me how the Extingish part is supposed to work.
As to their current behavior, what is it about them shaking down companies for patents on alleged MS IP in Linux that you don't understand.
But like it or not, that is not bad behaviour. That is the patent system doing what it is designed to do. It is no different than people clamping down on GPL violations.
..Have the Best App Store For Open Source Developers?
No, due to Betteridge's law of headlines.
No.
So the corporations who are taking shortcuts by copying and improving FOSS code without releasing the improvements back to the FOSS community are actually engaging in piracy?
It depends on the license under which the FOSS is released. If that's not acceptable under the license then it could be possible to call it a form of piracy.
In that case it's interesting how piracy is just victimless copying when John Q. public does it but alluvasudden become 'stealing' when Company X is pirating FOSS code. After all John Q public would never have bought that CD, even if he hadn't been able to torrent it. But then would penniless startup X have bothered to produce product Y if they had not been able to take massive shortcuts by pirating and improving FOSS code? Illegal downloads result in some lost revenue for the artist, and one could say that re-release of FOSS code improved by some company constitutes recompense for the FOSS community so in a way the FOSS community, after doing a whole pile of volunteer work, is being cheated out of its 'compensation', (i.e. the improvements Company X is not releasing).
Sincerely, Advocatus Diaboli
I don't understand what it is that you're saying. It doesn't matter if it's software or music, the license should be respected.
Word. My parents never kept any slaves, either. Slavery is a myth.
I'm not saying that you should deny that Microsoft have done bad things in the past. I am saying judge them for what they have do now and have done for the past decade. They really did pull their collective socks up.
Yes - *after* they were caught for GPL violation, which they have admitted since that. The code release was result of GPL violation, not their original plan. If you had the same results I saw then I can't see how you could misunderstand that.
In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
Because the corporate world is enamored with Gestapo films and tactics? And, the government lackeys enjoy playing the game as well?
"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
If you by useless mean allowed Google to base the Chrome browser on Apple's WebKit then sure, very useless. Projects like FreeBSD must have found Apple's involvement in LLVM very useless, and I'm sure they found libdispatch useless as well.
Shouldn't have used Bing :D
If they contributed solely out of their own business interests, and their contributions add nothing of value other than compatibility with Microsoft's proprietary software, and nobody who doesn't want to use Microsoft's proprietary software will see any benefit whatsoever from any of the changes Microsoft contributed to the kernel, then yeah, I would say it's fair to rate Microsoft's contributions to the Linux kernel lower than those of a company like, say, Red Hat.
Speaking of Red Hat it looks like the guest support for Hyper-V is a fairly big feature in Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.9. I'm just speculating here, but it is likely that Microsoft's contribution adds business value to companies like Red Hat and eventually to their customers. So I don't get what is so bad with Microsoft contributing to open source.
If microsoft needs someone to add their FOSS application to an app store for them to be able to steal the code, we really have nothing to fear from them.
There are more recent things, like buying themselves "open" document "standard" or the restricted boot hardware lock-in scam plan - and while I know that some people disagree about these issues they still are issues to others and proof that MS is still treacherous as it was in the DR-DOS times.
As far as I consider the old stuff can be summed up with recent stuff for total sum of unworthiness as long as there is new stuff to point out that they haven't turned the boat around.
In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
And how much of that "profit" was provided by microsoft versus actual sales?
No, there is nothing wrong with that. There is something wrong with using it as an argument that they are helping FOSS in any way.
They only "contribute" code that requires a Microsoft license to use. Can you use their code without running their VM on their OS? No. Microsoft only releases stuff that require Microsoft products to work (save a few exceptions where it was the company that they acquired that was doing it).
Do I have to run Android to use Google's contributions to the Linux kernel? No. For that reason, I consider Google's contributions a lot more friendly to open source than Microsoft's because they're generally more useful and not limited in usefulness as an express design goal.
I suspect Google, despite having a competing product, has more commits to Firefox than Microsoft does. It's not that Google is a perfect saint, they're not, it's that it illustrates how MS's views on open source differ greatly from everyone else's. Yes, I know that all apparent altruism is a sham and Google is looking out for #1. But there are more positive (and tangible) side effects from Google's apparent altruism than there are from Microsoft's. And since I'm looking out for #1 too, I'm going to pick the products and services that fit my needs best as a developer. That generally means products and services that work well with other products that may or may not be from the same vendor.
I want this account deleted.
As to their current behavior, what is it about them shaking down companies for patents on alleged MS IP in Linux that you don't understand. If they were honest, they'd wouldn't be refusing to show what the IP is so that the Linux devs could route around it. It is shameful and we can only assume the worse given their past behavior. Screw'em.
This in fact is one thing I have big issue with - it's clear for anyone with sense of ethics that under patent law (which I personally don't accept for software anyway) an extortion scheme where you threat with lawsuit but refuse to provide information of what patents (also equivalents of other IP laws that patents) are being violated should in fact render those patents unusable in future lawsuits against alleged infringes.
Of course this would mean that if new infringement was found and a case was brought against that, it would also be rendered useless automatically as there is no way to know if it was/n't one of those in earlier threats - but that's ok, nobody would make these empty or secret threats with such laws.
In this case MS could not sue any Linux business for patent violations before they had released the list of allegedly violated patents they have made threats of - and given appropriate time to take action and fix these issues. IANAL, and not trying to make up exact legal writing of how such law should be worded exactly, just explaining general idea - and really as far as software patents go I hold the opinion that the faster we get rid of those the better.
In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
Possible nothing, that's a clear-cut case of the traditional meaning of copyright piracy - when California publishers would copy east-coast commercial works wholesale without permission.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
WebKit is based on KHTML, and Apple didn't have a choice about the license since it's LGPL. Apple's conduct vis-a-vis the KHTML developers was unfriendly to say the least.
Apple didn't choose to open source those projects, they merely participated in an existing project.
libdispatch isn't really used much outside OS X, since other platforms have better alternatives. libdispatch is indeed typical for the kinds of projects that Apple chooses to open source.
I know of no software open sourced by Apple either out of altruistic reasons or that constitutes a win-win situation. And unlike Microsoft, Jobs explicitly and clearly tried to screw the gcc developers and circumvent the GPL.
Yes you cannot steal information. However you can steal credit. It is called plagiarism. Yes, if I rip a copy of Metallica's album that is not stealing. If I somehow convince people that the result is my own band's work and not Metallica's, then that *is* stealing!
In any case the original post is silly. If Microsoft wanted to violate copyright on some GNU code, it does not matter whether they have done something to the app store to allow it to be put in there. In fact if anything this is the opposite, since before it would have been impossible to put software using GNU components into the app store without violating the copyright.
Anybody unable to tell the difference between making a copy of a Metallica album, and claiming you wrote and performed that copy, is a troll.
It's *our* microsoft
My other
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
Mostly agree, though I consider it a benefit to Linux if it simply makes it technically better*, even if it comes with price of possible decreasing number of linux installations (such as Linux host running more Windows VM's than Linux VM's) even though for the community and growth of linux it may actually have negative effects.
It probably will be for the benefit of all in the longer scope - it's basically putting the technical superiority before the market share that in many cases (not all) is among the biggest benefits of FOSS development.
So, I'm okay with MS contributing code only because it benefits them (that does not make me automatically change my view on them) but also think that whatever the effects on linux adoption are the ability to better run Windows VM's on Linux is a good thing for Linux too. Of course I'm hoping for growth of Linux, just not by keeping some technical improvements out of it.
*and by technically better I mean anything that makes it better for any possible use(s) without making it worse for other uses.
In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
Indeed, and to be specific they bought themselves so called "open" document standards of their own, which have little to do with being open or standard.
In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
people who clamp on GPL violations back it up with proof - i.e. showing what signs indicate that the violation occurred.
They don't just tell companies to pay them royalties or else.
Microsoft did not reveal which parts of the Linux kernel it found infringing, even though it has the code to read through.
claims of GPL violations are based on evidence in the published binary: comparison with a known GPL binary, telltale signs of known code (symbol names) and sometimes the actual GPL itself quoted verbatim inside the binary
These claims of violation come with hard data - which bytes are which values, and why that's bad. It's not a claim of 'you're violating the GPL because you copied GPL code. I won't tell you which GPL code you copied, or how I know, I'll just say that I'm the owner of that code'. That's insane.
My other
I personally would never code open source software for Microsoft APP store to benefit... #deathtowidowsphone #longliveandroid
These changes prepare the way for this http://www.neowin.net/news/vlc-for-windows-8-funding-exceeds-kickstarter-goal
WebKit is based on KHTML, and Apple didn't have a choice about the license since it's LGPL. Apple's conduct vis-a-vis the KHTML developers was unfriendly to say the least.
Of course they had a choice. It's not like they were forced to use KHTML. If they didn't wanted to contribute then they could have developed their own browser engine in-house and kept it closed for no one else to use, yet they decided to contribute to the greater good and share their innovations with the rest of the world.
If Nvidia or AMD did this to support their video cards, we would all be cheering about what a great thing this was. So why is it different for Microsoft?
Because Nvidia and AMD sell hardware.
When Microsoft releases open source drivers for the hardware it sells, we all celebrate.
Here, Microsoft releases open source code that provides support for their software. If you don't own that software, and the contribution is not intellectually fulfilling in any way, you gained nothing. The unwritten assumption here is that hardware is good for something, and you buy it to do that thing for you. You don't buy software so you don't have Microsoft's software platform to need support for. It's an assumption of complete lack of commercial software. It's probably valid in some academic circles
In other news, I agree that it's stupid to be angry at present Microsoft for things we felt back in the 90s. Microsoft is a corporation. Like people, it can change over time. And like crimes have a statue of limitations, the blame liability suffered by Microsoft must be finite. Otherwise they truly have no reason to become good - if they'll always be judged as evil.
My other
And why is that wrong? It does help FOSS. It makes Linux into a better alternative for those who wants to run it on top of Hyper-V.
Trying to portray Apple's use of KHTML as some kind of altruistic act is ridiculous and offensive, given their past abuses of open source software.
Google probably have more contributions. Great work Google.
Microsoft's contribution may be specific for running it on their VM, but there's nothing wrong with that. It's still a contribution. It's only a problem if you're down-to-the-BIOS everything has to be free. For the rest of us, running Linux on Hyper-V is a feature.
What abuse are you talking about? They based their engine on top of free software, despite that they didn't have to. They improved it a lot and released their changes which helped it became enormously successful and is now used within almost every smartphone.
How is that ridiculous and offensive?
It's that I find Google's selfishness more useful than Microsoft's selfishness. I don't think I'm alone with that either. So, to answer the question in the headline, as a selfish developer, no Microsoft is not the most friendly for open source. It's fine to help yourself but when you actively look for ways to help yourself and avoid helping others... not gonna win my selfish vote. Google helps themselves and there's a lot of incidental helping to others. Microsoft seems to be making a point of making sure they don't help anyone else while helping themselves. I'll take Google's accidental over MS's intentional any fucking day. I'm a pig like that.
I want this account deleted.
I presume some of these 'tree hackers' must read the news and know about these devices. Shouldn't be too hard to figure out how to remove them from the trees prior to transport. Sheesh.. sometimes, it's better not to advertise every piece of knowledge in the news.
I gave blood once ~10 years ago. I'd hardly rate myself as a leader to the cause. Microsoft's contribution to open source is rather small and on par with me giving blood once. Sure, it helps, it's nice, it's better than nothing. It hardly makes them a big name in open source.
I want this account deleted.
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.
Microsoft contributes to more than just Linux, including opening a lot of their own (previously closed) products. They even brag about it on their website if you want to read what they have to say about it. It's not just a one-off thing.
It isn't that there is some explicit rule saying "no open source software" for any of the platforms.
It's the conflict between 'no-sideloading' and terms in the gpl/lgpl, which give the user the right to get the source code, and compile and run the resulting binary.
I believe the argument is that since you have to pay for a developer license in order to get the resulting binary to run on your phone, this violates that term of the gpl license. And signed binaries which have to include the libraries bundled as part of the app mean end-users can't replace the lgpl library, which would violate the license.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Just to follow up, so unless MS enables users to side-load apps for free and modify apps sold through their app store, I don't see how just saying "your terms override our terms" resolves the situation.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
You must be right, developing and maintaining their own operating system and large parts of the userland for it clearly isn't as hard as building a web browser.
And gcc; seriously that was in the 80's, are you still hung up about that? And like it or not but he changed his mind, used gcc and contributed back.
But keep on believing that Apple is just a big evil bully if that makes you happy.
The generally accepted term is "pirating".
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
I'm aware of the propaganda and the non-portable code they release for only one platform. They're still not a big player in open source. Maybe if they were, they'd be able to sell a fucking phone. Even if they released the same volume of source code as one of their competitors... what difference does it make if no one uses it?
I want this account deleted.
Where do you get these fantasies from? Apple didn't "develop their own operating system" either. They bought NeXT, and NeXT's operating system was a combination of the Mach kernel, the BSD userland, BSD and GNU utilities, and the gcc compiler. This was after Apple had completely lost control of the evolution of MacOS and run that OS into the ground.
And, yes, developing an HTML renderer is harder; for the OS, Apple can simply decide what to implement and how, whereas for HTML rendering, they have to be compatible with billions of pages.
As for "that being back in the 80's", Apple doesn't seem to have changed: they still rip off open source and they still engage in look-and-feel lawsuits.
Yes, I keep on believing that Apple is a big evil bully, and it seems like others are coming around to my point of view.
It's just modern life. I don't see anything terribly wrong with Reddit or Twitter. High-quality nerdy stuff can be stuff from those services too.
Did Bill Gates run over your dog or something? Back in the day MS made unstable, insecure and incompatible products, and we didn't like the company. Now they have brushed up and make much more usable stuff, so it starts to look like a viable solution again. It's just business.
It creates jobs, and from that viewpoint can be seen as ethical.
Instead of having most of us regurgitate Microsoft's evil record, how about you do some work and go find the antitrust charges they were found guility of in Europe? A start at least.
Next, try to find a PC without a Windows License forced on you. Building it yourself from pieces doesn't count (thank goodness as that's how I do all mine).
Have fun.
Anything is possible given time and money.
Right because they can't download the source code from github or codeplex or elsewhere? You know, the place where the source is hosted, BEFORE the binaries are released.
"Stealing implies that you don't keep your copy. You still do." is that the same for downloading music?
No, but a better music analogy is at hand: some no-name band writes and sings an excellent but little-known song, then Justin Bieber hears it, and shortly after sings/releases the same song (with a few small changes) as if he wrote it.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
In numbers, most users of OpenOffice/LibreOffice, Firefox, and others FOSS stars run them in Windows. As the main source of money, for MS is Windows, they should allow a lot of FOSS software to complete the user experience.
If you truly cared about the use of hashtags, you would do your best to ensure that all of your slashdot postings were more than 140 characters/
DR-DOS? Um.. no, not just that. Have a look here, and note the CONTINUOUS history of abuse:
http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=2005010107100653
First off the GP ignored another fee: you have to own a Windows Phone
Second, if a platform has no traction, you will often offer it on a loss leader basis. A loss leader is where you offer something for free or otherwise below your cost to produce it, in order to get future sales, either of add-ons, or of the product itself.
For example, Microsoft could have offered to refund all those costs for the first 10,000 apps published; likely it would have to be closer to 100,000, in order for them to get to iPhone App Store scale, but that could have been the offer.
Another way to go about it would be to pick the top 100 Apps (adjusted for same developer) in the iPhone App Store, waive the developer account fee, and send them the necessary hardware with the necessary software already installed for "$1 and other valuable considerations", with the proviso that they not use the hardware except for developing Windows Phone Apps, and a contract penalty to cover their costs, and an audit caluse as one of their considerations.
They could also waive the developer account fee on a yearly basis, based on you selling at least that much in value to Microsoft of your App(s).
Right now, they are trying to court the people who have said "I would develop for iPhone/iPad/IPod Touch, but Apple won't let me use open source software as part of my App" -- which is a lot of people, but many are politically motivated in their statements, and would not be goo App developers.
So yeah, this is a likely misfire by Microsoft, but it got you talking about them, didn't it? And it got the Windows Phone in the press (as news), which they could basically only get there by buying advertising otherwise.
Ah yes, the alledged "evil" open document standard that inconvenienced nobody, and the UEFI secure boot "fiasco" that wasn't invented by Microsoft and closes a huge security hole. These aren't evil or treacherous. And for that matter, my example of DR-DOS was another example of a non-event beat up. No version of Windows 3.x was shipped that didn't run on DR-DOS.
GPL violation was perpetrated by a Chinese subcontractor, though, not an MS employee, and it certainly wasn't requested. As a developer in MS, I can tell you that, if anything, the company is excessively paranoid about any open source code (and particularly GPL) finding its way into any released products. I imagine quite a few heads have rolled in the managerial chain after that snafu.
I don't know about the phone, but on Win8 the developer license itself is free - you only need to pay for the Store license.
And I don't think a technical limitation on sideloading would count, in any case. GPL is all about legality - if there is anything in the license that outright prohibits side loading without a dev license, that's one thing, but if it's silent on that, then there is no conflict with GPLv2 here (v3 is a different matter due to the explicit anti-tivoization clause).
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.
Why do F# guys get all the glory whenever FOSS at Microsoft is brought up? :) We do cool stuff, too. And, to the best of my knowledge, we are the only FOSS team at MS that takes outside contributions, and gives write access to our code repository for contributors.
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?
Well, if we're being completely utilitarian about things, then no, it doesn't matter. But it also doesn't matter to me that they did contribute, because that didn't benefit me in any way. In a broader context, I'm not sure it matters to many people at all, because the vast majority of sysadmins running Microsoft VMs are using them to run virtualised Windows.
Anyway, if the argument is that Microsoft is a better company now for having learned to come to terms with the GPL, if only to admit, effectively, that it has a right to exist... well, that doesn't carry a lot of weight for me, one way or the other.
BUT... to use this as an argument to further speculate that the MS App Store is more FOSS-friendly than any other... shit, where do I begin?
First, let's be clear that none of the app stores do much at all to help FOSS, though the Google Play store at least doesn't get in the way too much. Second, while I don't have anything against Microsoft's store, this particular line sounds like a cynical and rather pathetic appeal for us FOSS developers to like them, à la Sally Field. My first reaction to this line is to flinch and check the wings to make sure Ballmer isn't hiding there, warming up for another monkey dance.
Why do I shy like this? Because like it or not, MS have earned their reputation for duplicity, amoral behaviour and outright dishonesty. It's actually a little pathetic to see them trying to make nice, kind of like meeting the school bully stocking the shelves at $BIGBOX and watching him squirm and toady as you pick out a new $3500 home entertainment system[*].
-------------
[*] Happened to me once. It wasn't as satisfying as I thought it would be. In fact, it saddened me.
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
Face it people... M$ is having a bad day. They need a whole mess-o-apps to make their also-ran tablet a viable choice in the face of more developed competition. Its crunch time. If they have to compromise on license and put a smootch mark on every developers left butt cheek, butt cheeks will bear lipstick. Line up for the M$ logo a pair of red pursed lips...
My understanding is that the problem is with the "you only have to pay for the Store license" [at least, for Apple's App Store]. You can get the source code, and compile it, but you can't run it on the device without having to pay for the privilege. Some people seem to feel that violates the GPL [one of the VLC guys for example].
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
I found one in 15 seconds on google. Can we stop pretending these don't exist now?
-1 overrated isn't the same thing as "I disagree".
The F-Droid app store, to use its own description "is an easily-installable catalogue of FOSS applications for the Android platform". They even do most of the work, like building your app from source, for you. And F-Droid doesn't even include non-FOSS apps to compete with the FOSS ones. How is Microsoft's thing more FOSS-friendly than that?
-rozzin.
at least OSS darwin is. you can go try to download, install, and run the 'OSS Darwin' yourself and see what i mean.
You don't have to pay for Store license to side load apps. You only need the developer license for that, and it is free.
Also, the situation you describe - having the complete source, but being unable to run it on a particular device because it employs signing or other DRM trick - is not compatible with GPLv3, but works with GPLv2 (indeed, it was the main reason for v3).
You're still stuck on a singular definition of stealing that quite obviously isn't exclusive. Consider your examples:
When you steal a kiss, you deny someone else that kiss
Stealing a kiss is about surprising someone with a kiss. Your definition is a bit odd, and more than a little creepy. It creates an odd situation where usage of anything that can only be used by a single person at any given time would be redefined as stealing. I'm stealing a chair at the bar because no-one else can use it while I'm seated there?
When you steal a look, you're looking at something before others do.
Again you have an oddly specific understanding of this expression that seems contingent on denying something to others, or at least beating them to it. What if I'm the last man on Earth - is it possible to steal a look at something when there's no-one else around? If someone else has already stolen a look, can I no-longer steal a look?
When you steal an idea, you gain its advantages before the original creator
So an idea can't be stolen if the creator has already enjoyed its advantages? That's patently nonsensical. While it's true that stealing the idea could devalue the idea, stealing the idea requires neither timing (slipping in before the creator can enjoy the idea) nor advantage over the creator.
A woman has stolen my heart. Now my heart is not mine to command any more
Agreed.
-- Using the preview button since 2005
Buying standards that should not pass is not OK for me - neither is hardware vendor lock-in disguised as a security feature. Even if it prevents minor sector of malware from being able to infect the system (or at least being able to boot after that...) it's still not OK - there is no security justification for not allowing users to disable UEFI from BIOS (or whatever the ARM equivalent).
Oh, and getting caught and switching strategy does not make the original intentions good. And if you try and cause mischief but fail to harm anybody/thing you're still an asshole.
In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
Thank you for these details.
In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
Although d33tah may be correct (dependant on the licence behind the code being "stolen"), your reply is exactly why I don't describe copyright/licence infringement as "stealing". Quite a few people seem to forget that the word has for a very long time had multiple meanings. Would you steal yourself away to steal a kiss? Ever stolen a look at something in the hope of stealing an idea?
You can steal a prognosed/expected profit from an idea. Like: I have an idea with monetary value (cure for cancer, cold fusion, desktop quantum computing) but the value is dependent on being the first to bring it to the market. Someone 'taking' that idea and marketing/patenting it, would cost me.
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.
Good Job! Now compare that price to a similar machine with a Windows License.
Having purchased a system76 myself, I already know and yet paid the extra anyway.
Anything is possible given time and money.
Next, try to find a PC without a Windows License forced on you. Building it yourself from pieces doesn't count (thank goodness as that's how I do all mine). Have fun.
That Windows license wasn't forced on you. You made that choice with full knowledge of your options. Pretending otherwise is basically lying.
Of course the Linux version of the same hardware is more expensive. Windows PCs come with the bundled crapware that subsidizes the cost of the operating system. Linux PCs don't have the bundled crapware and therefore cost the OEM more money. Not to mention most people who buy the Linux version did so by mistake and end up returning it.
-1 overrated isn't the same thing as "I disagree".
They take with out contributing back to the foss project that is bad because the project doesn't grow and develop then
... standing IEEE policy for industry dominance and compitition minimazation:
I (will always) Embrace, Extend then Extinguish your protocol, program, or method.
Their other methods of defeating the Open Source movement and the GPL licence (among others) has so far failed. Why not try the EEE on a licencing model?
I certainly wouldn't put it past them.
THINK! It's patriotic
Ello sir. Yeah, it can definitely work that way. Being first to market isn't everything though. I'd imagine that cancer cure cost a fair bit of money to develop. Even if you're first to market, I can sweep in after you and sell far more cheaply (assuming the actual manufacturing costs to be way lower than the development process). My main point is that it is stealing, and that the term is imprecise.
-- Using the preview button since 2005
I know linux-based machines are sold, I also know some people are clueless about them. Hence, "try to find", success: use google.
Now, the idea a Windows PC is cheaper, it's a GOOD thing and GIVES OEM's better pricing strategies....uh, wow. How is that good for the buyer again? Or really, for the OEM: eventually taking payments for putting crapware on machines will cost in sales. Certainly one of my reasons for not buying them.
Never mind, I'll be building my own, avoiding Microsoft licenses and encouraging others to do so.
Anything is possible given time and money.
So I don't get what is so bad with Microsoft contributing to open source.
Nobody was claiming it was bad. I hear people saying that it is not a flag that Microsoft can wave around yelling about how Open source friendly they are. :)
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
The code was "written" by a contractor, and MIcrosoft immediately took action. I think turning that into "Microsoft has already stolen code" is unfair.
I agree. The hyperbole, truth stretching, and outright lying needs to stop. This was NOT a situation to nail Microsoft to the wall even if they deserve it in general.
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
It is a "language evolves" thing, absolutely. In language evolution, there are two types of change, there is "change from above" and "change from below."
When new vocabulary is introduced as a deliberate or coordinated effort, by a small (oligarch) group of people, that is change from above. It's part of language evolution. Not the darwinian sense of evolution, but darwinian evolution is for biological systems; we call language change "evolution" because it sometimes mimics that process.
When lots of people move from one place to another and they bring their speech patterns with them, and the patterns considered as 'normal' speech in the region becomes more similar to their speech and less similar to the old way of speaking, or when the migrants adapt their speech to pre-existing language in the region where they moved to, that is change from below. It's also change from below if pronunciation shifts, as in the great vowel shift.
Just don't make the mistake of thinking that evolution in language doesn't happen like Orwellian "New-Speak" scenario. That is in the linguistic sense absolutely evolution too. Copyright owners probably don't want your euphemistic extra syllables in "copyright infringement" and would rather refer to it as simply stealing. By making up this newspeak and pedantically insisting that it be used in place of easier to grok 'stealing', which gets across clearly what kind of damage is done, you are the one who is attempting the change from above. It's not the music that's been stolen, it's their right to profit from reproduction and distribution, and that's a thing, tangible or no, it's codified in the law. It's still stealing.
Restating the obvious since nineteen aught five.
Nope. Is certainly language evolution. Doubleplusgood language evolution.
No
Puteulanus fenestra mortis