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?"
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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."
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
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.
They contributed code that only benefitted their product.
Nothing wrong with that.
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.
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!
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
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
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
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.
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
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.