×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Microsoft Releases Source Code For Web Sandbox

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the could-easily-be-the-biggest-open-source-company dept.

Microsoft 188

nandemoari writes "After flirting with open source development for some time, Microsoft has made another step towards real commitment with the release of source code for Web Sandbox, a program used to test and secure web site content. The Sandbox source code will be released under the Apache 2.0 license, an open source license agreement allowing the content creator to maintain copyright while permitting others to develop the product for their own use. Microsoft has gradually been increasing their involvement with the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) since 2008 when they agreed to fund development of certain ASF initiatives."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

188 comments

Excellent. (5, Funny)

Corpuscavernosa (996139) | more than 5 years ago | (#26641915)

I'll assume that Windows kernel, IE, Office, and that new song making program are next!

Re:Excellent. (1)

djupedal (584558) | more than 5 years ago | (#26642485)

Ah yes - another day, another coating of Microsoft on Slashdot. And another....and another....and another. Got to get the 30% coverage quota going.

pist fr0st!!!111!one (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26641921)

First poooooooooooossssst! *jazz hands*

Re:pist fr0st!!!111!one (1)

Corpuscavernosa (996139) | more than 5 years ago | (#26642091)

First poooooooooooossssst! *jazz hands*

This is the funniest variation of these meme that I've seen. Great visual. Laughed my ass off.

Re:pist fr0st!!!111!one (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26643009)

it's just a shame the creativity resulted in failure, should just have put "frist" and posted it.

The deep end (5, Funny)

Temujin_12 (832986) | more than 5 years ago | (#26641955)

An interesting section of code:

if (sandbox.isDeepEnd()) {
      Message message = sandbox.getLeprechaun().getMessage();

      if (MessageInterpreter::isBurnCommand(message)) {
            environment.burnItAll();
      }
}

self.citeRalphism();

Rule of Acquisition #76 (5, Insightful)

NonUniqueNickname (1459477) | more than 5 years ago | (#26642009)

Every once in a while, declare peace. It confuses the hell out of your enemies.

Re:Rule of Acquisition #76 (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26642143)

You know, cats love sandboxes too. How do you like them cookies?

Re:Rule of Acquisition #76 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26642909)

My dog loves those "kitty Kat Krunchies"

Re:Rule of Acquisition #76 (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26642995)

You know, cats love sandboxes too. How do you like them cookies?

I'd prefer them cheezburgers, you insensitive clod!

Re:Rule of Acquisition #76 (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 5 years ago | (#26642777)

Every once in a while, declare peace. It confuses the hell out of your enemies.

The obvious answer to me is that Microsoft has determined that they can not squeeze any money out of this code.

Re:Rule of Acquisition #76 (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26643455)

You know who else once famously declared peace to confuse his enemies...

Re:Rule of Acquisition #76 (1)

david.given (6740) | more than 5 years ago | (#26643489)

"If you're up against someone more intelligent than you are, do something insane and let him think himself to death." --- Pyanfar Chanur

In other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26643497)

RMS decided to close-source emacs and sell it for profit.

Profit!!! (4, Insightful)

carrier lost (222597) | more than 5 years ago | (#26642015)

Microsoft has gradually been increasing their involvement with the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) since 2008 when they agreed to fund development of certain ASF initiatives.

The whole "Embrace, Extend and Extinguish" thing is sure taking a lot longer these days...

Re:Profit!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26642691)

The whole "Embrace, Extend and Extinguish" thing is sure taking a lot longer these days...

I think MS is trying to sneak up to it this time, though they still have all the subtlety one would expect from an 800 pound gorilla.

Re:Profit!!! (1)

JohnBailey (1092697) | more than 5 years ago | (#26643381)

The whole "Embrace, Extend and Extinguish" thing is sure taking a lot longer these days...

Shh.... We don't want them finding out that the "extend" bit only works when you can keep all your code secret.

Apache? (5, Insightful)

qoncept (599709) | more than 5 years ago | (#26642039)

The really surprising part of this story, to me, is that Microsoft didn't draft it's own, new license for this.

Re:Apache? (-1, Flamebait)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 5 years ago | (#26642107)

Apache is Open Source, but not GPL compatible (it lacks the 5th freedom -- freedom for the GPL to virally infect it). This is a big "fuck you" to linux and FREE software in general. They might as well have left it proprietary or released under their shared source license.

Re:Apache? (4, Insightful)

glenstar (569572) | more than 5 years ago | (#26642181)

Um... the Apache license is MUCH more free than the GPL in that you can do anything you want with it, including closing it if you are so inclined. Plus you don't have to buy into the feverish and rabid philosophy of the majority of GPL disciples.

Plus, let's flip this on its head: do you REALLY want to have to publish your changes so that Microsoft can take advantage of your hard work?

Re:Apache? (4, Insightful)

FranTaylor (164577) | more than 5 years ago | (#26642255)

I want to publish my changes so that EVERYONE can take advantage of my hard work.

Re:Apache? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26642321)

Nothing's stopping you.

Re:Apache? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26643481)

Good for you. Under the BSD license, you can. Some folks want the freedom to not do that, Microsoft choose a license that suites those people.

If you want to take the software, contribute something to it so that people would actually want to use it over the original, and then release it under GPL, you can.

Your post implies you want to be able to take advantage of other people's hard work. That is something wholly different.

Re:Apache? (1)

FatdogHaiku (978357) | more than 5 years ago | (#26643859)

So, something released under an Apache license can be modified and then released under GPL? Not being sarcastic, I'd really like to know if the act of modifying negates the first license (Apache), or if that is even required to meet the terms of GPL... that just sounds like a nightmare coming soon to a courtroom near by... What license prevails? Or is the code somehow split-licensed?

Re:Apache? (4, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 5 years ago | (#26642283)

The GPL protects the "commons", the other open licenses do not. With another license like the Apache one microsoft or anyone else is free to take the code close it up and sell a product that makes the open version obsolete or at best less featured.

The freedom for end users to have and be able to modify the source is the only one that really means anything.

Re:Apache? (1)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 5 years ago | (#26642663)

The freedom for end users to have and be able to modify the source is the only one that really means anything.

I don't agree that it's the only thing that really matters. But I do agree that its a pretty major point that seems to be lost by the "more free than the GPL" arguments you see from time to time.

Re:Apache? (3, Insightful)

glenstar (569572) | more than 5 years ago | (#26642713)

<dragged_into_troll_debate>
The end-use has just as much access to the original project under Apache (or BSD) as they do under the GPL...but they may not necessarily have access to the changes that a developer makes to the original. I don't see this as a giant hurdle since the only people who would give a flying fuck about source are developers and they are perfectly capable (maybe) of adding whatever changes they want to the original.
</dragged_into_troll_debate>

Re:Apache? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 5 years ago | (#26642837)

Then they have to use an inferior version, which would not be an issue if the end user had the freedom to see and and modify the source.

Non-developers do care too, they hire developers.

All this means that Microsoft or whoever can take from the commons and not give back. Thus the tragedy of the commons occurs. If there is no need to give back(give source to the end user as it was given to them), then the software might as well have started closed source. At least that way the people closing it would have paid for they code they now hold ransom.

Re:Apache? (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 5 years ago | (#26643503)

You're worried that Microsoft will steal the code that they just released under an open source license, and won't give anything back, after just having given everything?

Re:Apache? (1)

denis-The-menace (471988) | more than 5 years ago | (#26642951)

"Microsoft or anyone else is free to take the code close it up and sell a product that makes the open version obsolete or at best less featured."

That the "Extinguish" part of MS' EEE strategy.

Re:Apache? (5, Insightful)

JustinOpinion (1246824) | more than 5 years ago | (#26642399)

If you'll indulge a tangent here...

the Apache license is MUCH more free than the GPL

I find the debates about which OSS license is "most free" to be rather silly, because:
1. All the "major" OSS licenses (GPL, BSD, Apache, etc.) are awesome, in my opinion. They all do great things and greatly help free software. So debating about which one is "the best" seems counter-productive because it obscures the fact that they are all good.

2. The debates usually have an implicit assumption that "freedom" is a one-dimensional axis, and we are trying to maximize the amount of "freedom." Occasionally someone will insightfully explain how freedom is more complex: one person's freedom may come at the expense of another; you need to distinguish between user freedom, developer freedom, distributor freedom; etc. Overall I prefer to think of "freedom" as being multi-dimensional.* A particular license may maximize along one freedom-axis, while not being maximal along another freedom-axis. And there may not be any license which simultaneously maximizes along every axis. Hence no such thing as the "most free" license. (But there may still be ways to rank things; e.g. most proprietary licenses are less free along every axis.) In other words (and you would think this would be obvious): the "best" license depends very much on the particular situation and one's particular priorities.

(* I believe this multi-dimensionality applies to many "wavy-gravy" human concepts/principles/emotions. Too frequently we argue about things as if they were binary or 1-dimensional, when even a cursory analysis shows them to be more complex than that.)

Re:Apache? (1)

glenstar (569572) | more than 5 years ago | (#26642657)

I tend to agree with you and if you build a matrix of the "freedoms" between the GPL, Apache and BSD you will find the only "freedom" that the GPL adds that others do not is: "You MUST share all changes you make to the code with whomever asks for it, so long as your code is made for public consumption". That is a grossly simple definition of the GPL but the essence is right.

I am not anti-GPL so much as I am anti this rabid sensationalism that software is made to be free. Software takes time, money, and skill to create and if the creator wishes to restrict its use that is their choice.

Re:Apache? (0, Troll)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 5 years ago | (#26643397)

Consider Qt -- before Nokia bought trolltech and relicensed it as LGPL, it was FREEly available as GPL. Not because they believe in FREEdom, but to encourage/force end users to buy the proprietary/non-FREE version. How can the GPL ensure FREEdom if it encourages people to use non-FREE software? The GPL can and is used to force the usage of proprietary software.

Re:Apache? (4, Insightful)

lucas_picador (862520) | more than 5 years ago | (#26642511)

Um... the Apache license is MUCH more free than the GPL in that you can do anything you want with it, including closing it if you are so inclined.

Yeah, just like America was a much freer place in 1750 because you were free to own slaves or to sell yourself into indentured servitude.

Re:Apache? (1, Interesting)

glenstar (569572) | more than 5 years ago | (#26642891)

God damn it...I can't help but continually be drawn into this. You cannot possibly be equating non-GPLed software to slavery...or can you? That is, excuse me, the dumbest fucking thing I have ever heard.

Do you honestly believe that all software companies should just shut their doors, or give their products away by licensing it in such a way that everyone else can also release it(which is the same as shutting their doors)? I suppose you think that all artists (authors, musicians, etc...) should give their product away as well? That anything that anyone creates magically belongs to the whole of humanity? That it has no value at all? If you do then you are the most short-sighted individual I have ever come across. Money must be exchanged for services rendered (software, books, music) or they will cease to exist. It is not free to make them and somewhere along the way there has to be an exchange of money or the entire financial system breaks down (even worse than it is now). And before you pipe up with the mantra: "release your software for free and then charge for services!" please answer the following question: "Why in the fuck do you think your 'services' have a value when the software does not?".

Re:Apache? (2, Insightful)

lucas_picador (862520) | more than 5 years ago | (#26643355)

Settle down, tiger, and give that straw man a rest. I was responding to a post that made the absurd claim that a license that allowed covered code to be made less free ("closed" was, I think, the word used) was actually a more "free" license than one which required the code to remain free/open. This was so close to a restatement of Orwell's paradigmatic slogan of linguistic nihilism -- "Freedom is Slavery" -- that I thought it bore comment. The "freedom" to discard your own freedom -- or that of others -- is no freedom at all.

You've imputed to me a bunch of weird stuff about business models, equating software licenses with human slavery, and so on. I suggest that this is your baggage, not mine, being inappropriately drawn into the conversation.

Re:Apache? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26642915)

Explain to me why parent comment is not rated troll.

Re:Apache? (1)

just_another_sean (919159) | more than 5 years ago | (#26643037)

Plus, let's flip this on its head: do you REALLY want to have to publish your changes so that Microsoft can take advantage of your hard work?

Yes. That's how Free Software is supposed to work.

Re:Apache? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26643077)

Plus, let's flip this on its head: do you REALLY want to have to publish your changes so that Microsoft can take advantage of your hard work?

I find it disturbing how many people don't realise that that this is only required when you are distributing the results of your modifications. You can modify and use to your heart's content, the GPL only kicks in when you need a license to distribute copyrighted works (i.e. distribute someone else's software, or rather, your derivative work of it). The GPL is not a EULA, you can do whatever you please with the software, including modify it to do pretty much anything, and use that modified version without ever telling anyone; and if you did, no one would care.

Re:Apache? (4, Insightful)

ianare (1132971) | more than 5 years ago | (#26642251)

No it is compatible [fsf.org] with GPLv3, and Apache licensed software and Linux have always played nice (there's this minor thing you might have heard of, called 'httpd').

Nice propaganda (1)

coryking (104614) | more than 5 years ago | (#26643217)

You forgot the bit about that compatibility being one direction. You can't take GPL code and use it in any codebase under the Apache License without GPL'ing the whole damn thing.

Nice you got modded up though, even when you forgot that very, very important bit. GPL is more then happy to take other code, but it isn't so happy to give back...

Re:Nice propaganda (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26643775)

So in response to the "tragedy of the commons" you have the "tragedy of the GPL"?

Re:Apache? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26642295)

Apache is Open Source, but not GPL compatible (it lacks the 5th freedom -- freedom for the GPL to virally infect it). This is a big "fuck you" to linux and FREE software in general. They might as well have left it proprietary or released under their shared source license.

Wrong again. The Apache License is compatible with the GPL v3, according to the Free Software Foundation [fsf.org].
And there are only four software freedoms.

Only one direction my anonymous friend (1)

coryking (104614) | more than 5 years ago | (#26642739)

Almost all OSS licenses are "compatible" with GPL, but only in one direction. You can take BSD code, Apache License code and integrate it into GPL code, but you can't take any changes you made in the GPL code back into the BSD/Apache code*.

* Unless you own the copyright to the entire body of work under GPL, in which case you can do whatever you want with it.

Ray Ozzie (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26642101)

Given Wired's article on Ray Ozzie, this doesn't surprise me. Ray seems to really believe the future of Microsoft lies firmly in the cloud, and the Microsoft is behind the curve in that arena.

Trusting your business to the cloud, and Microsoft's cloud means you must trust them for security.

Microsoft, internet and security haven't exactly gone together over the years.

Maybe this is an honest effort to improve how IT professionals view Microsoft's commitment to web security.

Re:Ray Ozzie (1)

peragrin (659227) | more than 5 years ago | (#26644153)

I will only trust the cloud when I can step out of an airplane and walk.

Any business that relies on one outside company exclusively is stupid.

Update the Microsoft icon? (4, Insightful)

RevWaldo (1186281) | more than 5 years ago | (#26642129)

Isn't it about time the Microsoft icon was updated? Bill the Gates is doing other things these days and who follows ST-TNG anymore?
Maybe a screaming Steve Ballmer in a Darth Vader helmet instead?

Re:Update the Microsoft icon? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26642229)

Lord Cheney hasn't handed the helmet over yet. Give him a few months to get used to not having the power any more, then maybe he'll be willing to give it up.

Re:Update the Microsoft icon? (1)

JustinOpinion (1246824) | more than 5 years ago | (#26642257)

Don't hold your breath.

Take a look at Slashdot's FAQ [slashdot.org]. Most of the entries haven't been updated in 8 years. For some of them it doesn't matter. For others, the answers don't make much sense. (Most written before things like article tagging and the firehose existed.)

In short, Slashdot evolves at a positively glacial speed. (Which has its advantages: it would be worse to try and implement every whizz-bang fad.) This is somewhat ironic for a site where articles are posted dozens of times a day, and comments are posted at a fantastic speed. Slashdot's content changes every second. It's format changes every decade.

Re:Update the Microsoft icon? (1)

ckaminski (82854) | more than 5 years ago | (#26642309)

And it still has some of the most annoying anti-spam comment restrictions in place. That's about the most that slashdot has changed for me over the years... no two minutes between comments, no 20 seconds wait period... Even the so-called "new interface" I turned off about a day after it became the default. Gack!

Get off my lawn!

Re:Update the Microsoft icon? (1)

Jason Levine (196982) | more than 5 years ago | (#26642847)

Two minutes between comments? I've gotten messages telling me to slow down because it's been four or five minutes between my comments. I guess my typing speed it just too quick. The Slashdot effect is well known for turning servers into piles of goo. If Slashdot were to allow posters to make multiple comments without any delay, would Slashdot's servers turn to goo?

By the way, is this irony? As I try to post this message, I get: "Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment. It's been 4 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment."

Sorry, Slashdot for typing too quickly. I......w...i...l...l......t...r...y......t...o......s...l...o...w......i...t......d...o...w...n......s...o...m...e....

Re:Update the Microsoft icon? (1)

dedazo (737510) | more than 5 years ago | (#26643087)

In short, Slashdot evolves at a positively glacial speed.

That's not the problem. The code and the overall look seem to be moving along lately, so it is evolving. The "borg" icon and many other things appeal to the "hur-hur, M$ LOL" demographic that brings in the page views and ad revenue. That's why it's not going away any time soon.

I like Slashdot, don't get me wrong. But let's not pretend it owes its popularity to anything other than bashing Microsoft.

(and what the hell, now I have to wait four minutes to post again?)

Re:Update the Microsoft icon? (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 5 years ago | (#26642843)

Bill the Gates is doing other things

He may also be doing other things, but he's still Chairman of the Board of Directors of Microsoft Corp.

Re:Update the Microsoft icon? (4, Interesting)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | more than 5 years ago | (#26642981)

He is the most meaningfully philanthropic billionaire. As of a year or two ago he'd given 56% of his total accumulated wealth to charity over his lifetime. That's pretty cool, and the B&M Gates Foundation does a lot of great stuff, like pay for my local NPR and PBS stations. Compare to, oh, the Walmart heirs, who have given less than 0.01% of their wealth to philanthropic causes.

Re:Wal-Mart Donations (-1, Troll)

jimwelch (309748) | more than 5 years ago | (#26643999)

The founders and heirs of Wal-Mart have made donations, just not as vocal about them. The bible teaches to give in secret. Can you verify to me your source for the .01% or did you just pull that out of the air.

So what? (1, Troll)

FranTaylor (164577) | more than 5 years ago | (#26642227)

What good is "Free Software" when it only runs on a proprietary platform? It's like saying "free food" but neglecting to mention the cover charge.

Re:So what? (5, Insightful)

NineNine (235196) | more than 5 years ago | (#26642473)

That's cutting your nose off to spite your face. Free Software is only useful on Linux, then? That seems absurd. There's no reason that free software can't exist within the framework of a proprietary platform. As always, if you don't like it, you don't have to use it. Your attempt to somehow paint this as a bad thing doesn't really hold water.

Re:So what? (2, Interesting)

dedazo (737510) | more than 5 years ago | (#26642593)

There's a lot of software that only runs on Linux or BSD and is useless to me on Windows, but I don't think less of it because of that.

More importantly, I'm more interested on what I can do with my applications and less about the OS they happen to be running on. This is called "the right tool for the job", and for me at least, completely trumps philosophical arguments about degrees of freedom.

Re:So what? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 5 years ago | (#26642715)

You can install those OSes for no cost and with no loss of freedom. You could even put them in a virtual environment on your OS for no cost and no loss of freedom.

This software does not offer that.

Re:So what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26642841)

To borrow a line from practically every OSS developer i've worked with (myself included): The source is out there, do it/port it yourself.

Re:So what? (2, Insightful)

dedazo (737510) | more than 5 years ago | (#26642997)

I don't care about cost, and I don't care about "freedom". I care about getting the job done, delivering what I was asked to deliver and getting paid for it.

If I write an application with ASP.NET/Server 2008 that cost $500K to build and maintain over five years, which then ends up generating $50 million in revenue, my costs are effectively zero. Besides, the bulk of the cost is usually people, not software licenses. For all practical purposes the cost ends up being the same if I do it in Python, except that there are things I won't use Python or any other open source software for.

As to freedom, that's a philosophical argument, and you're welcome to it. Just don't assume it's a major factor in real life. I it were, Microsoft and every other commercial software company in the planet would have gone out of business years ago.

Re:So what? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 5 years ago | (#26643033)

You will when you can't fix a bug in some closed app you're using that causes your app to perform badly.

Re:So what? (4, Insightful)

dedazo (737510) | more than 5 years ago | (#26643235)

Considering I've been happily using "closed" products for more than a decade to make a living, you're a little late on the warning front.

For all practical purposes I would be just as screwed if I found a bug in the .NET CLR as I would if it were in the Python VM, because I'm not in the business of developing or fixing languages or runtime libraries, but corporate applications.

That's why I choose tools that are established and have solid backing behind them. I trust the Apache Foundation as much as I trust Microsoft. I trust Guido van Rossum and his troupe of geniuses. I trust Zend and I trust Debian. Not so much the SuperDuperPHPCMSOfTheWeek Team, so I might use their product to run my personal blog about kittens, but I wouldn't trust my livelihood to them.

Understand that money has nothing to do with this.

Re:So what? (1)

HeronBlademaster (1079477) | more than 5 years ago | (#26642781)

Would you prefer that I closed the source to my .NET-based OSS project?

Re:So what? (-1, Troll)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 5 years ago | (#26642887)

Considering that it only runs on a proprietary OS and that you are writing it in a language that has no open compiler, you might as well. It makes little difference, that software is not free in any real sense.

Re:So what? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26642977)

Considering that it only runs on a proprietary OS and that you are writing it in a language that has no open compiler, you might as well. It makes little difference, that software is not free in any real sense.

The Mono Project guys would like to have a word with you.

Re:So what? (-1, Troll)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 5 years ago | (#26643049)

I am not interested in advice from Microsoft's lapdogs.

Re:So what? (1)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | more than 5 years ago | (#26643733)

Haha. Wow, you really take this stuff seriously dude. Do you wear a red beret and take a "moral" stance on letting yourself touch a keyboard attached to a Microsoft OS? Ahahaha.

Re:So what? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 5 years ago | (#26644073)

Not at all. I have even in the past used windows. The reality is why bother opensourcing something that cannot really ever be open?

Re:So what? (1)

kabocox (199019) | more than 5 years ago | (#26643135)

What good is "Free Software" when it only runs on a proprietary platform? It's like saying "free food" but neglecting to mention the cover charge.

Well, if I say free food from 5-6 pm at this GPS address and you want any of it, you'll have to get off your butt and spend your effort/resources getting to that GPS address. If the address were one house down from yours, you'd like walk and try it out. If it were across town, which would mean 15-30 minutes travel out of your way to get there, you might only show up if you know some else that was going to attend. If it were 1+ hour or cost more than $5 in transportation costs then you'd say, I couldn't careless.

Face it there isn't anything completely free. Everyone's internal question is how much of my own effort/resources do I have to put into to install/implement/run this "free" solution?

Re:So what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26643445)

What good is "Free Software" when it only runs on a proprietary platform?

Dude, Web Sandbox is JavaScript. Sorry to burst your bubble.

oh, _that_ license (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26642265)

The Sandbox source code will be released under the Apache 2.0 license, an open source license agreement allowing the content creator to maintain copyright...

You mean, just like all other open source licenses? That is hardly a distinguishing feature of the Apache license.

A step in the right direction (1)

StackedCrooked (1204878) | more than 5 years ago | (#26642331)

Seems that anti-microsoft sentiment again dominates the discussion. Couldn't it simply be that Microsoft is taking a step in the right direction?

Re:A step in the right direction (2, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 5 years ago | (#26642415)

Historical evidence suggests otherwise.
They would first need to get rid of their bad reputation for people to treat them fairly.

Re:A step in the right direction (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 5 years ago | (#26643395)

They would first need to get rid of their bad reputation for people to treat them fairly.

What would that take, then? It doesn't appear that, with some people, they can ever do that, since every good thing they do is dismissed in some form of a conspiracy theory, basically.

It's not like Microsoft, as a business, is trying to hide that it is trying to make money. Most businesses try to do that. So yeah, they probably want to make money somehow with this open source software thing. Maybe supporting it, and thus encouraging people to use Windows, and thus encourages people to buy Windows, is a good thing to them. So what? As long as free software is getting financed somehow, helped along, etc., who does it hurt?

Re:A step in the right direction (1)

the_one(2) (1117139) | more than 5 years ago | (#26643961)

It takes a while to regain trust (and there is the whole OOXML bribing thing which happened not to long ago)

Coming around finally? (3, Insightful)

Mephistophocles (930357) | more than 5 years ago | (#26642417)

I'm not ready to condemn this MS move as some sort of veiled treachery quite yet. There's no denying that Open Source is finally beginning to transform the marketplace. Couple of reasons for that IMHO - one is Microsoft's decline in recent years, if not as a market-share holder than at least in terms of reputation (and I mean reputation in the eyes of the average consumer, not the tech world). The other might be the slow but sure loss of market-share by entertainment giants (extrapolate to your heart's content - it's not coincidence that Vista's copyright protection measures caused, in large part, it's bad reputation, and those measures were dictated by the entertainment industry). I think we just might be beginning to see the fall of copyright law, at least as we know it today. Open source has contributed a lot to that. MS just might be beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel.

Re-licensing (4, Interesting)

rbanffy (584143) | more than 5 years ago | (#26642751)

Can we re-license it (or fork it) under GPL?

It would break my heart if someone improved the software just to see the improvements turn into proprietary ugliness.

Re:Re-licensing (1)

The Dancing Panda (1321121) | more than 5 years ago | (#26643491)

Well, it doesn't look like they're allowing uploads to the codebase. I don't know that it can be relicensed, but the only improvements microsoft can take and make proprietary are the ones Microsoft has in its codebase.

In essence, Microsoft can take their ball and go home whenever they want, but if you take a copy of their ball and make it better, they can't take yours.

Fuck Off You Fucking Bearded GNU Wacko (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26643811)

GNU/Retards like you are shitstains on the shoe of the open source world.

Re:Fuck Off You Fucking Bearded GNU Wacko (1)

rbanffy (584143) | more than 5 years ago | (#26643965)

Never before Anonymous Coward was such an appropriate nickname...

What about the facts? (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 5 years ago | (#26643305)

I recall MS tell me to get the facts about how bad open source was for me. Now they're doing it. I'm all confused!

Similar to Caja? (0, Troll)

psydeshow (154300) | more than 5 years ago | (#26643419)

Typical of MS offerings, it took a while to chase the links down to find out what the hell Sandbox actually is/does. See http://websandbox.livelabs.com/ [livelabs.com]

Seems to be similar to Caja, allowing you to include third-party scripts or content in your pages without worrying that they will muck things up or steal your cookies.

Has anyone (shudder) actually used it for anything? I'm afraid if they want my attention I need to see some simple, obvious examples.

"Gates As Borg" icon (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26643603)

You should change your M$ icon, from "Gates As Borg" to "Ballmer As Borg".

Letting... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26643845)

Letting Microsoft into your Open Source project is like inviting Jeffrey Dahmer over for dinner...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...