×

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 Bans Open Source From the Windows Market

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the well-thats-not-very-sporting dept.

Microsoft 566

Blacklaw writes "Microsoft has raised the ire of the open source community with its Windows Marketplace licence by specifically refusing to allow software covered under an open licence to be distributed. The licence, which anyone wishing to distribute Windows, Windows Phone, or Xbox applications through the company's copy of Apple's App Store is required to agree to, is the usual torrent of legalese — but hides a nasty surprise for those who support open source ideals."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

566 comments

"We own it" (4, Insightful)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | more than 3 years ago | (#35231576)

It is likely that Microsoft is asserting control over what you put up there. Sort of like when you upload your photo to site x and in the ToS they have "We reserve the right to use your picture in anyway we can possibly find to make money off of it" (probably not exact wording). I could be talking out of my ass too.

Re:"We own it" (-1, Troll)

Toe, The (545098) | more than 3 years ago | (#35231704)

Just as (IIRC) Microsoft completely owns all video or audio you send out over their network using Kinect.

I think their motto is something like, "Do every evil," right? :/

Re:"We own it" (3, Insightful)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 3 years ago | (#35231904)

Doing that makes way more sense than banning open source from their store, but it's in a similar vein.

They don't want to be hit with daily copyright infringement lawsuits from the morons who buy Xboxen, claiming Microsoft is misusing the video/3d content they created.

By the same token, they don't want to get into situations where they're getting sued for failing to provide source on request from people or paying legal staff to determine how to handle the myriad of open source licenses out there. This has the nice side effect of not encouraging open source (knife the baby, etc).

(FYI I'm a registered Microsoft hater)

Re:"We own it" (2)

Daniel Phillips (238627) | more than 3 years ago | (#35232152)

They don't want to be hit with daily copyright infringement lawsuits from the morons who buy Xboxen, claiming Microsoft is misusing the video/3d content they created.

An argument that is right up there with "think of the children" as a cynical means of justifying evil.

Re:"We own it" (0, Troll)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#35231980)

More likely it's just because Bill Gates' protege Ballmer doesn't think software should be free. See his infamous Computer Users Group letter from circa 1977. He cited the unfairness of gaining the benefits of software authors' time, effort, and capital without paying them.

It's also reminiscent of how Microsoft sent letters to schools warning them that using open source and/or pirated software could be dangerous with possible legal consequences. As a result we have stories like Karen the Teacher sending a student to detention, because he was handing-out Linux OS discs. (She thought she was doing the right thing based upon Microsoft's warnings.*)

MS actively fights against open source.

*
* "No software is free and spreading that misconception is harmful. These children look up to adults for guidance and discipline. I will research this as time allows and I want to assure you, if you are doing anything illegal, I will pursue charges as the law allows."

Re:"We own it" (-1, Offtopic)

theaveng (1243528) | more than 3 years ago | (#35232014)

SHUT UP YOU FUCLING TROLLL!!!! Why won't the mods ban this commodore idiott already??? NO WONDER YOU KARMA IS "TERRIBLE"

c64_love writes:
More likely it's just because Bill Gates' protege Ballmer doesn't think software should be free. See his infamous Computer Users Group letter from circa 1977. He cited the unfairness of gaining the benefits of software authors' time, effort, and capital without paying them.

It's also reminiscent of how Microsoft sent letters to schools warning them that using open source and/or pirated software could be dangerous with possible legal consequences.
* "No software is free and spreading that misconception is harmful. These children look up to adults for guidance and discipline. I will research this as time allows and I want to assure you, if you are doing anything illegal, I will pursue charges as the law allows."

Re:"We own it" (1, Offtopic)

Murdoch5 (1563847) | more than 3 years ago | (#35232100)

He's completely right, That's not a Troll comment at all. To defend him Balmer did say "Linux is a cancer" so I don't really see your point holding up well. When you don't know what a Troll is it's easy to call them out, Your a car, isn't a car someone who calls a troll wrong?

No a car is not that, just like the com64 isn't a Troll, you just think he is for this comment. I haven't read his other stuff but this one is fine and right.

Re:"We own it" (1)

fermion (181285) | more than 3 years ago | (#35232006)

Generally this is a non-exclusive license for use of the product. This does not conflict with any OSS license I know of, as any license will allow the author to grant individual rights. The problem with OSS license is that they will, in general, prevent companies like MS from taking the software, putting a copyright on it, and preventing even the author from innovating on it.

I wonder what the ramifications are going to be. For instance, from what I can tell, most of the engines for LaTex are OSS. Does this mean that LaTex editors will not appear in the App Store. Such engines do exist in the Apple App store. This certainly will prevent Firefox, just in a different manner than Apple. Pretty much this seems to a clear means to prevent any software that competes with MS from entering the store, since almost all such software is OSS.

Off topic, I wonder if LibreOffice is going to truly innovate the Office App and write a touch interface so we can use this on the iPad.

Re:"We own it" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35232060)

Its not even asserting control - its a "Marketplace" - if you want free shit just download it for free. You don't NEED Windows Marketplace to facilitate such a transaction, bogging down their servers and costing them money without generating any. Its not like they have the totalitarian oppression of Apple (from the perspective of customers - whiny bastards whom they've burnt aside - if you even call that burnt when they have enough money to whine in public).

GPLv3, bleh (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35231594)

It seems that Microsoft is banning GPLv3 or similar licenses. The fact that they refer "GPLv3" by name and not simply "GPL", may mean that GPLv2 is allowed.

Re:GPLv3, bleh (3, Interesting)

wizbit (122290) | more than 3 years ago | (#35231734)

it says, "any equivalents" as well. i might argue that GPLv2 and GPLv3 are not "equivalent" but IANAL and that interpretation clearly leads a lot of wiggle room for MS lawyers.

Re:GPLv3, bleh (1)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 3 years ago | (#35232050)

Well, the standard "this is GPLv3" text is "This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version." (with the version number replaced with whichever one is being used). Note that it does NOT say "or any prior version". This quite obviously means that, while the licenses are at least forward-compatible, they are not equivelent.

Re:GPLv3, bleh (4, Insightful)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 3 years ago | (#35231796)

What does the term "not limited to" mean to your legal expert opinion?

How is the GPLv2 not covered by:

“Excluded License” means any license requiring, as a condition of use, modification and/or
distribution of the software subject to the license, that the software or other software combined
and/or distributed with it be (i) disclosed or distributed in source code form; (ii) licensed for the
purpose of making derivative works; or (iii) redistributable at no charge.

again in your expert legal opinion?

Re:GPLv3, bleh (0)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#35231894)

again in your expert legal opinion?

My expert legal opinion is that you didn't much like his post, but keep in mind that IANAL.

Re:GPLv3, bleh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35232082)

Yes they are banning the GPL, but it makes perfect sense given the case with VLC and Apple's store: they just don't want to be responsible for making available the source code along with the executables.

Good thing that free software is much more than just the GPL!

someone, please explain this to me (2)

craftycoder (1851452) | more than 3 years ago | (#35231598)

This makes no sense to me at all. Why would the status of the source code for software distributed through the app store interest Microsoft? Likely less than 1% of people would ever care to look at the source; many times fewer still would ever successfully compile it. I'm completely confused by this.

Re:someone, please explain this to me (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35231672)

Why would the status of the source code for software distributed through the app store interest Microsoft?

When you redistribute a program under the GPLv3, you grant the receiver a license to any patents that you own and that are used by that program.

Re:someone, please explain this to me (2)

mr100percent (57156) | more than 3 years ago | (#35231766)

I think the reason is that it may conflict with the Microsoft TOS.

Look at the trouble Apple had posting stuff like VLC into the App Store and then had it removed via a lawsuit. Can you host Open-sourced apps if the store adds DRM to them or doesn't bundle the code in with the app?

Re:someone, please explain this to me (2)

JWW (79176) | more than 3 years ago | (#35232066)

Look at the trouble Apple had posting stuff like VLC into the App Store and then had it removed via a lawsuit. Can you host Open-sourced apps if the store adds DRM to them or doesn't bundle the code in with the app?

It depends. The flap over VLC was because another developer ported the code and put it in the app store. I am of the opinion that a link on the app to a website where you could get the code would have met GPL requirements. In that case, if you had a jailbroken iPhone, iPad, whatever, you could compile that code and run it.

I could definitely see an instance of a developer creating an open source app add submitting it to the app store. If they were the developer in charge of the app they could make the license call themselves. Interestingly enough, though, another person could conceivably download that code and make changes to it and then claim that Apple is violating the gpl even though the code's creator doesn't care. That, however would be a lot like patent trolling.

As someone who has (and will not delete) the VLC app, I think the VLC developers made a big mistake in not allowing it to exist with a path to the code linked in the app.

Yes, the DRM is evil. One would hope that Apple would create a method where free apps are totally free. I mean, the DRM is pointless for something anyone can get for free, so why have DRM on them. That would be the best solution.

Back on topic, though, I think Microsoft's open source ban is just due to how much they HATE open source.

Re:someone, please explain this to me (2)

mysidia (191772) | more than 3 years ago | (#35231840)

When you redistribute a program under the GPLv3, you grant the receiver a license to any patents that you own and that are used by that program.

Only if your only right to redistribute is the one provided by the GPLv3

If you are acting as an agent of the copyright owner, or you have been given your own redistribution license from the copyright owner, you do not necessarily have to follow the GPL in regards to your redistribution of the work.

For example, if the owner of the work hires another company called Content Delivery Network Co. to run the FTP/HTTP servers to distribute the owner's work, which the author will provide to them, and they'll provide web sites and mirror servers to make available.

Content Delivery Network Co distributes the work; however, they are not bound by the GPL in regards to redistribution. They are bound solely by their agreement with the copyright owner.

Re:someone, please explain this to me (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35231982)

Microsoft doesn't want free/cheap apps ruining the market for developers, so they can redevelop existing apps and functionality and sell them for money.

It's as simple as that in my opinion. They want to foster a "pay for everything" ecosystem, so they ban the majority of free apps, libraries and so on out there. Basically like it was for the iPhone - at least in the early days - when every trivial app was a money-maker for developers (and by extension the store operator).

Re:someone, please explain this to me (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35232128)

As the distributor of the software, it would be up to Microsoft to provide the source to the application. Microsoft doesn't want to deal with having to gather and distribute source for the various applications so they prohibit things that would require them to do so.

Nokia should be kicking itself (-1, Troll)

Cosine Jeremiah (1871) | more than 3 years ago | (#35231602)

This anti–open-source issue is what Nokia has now married itself to for its phones.

I wonder if Nokia knew about this *before* the ceremony, or if this is like growing a beer belly right after the honeymoon?

Incorrect. (4, Informative)

gcnaddict (841664) | more than 3 years ago | (#35231616)

Microsoft banned the GPL, not open source overall.

It's standard operating procedure for many companies to prohibit licenses which propagate themselves. Licenses such as BSD and Creative Commons are not prohibited.

Re:Incorrect. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35231646)

The GPL do not propagate, as long as you use it as a proprietary software, which means you don't use the source at all.

Re:Incorrect. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35231730)

Microsoft banned the GPL, not open source overall.

It's standard operating procedure for many companies to prohibit licenses which propagate themselves. Licenses such as BSD and Creative Commons are not prohibited.

The GPL is the most common open source license. So maybe they didnt exclude all of the licenses but the effect is far reaching, its use is in perhaps 80-90% of all open source software applications. Even those applications that have a different license bay be GPL compatible and contain GPL code. Firefox is an example, Im sure others could name BSD and Creative Commons applications that include GPL code.

Re:Incorrect. (2)

mister_playboy (1474163) | more than 3 years ago | (#35231978)

its use is in perhaps 80-90% of all open source software applications.

That number seems too high to me... any source for that claim?

Wikipedia has a few numbers:
As of August 2007, the GPL accounted for nearly 65% of the 43,442 free software projects listed on Freshmeat, and as of January 2006, about 68% of the projects listed on SourceForge.net. Similarly, a 2001 survey of Red Hat Linux 7.1 found that 50% of the source code was licensed under the GPL and a 1997 survey of MetaLab, then the largest free software archive, showed that the GPL accounted for about half of the software licensed therein.

Re:Incorrect. (4, Informative)

xaxa (988988) | more than 3 years ago | (#35231818)

Microsoft banned the GPL, not open source overall.

No, Microsoft banned all open source:

“Excluded License” means any license requiring, as a condition of use, modification and/or distribution of the software subject to the license, that the software or other software combined and/or distributed with it be (i) disclosed or distributed in source code form; (ii) licensed for the purpose of making derivative works; or (iii) redistributable at no charge.

GPLv3 is just given as an example.

Re:Incorrect. (5, Informative)

klapaucjusz (1167407) | more than 3 years ago | (#35231958)

Microsoft banned the GPL, not open source overall.

No, Microsoft banned all open source:

It would appear that Microsoft banned all copyleft licenses, notably all versions of the (L)GPL. It did not ban non-copyleft Free Software licenses, such as BSD or MIT/X11.

Re:Incorrect. (1)

xaxa (988988) | more than 3 years ago | (#35232004)

Microsoft banned the GPL, not open source overall.

No, Microsoft banned all open source:

It would appear that Microsoft banned all copyleft licenses, notably all versions of the (L)GPL. It did not ban non-copyleft Free Software licenses, such as BSD or MIT/X11.

Sorry, I should be more careful with my language...

Re:Incorrect. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35231960)

It sounds like the BSD license would be just fine, unless I'm missing something.

Copyleft (1)

Per Abrahamsen (1397) | more than 3 years ago | (#35232154)

The wording would include all strong or weak copyleft licenses, like GPL, LGPL, MPL, and QPL, but not permissive licenses like the MIT, BSD, or Apache licenses.

Re:Incorrect. (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 3 years ago | (#35231976)

I wonder why no one has produced or if they have publicized Synaptic for Windows.
Of course there is already an app store for Windows. Steam! Maybe Valve would like to open it up to none game apps. "If they have not already". They could even open it up for FOSS programs. It might even offer a source of revenue up for the projects them. I would be glad to pay say $1.99 for Gimp on Windows, or LibreOffice, or any number of other FOSS programs I use on Windows.
Truth is that I don't use windows much at home anymore but I always thought that a good app store combined with a good repository like system could work really well for Windows and even Linux. Selling FOSS software is completely approved of in the GPL and an easy way to buy it may actually encourage people to pay for it and encourage people to write it.

Re:Incorrect. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35232104)

They banned any licence which would require Microsoft, as a condition of distributing the application binaries through the marketplace, to also make available the source code for redistribution.

This doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

Re:Incorrect. (1)

maitai (46370) | more than 3 years ago | (#35232124)

My guess is that including GPL'd software in their store would require Microsoft to make the source code available (since Microsoft would be the entity distributing the binary, they would be required to distribute the source code to said binary also). The BSD license does not have that requirement.

Misleading Article (5, Informative)

kwenf (1531623) | more than 3 years ago | (#35231620)

Only GPL was banned because of the ToS which is forbidden under the GPL. Same thing happened with Apple's AppStore [fsf.org] .

Re:Misleading Article (1)

dave024 (1204956) | more than 3 years ago | (#35231710)

It sounds like the license writers should come up with a license that is accepted in more distribution channels.

Re:Misleading Article (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 3 years ago | (#35231778)

Why would they? That's not their intention.

If that was their intent, then they would not have bothered with the GPL to begin with.

This raises the same issues as it does with Apple including the banning of useful apps that normal users actually tend to download as well as other useful things like media plugins.

Re:Misleading Article (2)

PhilHibbs (4537) | more than 3 years ago | (#35232132)

Indeed, the whole point of the GPL is to protect the user's right to fix their software. Closed ecosystems with locked devices are fundamentally incompatible with this goal, so it's no surprise that the App Store and Windows Market exclude the GPL, since the GPL already excludes the App Store and Windows Market.

Re:Misleading Article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35231802)

But that would not guarantee user freedom, which is what the GPL is about.

Re:Misleading Article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35231856)

Sound like you should go fuck yourself with you xbox controller dildo.

Re:Misleading Article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35231882)

That would defy the purpose of gplv3, particularly regarding the patent clauses.

The gpl was never designed to be microsoft-friendy, you could even argue that gplv3 was designed to prevent microsoft and simular companies to take advantage of open source -- Ofcourse they dont like it.

Re:Misleading Article (2)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#35232016)

Why? This is exactly what the GPL is supposed to do, and nobody ever claimed otherwise. The GPL is meant to give free software licenses teeth, it is not just about gaining as many users as is possible.

Re:Misleading Article (1, Informative)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 3 years ago | (#35232054)

Except that the intent of the GPL is to restrict your freedom in a way that forces you to not restrict other people's freedom, except in a way that forces them to not restr.....

GPL is not an open license – if you want an open license, try BSD.

Re:Misleading Article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35232114)

Because if there's one thing Microsoft cares about, it's license openness.

Re:Misleading Article (1)

MontyApollo (849862) | more than 3 years ago | (#35231812)

So has the "ire of the open source community" been raised (prior to this submission), or was that a lie too?

Re:Misleading Article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35232096)

Author assumes correctly that he is a substantial portion of the OSS community and is angry. *zing*

"Included, but NOT LIMITED to GPL" (1)

mangu (126918) | more than 3 years ago | (#35232118)

OK, it's a PDF, but it would be nice if everybody (including those who modded it "informative") tried to RTFToS (http://create.msdn.com/downloads/?id=638 see item "L")

A "nasty suprise" ? (3, Insightful)

o'reor (581921) | more than 3 years ago | (#35231628)

but hides a nasty surprise for those who support open source ideals.

It may be nasty all right, but it's certainly not a surprise, just Microsoft business as usual.

Re:A "nasty suprise" ? (1)

PhilHibbs (4537) | more than 3 years ago | (#35232166)

It's just GNU philosophy as usual, as well. The GPL is opposed to the whole locked-down philosophy of the App Store and Windows Market, so this is certainly not a surprise to me. It's like the USA banning the Communist Party. Sure, it's a breach of freedom, but an entirely expected and understandable one. And I'm sorry for bringing communism into it, I know the GPL isn't a commie plot, but it's too easy analogy to pass over.

The actual terms (5, Informative)

xaxa (988988) | more than 3 years ago | (#35231652)

See the PDF [msdn.com] .

  1.l

“Excluded License” means any license requiring, as a condition of use, modification and/or distribution of the software subject to the license, that the software or other software combined and/or distributed with it be (i) disclosed or distributed in source code form; (ii) licensed for the purpose of making derivative works; or (iii) redistributable at no charge. Excluded Licenses include, but are not limited to the GPLv3 Licenses. For the purpose of this definition, “GPLv3 Licenses” means the GNU General Public License version 3, the GNU Affero General Public License version 3, the GNU Lesser General Public License version 3, and any equivalents to the foregoing.

5.e.

The Application must not include software, documentation, or other materials that, in whole or in part, are governed by or subject to an Excluded License, or that would otherwise cause the Application to be subject to the terms of an Excluded License.

Validation of GPLv3 (3, Funny)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#35231690)

Well, now we know for sure that GPLv3 is desirable... Microsoft is against it. If only they could have taken this stance back when we were fighting over it, then we would have accepted GPLv3 without question.

Re:Validation of GPLv3 (1)

ToasterMonkey (467067) | more than 3 years ago | (#35232142)

Well, now we know for sure that GPLv3 is desirable... Microsoft is against it. If only they could have taken this stance back when we were fighting over it, then we would have accepted GPLv3 without question.

They are also against killing puppies, you should look into that.

Re:Validation of GPLv3 (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 3 years ago | (#35232144)

The surface justification here is that they don't want the obligation to distribute the source files.

No, it doesn't prohibit open-source... (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35231654)

The clause is intended to prohibit VIRAL licenses that would require the source code of the entire project to be disclosed (including Microsoft's own contributions to the code). Projects that are open-source but are licensed under a less prohibitive license would pass muster.

Hahahahaha !! ok fire justifications ... (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#35231658)

when microsoft has made various moves towards 'open source friendly' stance in the past 2 years, some of us have always been wary and critical of their moves, saying that microsoft was not a bunch to be trusted, based on their record. there were others who were slapping us with labels ranging from zealots to morons this, that. with numerous justifications.

so, then. what's the justification this time ? im sure microsoft is doing this in good faith, and what they are doing is open source friendly.

Re:Hahahahaha !! ok fire justifications ... (2, Insightful)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 3 years ago | (#35231794)

I don't believe there is a justification. IMO, MS is a two-faced, underhanded opponent of open source. Sorry, I'm not going to waste time digging into the rationale - this is just something that I expect from Microsoft. What I see, is, Microsoft has bowed - at least temporarily - to the inevitability of open source software being in competition with their offerings. But, they want to steer the path that open source takes, as much as possible. Hence, the agreements with SUSE, and the restriction on the GPLv3 in the app store. They hope to scare people away from releasing their code under GPLv3. Again, I'm not up on the nuances of the various licenses - there is something about v3 that they can't live with, but v2 is bearable to them. I say, "screw them". If you're going to release something to the public, there are other avenues to release. Go to Debian, or Ubuntu, or whatever - there are plenty of communities that are freindly to GPLvx

Re:Hahahahaha !! ok fire justifications ... (5, Insightful)

amliebsch (724858) | more than 3 years ago | (#35231886)

The justification is very obvious: Microsoft doesn't want to violate the GPL. Since it feels that it cannot redistribute software in a manner that would comply with the GPL, it will not redistribute that software. This is how the GPL is *supposed* to work.

More of the Same (1, Insightful)

Foofoobar (318279) | more than 3 years ago | (#35231664)

For every single C*O and marketing person that stands up and says how Microsoft LOVES open source, for every time Techcrunch and Techflash spouts how Microsoft is now open source friendly, things like this continue to happen. Their excuse no doubt is that no one would be making money when an open source product can sell just as well; not everyone wants to compile the source code!!

But I suppose now I will have the 'mandated by Microsoft' attacks because I stated the obvious and get modded down. So be it. Someone has to speak up and state what everyone is thinking.

vs. App Store for GPL? (2)

mah! (121197) | more than 3 years ago | (#35231666)

Can anyone explain in plain non-legalese the difference between Apple's App Store and this Windows Marketplace, in terms of open source? Does either one allow GPL applications distributed? For a fee? IANAL and AFAIK, doesn't GPL 2 allow charging for distribution of executable code, as long as the source is available somewhere? Thanks---

Re:vs. App Store for GPL? (2)

peteblair (1987876) | more than 3 years ago | (#35231938)

Apple's App Store does not allow GPLv3 either, without digging though I can't remember if it is just GPLv3 or GPLv2 as well. They have to do it to protect themselves from lawsuit trolls, so Microsoft isnt doing anything wrong.

I see no issue here (5, Informative)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 3 years ago | (#35231678)

The license specifically mentioned is the GPL, which if allowed would put the onus on Microsoft, as the distributor, to fulfill the requirements of the license even tho it was chosen by a developer. Microsoft is covering their own back here, nothing more imho - they could be up for some serious issues if they cocked up GPL compliance, so they are just not going there.

Re:I see no issue here (1)

i.r.id10t (595143) | more than 3 years ago | (#35231754)

Easy enough to get around by requiring 2 apps from devs who want to use GPL stuff - the binary app, and the source app as a tarball or equivalent. Sorta like using "apt-get source packagefoo"

Re:I see no issue here (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 3 years ago | (#35231824)

Microsoft would still be on the hook for identifying those apps, linking the apps and dealing with source code requests. All extra work, all with the potential for cockups. They are just avoiding the entire issue.

Re:I see no issue here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35231830)

Yes, because MS wants to pollute marketplace with tons of useless packages just to pander to delicate sensibilities of small bunch of nerds.

Re:I see no issue here (1)

tuppe666 (904118) | more than 3 years ago | (#35232146)

lol yes it would be so incredibly difficult to say simply include the source at the same time. That's like unheard of!

I wonder (3, Insightful)

polyp2000 (444682) | more than 3 years ago | (#35231692)

If this is really the case ?

Having RTFA , It appears that they mention specifically the GPL. It does not however mention other Open Sources licenses.

If this is really true , then you can expect it to be quite some time before you find many software packages you would think
might appear in a short time in the market place. Emulators for example - most of the ones we all use are covered by Open Source
license - so dont expect ports of your favorite Open Source projects to appear on Windows Mobile 7. ScummVM , MAME ... forget it ...

You would be developing those from scratch - and these are projects that took years to come into fruition.

Microsoft would be making a huge mistake banning outright Open Source - and no matter how much they hate it - its an ecosystem they cannot afford to ignore - especially when they are trying to woo developers away from Android.

N.

GPL != Open Source (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35231714)

It really isn't.

Re:GPL != Open Source (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35231822)

GPL is indeed Open Source.

It is not, however, Free Software.

Re:GPL != Open Source (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35232072)

GPL is open source, but his point was that GPL is not *equal* to open source.

Just like a horse is an animal, but an animal is not necessary a horse.

"is" means "subset", folks!

No libraries or frameworks either (1)

ithyus (711527) | more than 3 years ago | (#35231736)

“Excluded License” means any license requiring, as a condition of use, modification and/or distribution of the software subject to the license, that the software or other software combined and/or distributed with it be (i) disclosed or distributed in source code form; (ii) licensed for the purpose of making derivative works; or (iii) redistributable at no charge.

Doesn't item ii prohibit the use of DirectX, .Net and ActiveX since all of those things were designed and licensed for the sole purpose of making "derivative works"?

Re:No libraries or frameworks either (1)

polyp2000 (444682) | more than 3 years ago | (#35231948)

Yep

So Count out anything making use of SDL , XVid, no port of Quakes Engine ... no WinUAE

the list could go on...

N.

Guess again (5, Informative)

Stan Vassilev (939229) | more than 3 years ago | (#35231740)

Do you intentionally post wrong information so we can rush to angrily correct you in the comments?

They ban only GPL variations and licenses like it that have *enforced* right to redistribute source. Licenses like Apache, MIT, BSD are not affected.

This is the same as Apple's App Store. The line of thought that GPL is "infectious" and represents a risk for their closed source components is well known. Right or wrong, that's their motive, and they are taking precautions to protect themselves from lawsuit trolls.

Re:Guess again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35231864)

Congrats, you're only the what, 20th person to make that mistake and rant at people about it.
Scroll up. It's all open source licenses.

Microsoft can choose their own policies (1, Interesting)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 3 years ago | (#35231742)

Microsoft, like any other company are free to choose their own policies of course.
This puts the onus on the open source communities to actually show innovation and for users to speak up and expect specific apps and features.

In many environments around Open Source, companies often use the term "differentiation" to clearly mark their closed source products as superior and reason to hide away.

Is it possible for Open Source to actually differentiate?
What apps or must have features are created and exist in the Open Source world that users of Microsoft phones will need?

As a long time slashdot reader and wise community member, I hear everyday how Open Source gives us freedom, however that is not really a must-have app as most regular people would not know or care where the source came from as long as it were actively maintained and had people at the other end supporting it.

(disclaimer, I am an OSS developer working for Collabora, contracted to Nokia around MeeGo)

Re:Microsoft can choose their own policies (1)

tuppe666 (904118) | more than 3 years ago | (#35232088)

I loved your post so much. It must sting that you talk about differentiation when your companies phones sport a Microsoft Logo on them. Why would I care whether its an LG or Samsung or a HTC.

I guess not (1)

Gripp (1969738) | more than 3 years ago | (#35231816)

just when i started to think that M$ was finally getting their heads out of their asses.

This is good for Android. (4, Insightful)

miffo.swe (547642) | more than 3 years ago | (#35231842)

This is good for Android more than its bad for Microsoft. Their goal seems to be making all apps costing money to avoid having a store like Androids where you can find both free excellent apps and very good paid apps living side by side.

Im not sure this will work out as planned because tons of developers wont help if you dont have the userbase to support them.

All open source != GPL3 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35231848)

GPL3 is but one possible open source license and is in fact a pretty restrictive one for commercial software. I have never actually gone to the MS application store, but I could see how GPL3 requirements might not fit with MS's software distribution model.

Looks like Apache license is just fine. I'd argue GPL2 might be fine as well. If GPL3 was really equivalent to GPL2 there would be no need to even have GPL3.

So. All we know for sure is that one open source license has been banned....

I think we can move the MS threat alert back down to mostly evil.

Source code? (2, Insightful)

ArhcAngel (247594) | more than 3 years ago | (#35231876)

Perhaps Microsoft doesn't want to be burdened with hosting the requisite source code on their servers since they would be required to under the GPL.

STOP IT (1, Insightful)

Jorl17 (1716772) | more than 3 years ago | (#35231896)

Stop Giving Power To These Idiots: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1999586&cid=35231854 [slashdot.org]

Re:STOP IT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35232116)

Two lessons to be learned:

1) The context of your statement implies that the person in the linked post is the idiot. (I doubt that was purposeful as you are the poster for both)

2) I feel my initial interpretation is more accurate than the correct one.

If you were really open (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35231916)

You'd just public domain your work. There's nothing in this against that.

Real men don't use GPL anything.

Ban those who hurt you. (1)

Murdoch5 (1563847) | more than 3 years ago | (#35231968)

There just worried that people will start seeing how much better open source is as an over all concept, so it's just better to ban it before Microsoft needs to explain why there not open source.

Get the record straight (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35232038)

I know it is too much to expect Slashdot editors to do more than just copy & paste submissions, but for the record:

Microsoft hardly copied Apple's App Store. Windows Marketplace opened in 2004, and had digital downloads from day one. The Apple App Store opened in 2008, almost exactly four years later.

Or if you want to set the date based on just iTunes, iTunes opened in 2003. At the time, there were already dozens of downloadable music stores available on Windows. I used Rhapsody in 2001, and I believe MusicMatch started their online jukebox around 1998.

Now if you were talking about who had the first wildly successful App Store, Apple would be the one! But then I don't think you would say that Microsoft has copied them quite yet...

MS Protection; Not an open source slam (1)

Kurusuki (1049294) | more than 3 years ago | (#35232090)

It's not saying Open Source is banned. The idea of open source does not make something free to distribute or make derivative works. The clauses copied in other comments are simply license requirements which cannot be used in licenses intended to be used in software distributed on Microsoft's network. Think of it this way, you can open your source; you can't require source distribution in your license, you can't allow derivative works to be created of your software, and you can't allow redistribution at no cost. These are clearly protecting Microsoft's interests as a marketplace. If someone were to purchase your software off their marketplace, and the licenses allowed free redistribution, nothing would prevent that individual from then giving away the 'app' to all his or her friends for free. If it was licensed for derivative works the individual could make a minor change and freely distribute the derivative work. The source code clause has me a bit confounded, but I believe it may be to mitigate risks and liability for Microsoft.

This legalese would not limit an app author from releasing the source, on their own website for example. Lastly, remember open source does not implicitly mean free. See Unix.

Flaming summary much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35232106)

company's copy of Apple's App Store

Not much respect for Microsoft coming late to the game, but articles about BB, Android, Amazon et al. always leave out the "copy of Apple's" part.

but hides a nasty surprise for those who support o (0)

ledow (319597) | more than 3 years ago | (#35232164)

"but hides a nasty surprise for those who support open source ideals"

"Surprise" - I do not think it means what *you* think it means.

MS not allowing OpenSource stuff in some fashion? Well, pinch my nipples and send me to Alaska. I never would have guessed.

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...