Beta
×

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!

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

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the so-how-does-that-beat-android? dept.

Microsoft 339

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?"

cancel ×

339 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

so they can steal your code (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42699993)

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

Re:so they can steal your code (4, Insightful)

kthreadd (1558445) | about a year and a half ago | (#42700151)

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?

Re:so they can steal your code (5, Informative)

d33tah (2722297) | about a year and a half ago | (#42700179)

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 [lmgtfy.com]

Re:so they can steal your code (2, Insightful)

kthreadd (1558445) | about a year and a half ago | (#42700195)

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

Re:so they can steal your code (0, Troll)

Barsteward (969998) | about a year and a half ago | (#42700227)

"Stealing implies that you don't keep your copy. You still do." is that the same for downloading music?

Re:so they can steal your code (2, Informative)

kthreadd (1558445) | about a year and a half ago | (#42700251)

"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.

Re:so they can steal your code (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42700429)

Language evolves. It is very common to incorrectly use "stealing" and "theft" to mean copyright infringement, particularly when it is the right to attribution that is infringed. Today, I'd argue that the terms "stealing" and "theft" have taken on some of the meaning of copyright infringement but still require clear context for this to be understood.

However, deetah used the shot sentence "That's stealing" as potent punctuation, seemingly attempting to clarify what is wrong with his first statement. Even today, this is deceptive, manipulative and flat out wrong.

Re:so they can steal your code (4, Insightful)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year and a half ago | (#42700497)

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.

Re:so they can steal your code (2)

d33tah (2722297) | about a year and a half ago | (#42700229)

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.

Re:so they can steal your code (1)

MysteriousPreacher (702266) | about a year and a half ago | (#42700255)

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?

Re:so they can steal your code (1)

BonThomme (239873) | about a year and a half ago | (#42700469)

ok, how about felonious infringement. feel better?

Re:so they can steal your code (2, Funny)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year and a half ago | (#42700505)

Again - nope. Copyright infringement has historically been a civil matter, argued in civil court. This "felony" nonsense must stop.

Re: so they can steal your code (1)

psYchotic87 (1455927) | about a year and a half ago | (#42700689)

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.

Admiral Akbar. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42700003)

nothing more need be said...

Simple Answer: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42700009)

No.

Microsoft and Open Source don't mix (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42700021)

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

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42700069)

I'm a widow, you insensitive clod!

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42700089)

Hash tags here? Really?

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42700447)

Slashdot was long ago taken over by the twitterites and reddit crowd. It's sad but true.

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix (1)

BonThomme (239873) | about a year and a half ago | (#42700481)

#octothorpe

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix (5, Insightful)

kthreadd (1558445) | about a year and a half ago | (#42700169)

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.

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42700239)

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.

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix (3, Interesting)

kthreadd (1558445) | about a year and a half ago | (#42700269)

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.

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix (-1, Offtopic)

RedHat Rocky (94208) | about a year and a half ago | (#42700391)

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.

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42700419)

Stop dreaming about NT 4 and Win95. That stuff is long gone. Microsoft of today is much cooler. =)

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix (5, Insightful)

worldthinker (536300) | about a year and a half ago | (#42700483)

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.

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year and a half ago | (#42700517)

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.

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix (2)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | about a year and a half ago | (#42700583)

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?

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix (-1, Troll)

RedHat Rocky (94208) | about a year and a half ago | (#42700727)

Yes, I'm sure one day talking about Hitler will be "old fogie".

No, Microsoft is not as bad as that genocide piece of crap.

BUT, M$ certainly killed many a company and not with legal business practices.

You want to deal with their crap, have fun. But don't paint it pink and put bows on it.

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42700763)

Indeed. I don't buy from IBM because they worked with the Nazis

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42700779)

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?

There would be no need to cheer. Nvidia's hardware and software is non-free, and using non-free hardware and/or software is unethical.

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix (0)

hduff (570443) | about a year and a half ago | (#42700515)

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.

They contributed code that only benefitted their product. The benefit is only generalized to the community if it encourages wider adoption and awareness of FOSS through exposure via their product, which it may.

If you don't like their product(s), don't purchase or use them. I don't.

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix (4, Insightful)

kthreadd (1558445) | about a year and a half ago | (#42700631)

They contributed code that only benefitted their product.

Nothing wrong with that.

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix (4, Insightful)

Dave Emami (237460) | about a year and a half ago | (#42700451)

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."

As per Microsoft (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42700287)

"Embrace. Extend. Extinguish."

No. (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42700039)

No, it does not.

ADVERTISMENT (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42700043)

What is this? An advertisment in the FOSS-community saying "Please, please, please, we're your friends at MS, come to us and provide us with apps"?

Let's comment on the headline's question in like half a year when we know how it actually works over there?

Re:ADVERTISMENT (0, Troll)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year and a half ago | (#42700535)

In half a year, things may actually look rosy to the people who jump on the bandwagon. I say, let's ask again in about three, or five years. Sometimes, it takes time for an evil plan to come to fruition.

slashvertisement? (2, Interesting)

gatzke (2977) | about a year and a half ago | (#42700053)

MS advertising coffers well spent, looks like.

Enjoy that new surface, timothy.

Not Bill Gates' Microsoft (5, Insightful)

MikeRT (947531) | about a year and a half ago | (#42700107)

Let's look at the bigger picture...

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

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

IE < 9 not IE 9 (3)

MikeRT (947531) | about a year and a half ago | (#42700111)

Gotta love forgetting to escape characters in your comments...

No, Bill G's microsoft was growing where it wanted (3, Insightful)

CdBee (742846) | about a year and a half ago | (#42700149)

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

CONGRATULATIONS! (-1, Troll)

ctid (449118) | about a year and a half ago | (#42700159)

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.

Your "arguably" is an early contender for "Understatement of the Year (2013)". You must be very proud.

Re:Not Bill Gates' Microsoft (0)

ClaraBow (212734) | about a year and a half ago | (#42700175)

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. Could you please cite your sources? All of your statements are factoids and you are trying to pass them as facts -- this is Slashdot, we know better!

Re:Not Bill Gates' Microsoft (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42700211)

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

Re:Not Bill Gates' Microsoft (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42700305)

Says the coward who references a browser (Firefox) that is actually losing market share to Chrome because its usefulness has gone the way of Netscape Navigator.

Re:Not Bill Gates' Microsoft (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42700369)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Not Bill Gates' Microsoft (4, Interesting)

geek (5680) | about a year and a half ago | (#42700383)

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.

I work in a mixed environment, Windows 7/OSX and Linux. I've never heard an OSX user claim Windows 7 is better. Especially on a portable where the gestures on OSX make it absolutely the best experience out there, if you bother to learn it. I've never in fact seen someone with a MacBook Air, for example, switch it to windows. I've never even seen them run boot camp.

I can't think of a single thing Windows 7 has that OSX doesn't but better. Windows 7 is a decent OS, emphasis on decent. It's the best Microsoft seems to be able to do. That doesn't make it good, nor does it make it better than OSX in any way shape or form.

Re:Not Bill Gates' Microsoft (3, Funny)

ArsonSmith (13997) | about a year and a half ago | (#42700441)

I'd mod you funny, but it's always hard to tell when a mac fanboi is serious.

Re:Not Bill Gates' Microsoft (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42700507)

Hi,

Posting from chrome in windows 8 on a MBA. Why ? because at the moment where I had to buy a new laptop, the MBA was the best quality/price but now, it's no longer the case.

Re:Not Bill Gates' Microsoft (1)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | about a year and a half ago | (#42700701)

Depends on how you look at it. Apple dictates GPU drivers, so you easily say Windows is far better because you can actually use new GPU hardware without waiting for Apple to let you.

Re:Not Bill Gates' Microsoft (3)

stenvar (2789879) | about a year and a half ago | (#42700559)

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.

I find Windows 7 (and 8) fall seriously short in those areas that actually matter in day-to-day usage: file management, WiFi configuration, software updates, disk management, device driver installation, system cleanup, and a few others. All those are unnecessarily complicated and tedious on Windows.

Re:Not Bill Gates' Microsoft (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42700573)

I have both and you are very, tragically wrong.

Mac OS X is still a Unix underneath all the pretty bits. I have unix code from a long time ago and linux code from the last decade and they all compiled directly with one conditional for include file location. There are some subtle timing differences because of BSD vs monolithic kernel choices. However, they all work. I recall trying to get some of that same vanilla code running on any version of Windows. Never gonna happen.

W7 is still MS-DOS-8 underneath all the crud. I bought it because W8 is here and I needed to support more games then were currently available on Steam for Mac. Works fine for that. I installed Chrome and FIrefox immediately solving a significant number of problems. I only turn it on when I want to play a Steam game. Or one from Gog.com. It serves no other purpose.

And to put the final fork in your coffin (love doing the analogy mixing) the performance of W7 still fails to scale. Every multiprocessor or multi-core processor still consistently loses at least one of its cores/processors in execution. If you want to know why just look at Win_Main (or whatever it is called now) and watch EVERY message in the system go flying by.

All your other list items mean nothing. Their tools are horrendously expensive and are tied to the some of the most restrictive licenses in the world. All presented by a convicted monopolist that has a history of IP theft driving by the Greedy Soulless Trio of Gates, Ballmer and Allen.

Re:Not Bill Gates' Microsoft (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42700649)

Oh common dude. I had been ms developer and user for many years. Windows sucks. You can notice the windows suck even if you eont use anything else. But once you try OS X you see how completelly shitty it realy is

Re:Not Bill Gates' Microsoft (2)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | about a year and a half ago | (#42700691)

Windows 8 is better than Windows 7 in every way on a technical level. Its funny that Windows 8 is so good that the only thing people can really complain about is the change of the start menu which i find to be an improvement.

Re:Not Bill Gates' Microsoft (3, Informative)

marcosdumay (620877) | about a year and a half ago | (#42700729)

1) There is this thing called "Linux" out there. Have you tried it? KDE is better than W7 in so many ways... And IceWM is better in other ways.

2) Mozilla throwed IE < 9 under the buss, Chrome started the bus and made it move. MS was just watching all the time, trying to save it. After it was dead, MS released IE 9 (it is still a piece of shit, mind you) out of desperation, and in a way that had the least possible impact. Also, stopping figtinhg against something (because you lost al your forces) does not equals supporting something.

3) Yeah,ok. I don't know about that. (You are talking about Visual Studio, right? Because Word...)

4) That's good news for .Net developers. Not a reason to develop in .Net and not a reason to put MS in a good light. I'll make sure some .Net developers around here know about it.

5) You either have a funny definition for "threatened" or you don't know a thing about Mono. MS threats are what shape the entire project.

6) Yeah, they either do that or peole will use something else. Gotta love a free market.

7) What does that mean?

Re:Not Bill Gates' Microsoft (4, Informative)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year and a half ago | (#42700761)

Wow. Just wow.

"Microsoft has started to really become an advocate for open standards to the point of"

No, they have not. Microsoft is an advocate of what benefits them. Have you forgotten already the OOXML problems? They will only support open standards until they can extend and extinguish them. You are confused because right now they've been forced to move back to the Embrace step, but if they could find a way to own access to the internet, they would.

"Microsoft's tools produce standards compliant web output."

Great, maybe they can attempt to implement C99 now 12 years later. I am still required to cripple my C code so it will be accepted by Microsoft's crappy compiler, years after everyone else has moved on. Respecting standards in one place doesn't mean they actually respect standards.

"Microsoft has never once threatened Mono or any open source .NET effort"

OK, but they have threatened patent action against open source. Do you REALLY believe they won't attack Mono if they find it in their interest? They will, whether you believe it now or not. Don't be naive.

"Windows 7 is arguably the best desktop OS out there right now for the vast majority of the public."

OSX is Unix with a usable GUI, that's basically the win right there. Microsoft does deserve credit for respecting backwards compatibility, though.

Re:slashvertisement? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42700119)

idiot with a keyboard, yet another fine example.

Bill? (5, Funny)

lorinc (2470890) | about a year and a half ago | (#42700059)

Could it be that the most open source friendly app stores will be the ones run my Microsoft?"

Bill, is that you?

Re:Bill? (2)

martin-boundary (547041) | about a year and a half ago | (#42700545)

Whoa, Ted! How'd I end up in this excellent slashdot username?

"only to the extent required" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42700061)

Who wants to write a new open source license which conflicts with these terms to the maximum possible extent?

No (3, Insightful)

EzInKy (115248) | about a year and a half ago | (#42700065)

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.

Re:No (2)

DogDude (805747) | about a year and a half ago | (#42700095)

Microsoft is about their bottom line, plain and simple.

That's a bizarre thing to say. They're one of the oldest software companies in history. Companies don't survive (and thrive) as long as they do without some forward thinking. You want to consider doing some reading about this history of the company, especially in relation to other companies that size, and re-consider your admittedly short-sighted response.

Re:No (5, Informative)

causality (777677) | about a year and a half ago | (#42700113)

Companies don't survive (and thrive) as long as they do without some forward thinking.

Or a strangehold monopoly on an entire market. That helps too.

Re:No (-1, Troll)

DogDude (805747) | about a year and a half ago | (#42700127)

Or a strangehold monopoly on an entire market. That helps too.

I'm sure that'd help if it were true, sure. I don't think what you're saying applies in this particular situation, though.

Re:No (4, Informative)

causality (777677) | about a year and a half ago | (#42700143)

Or a strangehold monopoly on an entire market. That helps too. I'm sure that'd help if it were true, sure. I don't think what you're saying applies in this particular situation, though.

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

Re:No (2, Insightful)

DogDude (805747) | about a year and a half ago | (#42700647)

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

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

Re:No (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42700685)

...Windows monopoly on 90+% of all PCs sold for the last couple of decades...

Waaa... waaaaa... cry some more. All that time, where was everybody else? Apple had their own game. Where the fuck was Linux? Oh yeah, I know what you'll say. "Waaaaaaa! We couldn't compete with the illegal monopoly that Satan had". Fucking faggot. I've tried a least one distro ever few years for the past 15 years. It's pretty easy to see why Linux never got into the double digits in the desktop share.

Re:No (1)

RedHat Rocky (94208) | about a year and a half ago | (#42700405)

You forget a certain antitrust charge against Microsoft? You forget another one that actually was tried and punished?

Either you are ignorant or on the M$ team.

Your admission, not mine (3, Insightful)

EzInKy (115248) | about a year and a half ago | (#42700139)

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.

Re:Your admission, not mine (1)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | about a year and a half ago | (#42700439)

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.

I fail to see how this relates to your original contention that Microsoft would close all their open source products to make a buck. Here it is again:

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.

Instead of backing up that assertion, you have lept to a different subject and hoped that nobody would notice. But still, I will play. Considering that Windows runs on 90% of computers in the world, that means that by far the majority of computer manufactures are successfully partnering with Microsoft just as Nokia is doing now.

And on your original point, if Microsoft closes their open software, then we can just use the last version that was open. It is hard to extinguish software when the code is made public.

Apple bites the hand that created them (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42700075)

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.

BSD License (1)

EzInKy (115248) | about a year and a half ago | (#42700099)

The BSD licencse is to blame for this. Apple could not hide improvements to the open source they improve and distribute under the GPL.

Re:BSD License (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42700115)

The BSD licencse is to blame for this. Apple could not hide improvements to the open source they improve and distribute under the GPL.

Nor would they have any incentive to create a competitive advantage if they used the GPL.

Re:BSD License (1)

EzInKy (115248) | about a year and a half ago | (#42700167)

So only creating a better product would have given them an advantage.

Re:BSD License (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42700457)

No, the point was exactly that creating a better product under the GPL would not have given them an advantage.

Re:BSD License (4, Insightful)

geek (5680) | about a year and a half ago | (#42700401)

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.

Re:BSD License (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42700655)

The BSD grants freedom to code while the GPL grants freedom to users.

In other "news"... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42700079)

Does Cadillac have to best car for fish? Tune in to the next Slashdot to find out!

Altruism isn't in it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42700083)

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

Of course they have, because apps matter for phones in a weird way. There's no killer app - that is, there's no massive advantage to be gained over your competitors. But not having a metric assload of apps, some of them possibly solid, will put you out of the competition.

Allowing open source licenses simply increases the number of apps available; furthermore, it lets you spew useless marketing statistics ("Over one billion apps!").

Simplez (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42700091)

They are desperate to widen their App range. They will take whatever goes to die on the WP8 platform.
Granted it's a vicious circle. Costumer don't buy that WP crap, therefore less apps, therefore less phone sold. Ad infinitum.

People seem to forget (5, Insightful)

andydread (758754) | about a year and a half ago | (#42700097)

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 [microsoft.com] 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.

No (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42700117)

The best app store is no app store.

Anything else just restricts you to their walled garden.
Even if it looks fine now, your app is still at the mercy of the gardener (app store owner) and they can change their policy at any time.

Re:No (1)

archshade (1276436) | about a year and a half ago | (#42700353)

The best app store is no app store.

There is nothing fundermentally wrong with an app store. The problem comes when a sole appstore is the only method to load software onto your device

A device can come with any appstore with any bend you other a barrel TOS, and it is OK by me as long as there is a (supported way) to either side load software or add an alternative store/repository. It's important that this is in some way supported by the manufactureer of the device. For example if the the device comes with only pulling software from the "official" app store, but there is a toggle button allowing other software sources to be enabled or even better a list of appstore address that can be added to/enabled/disabled/deleated, and proritised (like sourses.list in apt systems)that would be great. Fine for a device to come out the shop locked down (in some ways better for the masses), but give people who know/care a proper way to add knew sources.

Having to jailbreak or run an exploit to get this functionallity is not acctepable so I will not have an iOS device. I do not know the situation when it comes to WP7/8.

Re:No (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | about a year and a half ago | (#42700471)

Absolutely. Ubuntu has the best software store right now because you can plug external sources directly into it and have them kept up to date with the same mechanism as the OS components. As for open source friendliness, Microsoft obviously doesn't even approach the best store.

Fooled once, fooled twice, fooled a third time (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42700157)

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.

best place ever (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42700183)

And here I thought that Linux's package managers were the best place for FOSS software. Guess I was wrong.

Re:best place ever (1)

kthreadd (1558445) | about a year and a half ago | (#42700235)

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.

Re:best place ever (1)

sponse (1468283) | about a year and a half ago | (#42700407)

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.

Re:best place ever (1)

kthreadd (1558445) | about a year and a half ago | (#42700511)

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".

ridiculous (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42700189)

conclusion is practically a non-sequitur.

ZOMG app store (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42700213)

Debian has a pretty decent apt store for FOSS. I hear rumors that Fedora and Argh have similar solutions.

Re:ZOMG app store (1)

gmuslera (3436) | about a year and a half ago | (#42700589)

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.

Re:ZOMG app store (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42700641)

Ubuntu us unfortunately also very friendly toward non-free software, and recommending non-free software is unethical.

Don't they all? (1)

dbrueck (1872018) | about a year and a half ago | (#42700371)

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.

Ha ha ah ahaahahahahhhaaha, this is rich.... (2)

einar.petersen (1178307) | about a year and a half ago | (#42700425)

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.

Re:Ha ha ah ahaahahahahhhaaha, this is rich.... (1)

einar.petersen (1178307) | about a year and a half ago | (#42700431)

Sorry for the spelling mistake, should have been "the company" - I found it hard to hit the correct keys while typing... ;)

Not quite there yet (1)

CharmElCheikh (1140197) | about a year and a half ago | (#42700463)

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.

for now... because it's empty (4, Insightful)

stenvar (2789879) | about a year and a half ago | (#42700541)

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.

Can you pass the binaries around? (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year and a half ago | (#42700775)

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.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>