Microsoft's "Open source" can only run on windows

[vexorian]

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070730120109643

Dash, please, everyone try to tell people what actually "open source", that might get forgotten soon, and we could have a lame definition of it that will just blow, please don't let the good ways of real open source to be forgotten.

MS is power drunk...

[steven8]

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070730120109643
MS is power drunk...

You think? MS has been circling for a long time, poking and prodding and trying to work out just the right strategy to break the foss movement. I don't like the looks of that article.

[izanbardprince]

There's no way to view Microsoft's move with companies like Novell and Linspire as anything other than hostile, they're trying to make Suse more interoperable with Windows alright, that way they can draw all the corporate customers to Suse like a moth to flame, because it's the one that interacts best with Windows, then all they have to do is wait out the other distros and let them starve and be discontinued, then when the timing is right, I expect Novell would sell all the rights to Suse to Microsoft, then Microsoft discontinues it and "encourages" all of Novell's customers to use Windows.

[Tundro Walker]

Curious, if MS wants to make an "Open Source" product that only works on Widows...why don't they just invent some new name, like "Windows Open Source" or some BS like that?

I know, I know, it's because they're intent isn't to produce Open Source software. They're intent is to try to just barely make the specs for what's considered Open Source, and keep whittling it down until "Open Source" = "MS Windows only".


I guess what saddens me about this is, as an individual person, we ourselves can flip the bird and use whatever the heck we want. But, corporations and companies get stuck in this mind-trap. And, even though we may flip the bird and go off using "OS Whatever" because it's free, open-source (whatever strikes our fancy), we're "untrained" with whatever "OS locked in" that the corporations use. So, home users may choose a totally different system then what corporations use, and lots of kids may grow up without a fundamental skill to get employed with. (IE: lots of kids grew up with Windows computers, so they could transition into the work-force easily. But, if more kids grow up on Linux computers, while MS leverages corporations into going off on some even stranger Windows tangent, the gap of knowledge will increase, and kids will have to start taking MS Windows (or whatever OS they're on in 10 years) classes as part of their college education just so they can get employed.
)

Again, it's the pitfall of a capitalist ideal. Microsoft is about making money, not about making life easier for people and companies. Eventually, all people interested in making money find ways to...

1) lock-in customers
2) find ways to start charging for things that used to be free (EG: bug fixes, software support, etc)

[bomanizer]

Every major technical and business advancement has had two things: a clear vision and an icon to make it tangible. Open source is a vision, but it's lacking something to make it "materialize". I'll bet that if Red Hat, Canonical, or some other OS- vendor / whatever doesn't stick up and take a place in people's minds (and wallets!) MS will do it gladly. If so, then we will have "MS-open source". Nice.... And by "people" I mean us, the home-desktop-happy-browsing-instant-messaging-bunch.

[igknighted]

There's no way to view Microsoft's move with companies like Novell and Linspire as anything other than hostile, they're trying to make Suse more interoperable with Windows alright, that way they can draw all the corporate customers to Suse like a moth to flame, because it's the one that interacts best with Windows, then all they have to do is wait out the other distros and let them starve and be discontinued, then when the timing is right, I expect Novell would sell all the rights to Suse to Microsoft, then Microsoft discontinues it and "encourages" all of Novell's customers to use Windows.

You are probably the most cynical person I have ever heard. Novell has done more for OSS than almost any other company, yet you still EXPECT them to sell the rights to Suse (their major moneymaker, mind you) to Microsoft?

Look, its good to be suspicous. I understand that. But honestly, everyone freaking out in these threads is just drinking the cool-aid a bit too much. Microsoft doesn't have the power to destroy linux. Period, end of story. They are all talk. And the more we freak out about every little move they make, the more it helps them. Lets keep doing our thing, if they hand us a gift like the novell deal say thank you but continue to do our own thing. But for the love of god, linux isn't going any where... so RELAX.

[Epilonsama]

You are probably the most cynical person I have ever heard. Novell has done more for OSS than almost any other company, yet you still EXPECT them to sell the rights to Suse (their major moneymaker, mind you) to Microsoft?

Look, its good to be suspicous. I understand that. But honestly, everyone freaking out in these threads is just drinking the cool-aid a bit too much. Microsoft doesn't have the power to destroy linux. Period, end of story. They are all talk. And the more we freak out about every little move they make, the more it helps them. Lets keep doing our thing, if they hand us a gift like the novell deal say thank you but continue to do our own thing. But for the love of god, linux isn't going any where... so RELAX.

But Linux has we know it might disappear cuz of Microsoft movements

[Sunforge]

Vendor lock in is nothing new. Cisco has for some years pursued a path of encouraging colleges and universities to educate computer science users about Cisco products by pushing the CCNA qualification. If nothing else it encourages people to buy and support Cisco when they get a job. I've never heard of anyone calling Cisco "evil". On the other hand the network market has plenty of choice and you don't have to go with Cisco if you want to put a network (of any size) together.

Microsoft is doing what any listed corporation has to do: make money for it's shareholders. It's no surprise that they'll push for new markets and opportunities as they have to demonstrate growth for their shareholders year on year.

I'm sure we can expect moves from Microsoft and other companies towards a very limited "open source" implementation for some of their services but they'd be (IMHO) pretty crazy to give away their IP unless their shareholders wholeheartedly backed the idea and I can't see the stockmarkets giving the thumbs up to that this century as that's tantamount to giving away the IP that you're making your money from in their eyes.

I also can't see any practical use in Microsoft's software patent threat to Linux. I think (and hope) that everyone has learned the lesson of SCO Vs IBM and the rest of the world about who owns UNIX. Proving that you own anything on a computer platform is very difficult, incredibly expensive and extremely time consuming. Put this together with the fact that many governments run FOSS and might well step up to the plate to defend it and I'd think that the FOSS community is safe for now, unless someone does something stupid.

[vexorian]

You are probably the most cynical person I have ever heard. Novell has done more for OSS than almost any other company, yet you still EXPECT them to sell the rights to Suse (their major moneymaker, mind you) to Microsoft?That's not something expectable to happen, that's just what happened. I am sure Novell did many things for OSS before but the deal's ramifications are terrible.

Just more support for OpenXML will screw us pretty badly. Who really wants an incomplete format as an standard? I mean, cause MS has guaranteed that all the required parts of OpenXML are royalty-free, has never said anything about the optional parts (What a good standard, with "optional parts" aka "proprietary extensions". There are at least 5 ways an user got in Office 2007 to save the file with the "optional" stuff. What the world is set to do is to make OpenXML an standard and then Office will be the only one that will be able to implement the complete standard, let's give the world to MS, again!

[Ozor Mox]

Er, doesn't this


8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product

The rights attached to the program must not depend on the program's being part of a particular software distribution. If the program is extracted from that distribution and used or distributed within the terms of the program's license, all parties to whom the program is redistributed should have the same rights as those that are granted in conjunction with the original software distribution.

Stop Microsoft's license being recognised by the OSI as open source?

[Dr. C]

There are five licenses that Microsoft has in their "shared source".

Microsoft Permissive License (Ms-PL)
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/licensingbasics/permissivelicense.mspx

I find this license the most interesting, and believe that it meets the definition of Free (by the FSF) and Open Source (by The Open Source Initiative). What we have here is a BSD style license with a patent grant and a patent retaliation clause (nothing wrong with that), and then we have the following:


(D) If you distribute any portion of the software in source code form, you may do so only under this license by including a complete copy of this license with your distribution. If you distribute any portion of the software in compiled or object code form, you may only do so under a license that complies with this license

The purpose of this clause appears to be to make it incompatible with other FLOSS licenses while at the same time being compatible with propriety licenses. For a lack of another term I would call this the anti GNU GPL clause. So what we have here is a FLOSS license designed to undermine FLOSS? Still I do believe that the OSI and FSF can call this "Open Source" and "Free" respectively and then add the appropriate warning / caveat.

Microsoft Community License (Ms-CL)
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/licensingbasics/communitylicense.mspx

This has the same anti GNU GPL clause but also attempts to be a mild form of copyleft at the same time. It may actually be self contradictory; however I still think it meets the respective criteria to be FLOSS

Microsoft Reference License (Ms-RL)
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/licensingbasics/referencelicense.mspx

Microsoft Limited Permissive License (Ms-LPL)
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/licensingbasics/limitedpermissivelicense.mspx

Microsoft Limited Community License (Ms-LCL)
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/licensingbasics/limitedcommunitylicense.mspx

The Ms-RL, Ms-LPL and Ms-LCL are not FLOSS licenses and I am sure Microsoft understands this. I can only think they were included here as a decoy to deflect the discussion in the FLOSS communities away from the real issue here, the Ms-PL and Ms-CL. These licenses appear to be designed to undermine Free Software and are at the same time Free Software licenses. Who else but Microsoft could come up with that?

[original_jamingrit]

Er, doesn't this


8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product

The rights attached to the program must not depend on the program's being part of a particular software distribution. If the program is extracted from that distribution and used or distributed within the terms of the program's license, all parties to whom the program is redistributed should have the same rights as those that are granted in conjunction with the original software distribution.

Stop Microsoft's license being recognised by the OSI as open source?

I'm glad somebody brought that up. Either the OSI changes the Open Source Definition (not likely), or Microsoft will have to call it's licenses Shared Source or Micro-Source, or something equally lame.

I do think it's good for people into development on microsoft systems, and I don't think the FOSS community need feel threatened by it.

[juxtaposed]

or Microsoft will have to call it's licenses Shared Source or Micro-Source

They make really stupid names when they blatently copy something else, like this:

http://www.zeropaid.com/news/8938/Microsoft+Finally+Embraces+BitTorrent

(Calling a swarm a cloud, etc)


Look, its good to be suspicous. I understand that. But honestly, everyone freaking out in these threads is just drinking the cool-aid a bit too much. Microsoft doesn't have the power to destroy linux. Period, end of story. They are all talk. And the more we freak out about every little move they make, the more it helps them. Lets keep doing our thing, if they hand us a gift like the novell deal say thank you but continue to do our own thing. But for the love of god, linux isn't going any where... so RELAX.

Yea, they can't really kill linux, but they can hinder further gains by linux and losses by windows which is a big deal to some people.

[Dr. C]

I'm glad somebody brought that up. Either the OSI changes the Open Source Definition (not likely), or Microsoft will have to call it's licenses Shared Source or Micro-Source, or something equally lame.

I do think it's good for people into development on microsoft systems, and I don't think the FOSS community need feel threatened by it.

Can some one point out how the Ms-PL and Ms-CL do not meet the criteria for Open Source (OSI) or Free (FSF)? So why can't Microsoft not call these licenses Open Source or Free (as in Speech)?

[DoctorMO]

kids will have to start taking MS Windows (or whatever OS they're on in 10 years) classes as part of their college education just so they can get employed.

That isn't how education works, it does not exist to teach kids what they need to know to do a job; that is the responsibility of the employer. ALL public education should be pushing towards creating well balanced and compitant human beings able to take on their lives in what ever manner they wish to. Do not get suckered into believing that everything is set up for business and that they are the centre on the universe. *roll eyes*

[original_jamingrit]

Can some one point out how the Ms-PL and Ms-CL do not meet the criteria for Open Source (OSI) or Free (FSF)? So why can't Microsoft not call these licenses Open Source or Free (as in Speech)?

http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php

The Open Source Initiative is not exactly a governing body in the world of Open Source, but it's generally recognized as such, and they prove the Open Source Definition. The definition is like the ten commandments of Open Source Licensing. Microsoft's Licenses go against 8 and 10 and, arguably 5, because the licenses don't allow portability onto other operating systems.

[Dr. C]

http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php

The Open Source Initiative is not exactly a governing body in the world of Open Source, but it's generally recognized as such, and they prove the Open Source Definition. The definition is like the ten commandments of Open Source Licensing. Microsoft's Licenses go against 8 and 10 and, arguably 5, because the licenses don't allow portability onto other operating systems.

That is true of the Ms-LPL and Ms-LCL that are restricted to Windows but it is not the case for the Ms-PL and Ms-CL. It is also the same case for the Four Freedoms and the FSF, the Ms-PL and Ms-CL meet the criteria and the Ms-LPL and Ms-LCL fail for the same reason as for Open Source.

[Ozor Mox]

That is true of the Ms-LPL and Ms-LCL that are restricted to Windows but it is not the case for the Ms-PL and Ms-CL. It is also the same case for the Four Freedoms and the FSF, the Ms-PL and Ms-CL meet the criteria and the Ms-LPL and Ms-LCL fail for the same reason as for Open Source.

You're right. So the limited licenses have no chance of being accepted by neither the OSI nor the FSF, but there is apparently nothing wrong with the Ms-PL and Ms-CL. So the question is, are Microsoft up to something with these licenses, or is it just paranoia related to the name of the company producing them?

Also, who in the FLOSS community is going to actually use Microsoft's licenses on their software above, say, the well established GPL or BSD licenses anyway? If it's Microsoft licensing their own software under the non-limited licenses, won't this only benefit the community in some way?

[racoq]

But unless someone stands up, and soon, Open Source is dead as we know it, and Microsoft will take it over and remake it in its image. All that will be left standing will be GPLv3 and Free Software.

Pure FUD...

[Dr. C]

You're right. So the limited licenses have no chance of being accepted by neither the OSI nor the FSF, but there is apparently nothing wrong with the Ms-PL and Ms-CL. So the question is, are Microsoft up to something with these licenses, or is it just paranoia related to the name of the company producing them?

Also, who in the FLOSS community is going to actually use Microsoft's licenses on their software above, say, the well established GPL or BSD licenses anyway? If it's Microsoft licensing their own software under the non-limited licenses, won't this only benefit the community in some way?

It does look like Microsoft is up to something here because the Ms-PL and Ms-CL require that the distribution of the source code be under the Ms-PL or the Ms-CL but do not place the same requirement on the object code or binaries. The net effect of this is that Ms-PL or Ms-CL code can be included in a closed propriety program but not for example in a GPL or LGPL (any version) program. What i see here is an attempt to undermine most other FLOSS licenses, using a FLOSS license, while promoting propriety software

[Tundro Walker]

There are five licenses that Microsoft has in their "shared source"...

Six...

Microsoft License to Kill

http://www.atozed.com/Indy/Demos/9/RBSODFiles/BSOD.gif

[proalan]

It seems to me that by ms is implying open source running in windows only. I followed a link off a digg story and reached their open source projects site.

http://www.codeplex.com/Project/ProjectDirectory.aspx

Most of the projects on there seem silly and useless like an implementation of IronPython on .NET, a .NET blogging system, vista battery saving system. Why rewrite / implement languages and document standards that already exist.

All the projects are completely dependent on windows libraries of course which themselves are NOT open source.

What amuses me most is how they mock themselves (micro-source) with their own propagandas.

[FyreBrand]

I reallly like the codeplex site. What does it matter if they only run on Windows? They are Windows programs. Most programs, even Java implementations, don't just port to other platforms. You can't install GIMP on Windows without GTK libraries. You can't install Code::Blocks on Linux without wxWidgets. Hell you can't even easily install an .rpm on debian or a .deb on Red Hat and expect it to work properly without hacking it. They are two different ways of Linux thinking. Does it surprise you that people write something for the Windows platform to make their lives easier and only have it run on Windows?

What is the point of criticizing something or someone in this manner? I find it odd that so often when I visit the forums now there are so many threads worrying about what Windows users are doing, how they are doing it and if it measures morally to some self-erected standard.