Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 26th Jul 2007 20:31 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Microsoft "In his keynote at OSCON, Microsoft General Manager of Platform Strategy Bill Hilf announced that Microsoft is submitting its shared source licenses to the Open Source Initiative. This is a huge, long-awaited move. It will be earthshaking for both Microsoft and for the open source community if the licenses are in fact certified as open source licenses. Microsoft has been releasing a lot of software as shared source (nearly 650 projects, according to Bill). If this is suddenly certified as true open source software, it will be a lot harder to draw a bright line between Microsoft and the open source community." In addition, Microsoft has launched a new website where it details its relationship with open source.
Order by: Score:
FYI for Share Source Licenses
by fretinator on Thu 26th Jul 2007 20:44 UTC
fretinator
Member since:
2005-07-06

Here are the levels of Shared Source License from Microsoft:

The three licenses are:

Microsoft Permissive License (Ms-PL) - The Ms-PL is the least restrictive of the Microsoft source code licenses. It allows licensees to view, modify, and redistribute the source code for either commercial or non-commercial purposes. Under the Ms-PL, licensees may change the source code and share it with others. Licensees may also charge a licensing fee for their modified work if they so wish. Microsoft uses this license most commonly for its developer tools, applications, and components.

Microsoft Community License (Ms-CL) - The Ms-CL is a license that is best used for collaborative development projects. This type of license is commonly referred to as a reciprocal source code license and carries specific requirements if licensees choose to combine Ms-CL code with the licensee’s original code. The Ms-CL allows for both non-commercial and commercial modification and redistribution of licensed software and carries a per-file reciprocal term.

Microsoft Reference License (Ms-RL) - The Ms-RL is a reference-only license that allows licensees to view source code in order to gain a deeper understanding of the inner workings of a given technology. It does not allow for modification or redistribution. Microsoft uses this license primarily for technologies such as its development libraries.

Reply Score: 5

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Yes, only a few of the many "Shared Source" licenses.

I assumed it was those three licenses. They seem reasonable to me, and an OSI-approval would be a nice step ;)

EDIT: Oops... missed a spot. MS' reference license won't be approved. No approval without modification rights of some sort. So that one is going down the drain. But the first two (permissive and community) ought to go through.

Edited 2007-07-26 21:02

Reply Score: 5

RE: FYI for Share Source Licenses
by DigitalAxis on Thu 26th Jul 2007 21:16 UTC in reply to "FYI for Share Source Licenses"
DigitalAxis Member since:
2005-08-28

Licensees may also charge a licensing fee for their modified work if they so wish.


How deep does that go? If person A modifies the software and charges a licensing fee which person B pays, who then modifies it further but doesn't charge a fee... Will person C have to pay licensing fees to get access to B's work?

I'm also not terribly clear on what the Community License means when it says 'Reciprocal'. Does that mean they have to contribute changes back on a per-file basis depending on the licensee's original code?

Reply Score: 3

Almafeta Member since:
2007-02-22

How deep does that go? If person A modifies the software and charges a licensing fee which person B pays, who then modifies it further but doesn't charge a fee...

If you are using person A's work, and person A is charging a fee, then you must pay person A's fee to use it.

If you are using person B's work, and person B is not charing a fee, then you can use it free.

If, however, you are using person B's work, and person B's work is integrated with person A's work, then you have to pay person A's fee.

Reply Score: 3

fretinator Member since:
2005-07-06

If, however, you are using person B's work, and person B's work is integrated with person A's work, then you have to pay person A's fee.


So what does "integrated with" mean? Person B can modify and redistribute for free, but if it is "integrated with", he cannot. What does that mean?

(serious question)

Reply Score: 3

Almafeta Member since:
2007-02-22

So what does "integrated with" mean? Person B can modify and redistribute for free, but if it is "integrated with", he cannot. What does that mean? (serious question)


Person B can distribute what they created. For example, if they created "foo.dll" that replaces Person A's "foo.dll", then they can distribute it for free. They can't redistribute what person A created directly -- unless, of course, person A allows it. An example is a free software extension for a commercial program; they both might be based on some shared MsPL code, but while B may choose to release their program for free, A may choose to sell theirs. It's their choice.

A notable distinction of the MsPL is that it's intended to give freedoms to the enduser, not to give freedoms to the license's owner (Microsoft). The MsPL's requirements are (1) leave attribution intact, (2) accept that there are no guarantees, (3) use the MsPL if you choose to distribute the source code (you are not required to do so), (4) let other users use your patents, and (5) don't bring patent cases against other MsPL users. In everything else, it's up to the enduser what they want to do with the license. No mandatory redistribution, no vaguely worded guidelines about relicensing 'derived works', no forbiddances over use, nothing of that nature. Heck, if you don't choose to release the source code, you don't even have to release it under the same license, as long as you follow the terms of Microsoft's license.

(Between my current position, and my former position as my company's OGL expert, I'm entirely too familiar with license law and looking for double meanings in licenses. Bleagh.)

Edited 2007-07-26 23:22 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24

Almafeta wrote:
-" A notable distinction of the MsPL is that it's intended to give freedoms to the enduser,"

no, obviously MsPL gives freedoms to the distributor, not the end user. the distributor may choose not to include the source code which denies the end user the chance to alter the program to suit his needs. this seems like a BSD-style licence with added patent and licence compliance clause for binary or object code distribution.

Reply Score: 5

Almafeta Member since:
2007-02-22

obviously MsPL gives freedoms to the distributor, not the end user.


You seem to be confusing 'distributor' and 'end user'.

Distributor -- creates software, licenses it under MsPL.

End user -- recieves software, decides what to do with it once it's been licensed to them.

If it was giving freedoms to the distributor, the end user would be required to give license of all their creations back to the distributor.

the distributor may choose not to include the source code which denies the end user the chance to alter the program to suit his needs.


If the distributor has chosen not to distribute their creations, then it is obviously not licensed under the MsPL anyways. And if the distributor has distributed their source code under the MsPL, then they have granted the permission to let them alter the program -- section 2 of the MsPL.

Edited 2007-07-27 00:51 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24

the definition of end user I was implying was the one that recieves the actual resulting program, not the one that uses MsPL licenced source code to create a program.

as such the end user (in this context) is not guaranteed the right to alter the program to work according to his needs since the distributor is not bound to release the source code to his program.

it is true that someone grabbing a bunch of MsPL licenced code and then releasing his own propriety program containing MsPL licenced code is also an end user, just not in the same context.

so again, it strikes me as a BSD-style licence with a few added clauses.

Reply Score: 5

also of interest
by poundsmack on Thu 26th Jul 2007 20:44 UTC
poundsmack
Member since:
2005-07-13
Great news
by theuserbl on Thu 26th Jul 2007 20:48 UTC
theuserbl
Member since:
2006-01-10

I think this is a great news!

Moonlight, the Silverlight implementation from Mono is for example a MS-library which is a shared source (Ms-PL) license.

The question is, if the shared-source licenses grants the four freedoms (to use it for all things, to spread copies, to modify and spread the modified things).

I thing it would help much, if the OSI looks at the licenses. Either they are OpenSource or they are not. A third thing doesn't exists. And I am one, who wants to know, if Microsfts licenses are OpenSOurce or not.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Great news
by Kishe on Thu 26th Jul 2007 20:55 UTC in reply to "Great news"
Kishe Member since:
2006-02-16

OSI has 5 freedoms.

1. No Intentional Secrets: The standard MUST NOT withhold any detail necessary for interoperable implementation. As flaws are inevitable, the standard MUST define a process for fixing flaws identified during implementation and interoperability testing and to incorporate said changes into a revised version or superseding version of the standard to be released under terms that do not violate the OSR.
2. Availability: The standard MUST be freely and publicly available (e.g., from a stable web site) under royalty-free terms at reasonable and non-discriminatory cost.
3. Patents: All patents essential to implementation of the standard MUST:
* be licensed under royalty-free terms for unrestricted use, or
* be covered by a promise of non-assertion when practiced by open source software
4. No Agreements: There MUST NOT be any requirement for execution of a license agreement, NDA, grant, click-through, or any other form of paperwork to deploy conforming implementations of the standard.
5. No OSR-Incompatible Dependencies: Implementation of the standard MUST NOT require any other technology that fails to meet the criteria of this Requirement.

Microsoft doesnt need to apply for FSF standards to get OSI licensed.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Great news
by pinky on Thu 26th Jul 2007 21:04 UTC in reply to "RE: Great news"
pinky Member since:
2005-07-15

>OSI has 5 freedoms...

You have cited the "OSI Open Standard Definition" and not the "OSI Open Source Definition". The "OSI Open Source Definition" has 10 criteria!

See: http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd

Edited 2007-07-26 21:05

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Great news
by theuserbl on Thu 26th Jul 2007 21:01 UTC in reply to "Great news"
theuserbl Member since:
2006-01-10

Moonlight, the Silverlight implementation from Mono is for example a MS-library which is a shared source (Ms-PL) license.

Oh sorry. I mean, it used a MS-library unter the Ms-PL license.

Reply Score: 2

v Windows 7 Service Pack 2
by edwardyawn on Thu 26th Jul 2007 21:02 UTC
RE: Windows 7 Service Pack 2
by dylansmrjones on Thu 26th Jul 2007 21:04 UTC in reply to "Windows 7 Service Pack 2"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Geez... thx for being off-topic. -1.

Reply Score: 3

v Microsatan owns your SKULL
by edwardyawn on Thu 26th Jul 2007 21:12 UTC
RE: Microsatan owns your SKULL
by Almafeta on Thu 26th Jul 2007 21:18 UTC in reply to "Microsatan owns your SKULL"
Almafeta Member since:
2007-02-22

Is that a serious post, or is that very clever satire?

Reply Score: 1

archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Nah, it's just a troll. I advise against feeding it...

Reply Score: 5

v RE[2]: Microsatan owns your SKULL
by Redeeman on Fri 27th Jul 2007 01:23 UTC in reply to "RE: Microsatan owns your SKULL"
RE[3]: Microsatan owns your SKULL
by kaiwai on Fri 27th Jul 2007 01:49 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Microsatan owns your SKULL"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

if a car had same quality level as MS products, first off, it would never even be made, and secondly, it would NEVER be allowed to be sold, and thirdly, NOBODY sane would buy it, and fourth, even those who are totally stupid and moronic that would actually buy this car, would return it so fast, that we wouldnt even notice it happening in the first place. but uh oh! its MS! surely we must accept it all!


You do realise that there is was a secret list of 'known defects' from the last fleet of new cars that was in circulation at car vendors - this list in Australia was leaked to the press, there was quite a big coverage about it. Brand new cars with major design defects - customers assuming that by buying a new car, it would be free of them.

or if it was the food industry? shop sells piece of meat. Oh, it was rotten and contained 10 different forms of evil virusses? too bad, lets give you ANOTHER badge of meat with some new mutated virusses. You dont like it? well too bad, you WILL eat it anyway.. HERE, have some for your workplace and home aswell!


Actually, most food has virus's and bacteria on them; the thing is, most people fully cook their food, thus killing any possible bacteria or virus. The only time when people get sick are when you have idiots out there who have a hamburger patty and have it 'medium rare' - ignoring that a patty is based steak, the bacteria normally sits on top and can be killed off with quick sear, but due to the whole thing being mashed up, all the bacteria is then blended in with the mince.

Basically, the two scenario's actually talk about two different situations. The first is a situation where the defects are hidden by companies from the customer, the second example is one of where people are being stupid and ignoring advice.

Reply Score: 2

Redeeman Member since:
2006-03-23

but when was the last time you saw a car where while you were driving, the floor would simply rot up and fall off, or when you would drive, it would magically eat all your gas but not drive, or when the car was parked and locked, and someone comes, just magically pop open and ask "hey, please steal all the stuff in here!!"

and about the food, i think you misunderstand.. ofcourse there are bacteria and such it, that is afterall why we cook it, however i doubt you can go down to the local grocery store and bought a beef with the ebola virus in it?

Reply Score: 1

archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

people may mod him down, but the sad reality is that he is right.


He also posts rabid anti-Linux posts. Basically he's trying to be as disruptive as possible. Again, the best thing to do is to ignore him until he gets banned.

Reply Score: 2

OSI Approval
by Almafeta on Thu 26th Jul 2007 21:17 UTC
Almafeta
Member since:
2007-02-22

Maybe I'm missing something, but what are the advantages of OSI approval? It won't have any effect on the wordings of the licenses, and it won't change whether or not people feel it's the right license for them.

Then again, I'm wondering if the MS-PL will grow from this. The MSPL's "patentlefting" clause might make it something that could cause it to compete with more established licenses like the BSD/GPL licenses.

Reply Score: 4

RE: OSI Approval
by Kroc on Thu 26th Jul 2007 21:52 UTC in reply to "OSI Approval"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Leverage.

It's like BP / Shell putting adverts out about their green activities. It's complete bull of course, because they're still destroying massive amounts of the environment in all; but it's all about the ability to leverage mind-share. If Microsoft can in any way -convince-+confuse+ an IT decision maker to choose any Microsoft software over, say Red Hat through, basically, complete bullshittery, then it's a worthwhile effort.

It's good that Microsoft is making their Open Source activities more prominent with one hand, but at the end of the day, they're still trying to destroy Open Source with patent FUD with their other hand.

IMO: Stay way clear of the people promising Candy from the back of a shady van.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: OSI Approval
by jayson.knight on Thu 26th Jul 2007 23:18 UTC in reply to "RE: OSI Approval"
jayson.knight Member since:
2005-07-06

"they're still trying to destroy Open Source with patent FUD with their other hand."

I don't know how many times this needs to be said before people start getting, but 'Open Source' does not equal Linux. Open source is an umbrella term which happens to encompass Linux...MS may have it in for Linux, but that does not mean they are trying to destroy open source.

I get so infuriated when I see statements like yours.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: OSI Approval
by Kroc on Thu 26th Jul 2007 23:51 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: OSI Approval"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Linux is open source, the primary open source OS. If Microsoft move businesses away from Linux, then they also move away from open source overall. I don't think there is a line that can be drawn between the two.

If you use Linux, you cannot help but use all other Open Source software to achieve tasks. Be that from Open Office to LAMP.

If you're on Windows, you have to go out of your way to use Open Source software because it is not provided out of the box, and doesn't interoperate with other Windows-only software that you may be using. You're coerced into using MSO, IIS et al because these are easier to use and support _on a Windows platform_.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: OSI Approval
by Soulbender on Fri 27th Jul 2007 05:34 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: OSI Approval"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"Linux is open source, the primary open source OS."

Open Source existed before Linux and it would continue to exists after Linux. OSS > Linux.

"I don't think there is a line that can be drawn between the two. "

Sure there is. OSS is a concept, Linux is software using that concept. One can clearly be separated from the other.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: OSI Approval
by Headrush on Fri 27th Jul 2007 05:53 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: OSI Approval"
Headrush Member since:
2006-01-03

"MS may have it in for Linux, but that does not mean they are trying to destroy open source. "

I have a really hard time believing MS would care 2 cents about open source and wouldn't have made these recent developments if Linux wasn't so tied to open-source software.

I'm not a Linux user, but MS is a smart company and more often than not these are well thought out strategies that will ultimately benefit MS, not end users/developers which is the real intent of open-source software.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: OSI Approval
by zombie process on Fri 27th Jul 2007 13:05 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: OSI Approval"
zombie process Member since:
2005-07-08

I get so infuriated when I see statements like yours.


Find something more meaningful to spend your time worrying about. This is seriously the path to madness.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: OSI Approval
by jayson.knight on Fri 27th Jul 2007 22:04 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: OSI Approval"
jayson.knight Member since:
2005-07-06

"Find something more meaningful to spend your time worrying about. This is seriously the path to madness."

I don't get all worked up over the statement itself, it's the fact that it's been propagated around so often that half the people who read a statement like that believe it to be true, and then somewhere down the line they say the same kind of thing. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Reply Score: 2

Yet another
by SlackerJack on Thu 26th Jul 2007 21:21 UTC
SlackerJack
Member since:
2005-11-12

Brickwall for OSS to claim over, how about software that counts rather than opening up useless software, DirectX?. Microsoft will only open up what gives them a advantage and give no advantage to linux if they can help it.

It's just another way for Microsoft to say, well yes we have OSS, one reason less to use Linux. Typical tactics, duplicate the competition and claim it's your own initiative.

Edited 2007-07-26 21:24

Reply Score: 5

RE: Yet another
by sappyvcv on Thu 26th Jul 2007 22:20 UTC in reply to "Yet another"
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

There is always a way to spin something as negative. Excellent spin job in this case.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Yet another
by Valhalla on Thu 26th Jul 2007 22:40 UTC in reply to "RE: Yet another"
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24

sappyvcv wrote:
-'There is always a way to spin something as negative. Excellent spin job in this case.'

well, there is a point to his critisicm. if Microsoft wants this to become "earthshaking for both Microsoft and for the open source community" they need code to go along with it. I don't see what there is to distrust here though, since we are talking licences. you either choose to use them or not, only Almafeta seems to believe that you are forced to licence your own code this way or that. OSI certified or not, getting developers to release code under these licences is what really counts as a success.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Yet another
by sappyvcv on Thu 26th Jul 2007 23:09 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Yet another"
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

Remember Tim O'Reilly used the word "earthshaking" and not Microsoft.

For Microsoft it probably is a success. They have projects already under these licenses and people are using them. Not necessarily the licenses for their own projects, but the ones released by Microsoft. People will continue to use these projects.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Yet another
by bugnotme on Thu 26th Jul 2007 23:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Yet another"
bugnotme Member since:
2007-02-22

Success for Microsoft occurs as soon as they become perceived as a company that has embraced 'open source'. This will be achieved as soon as they are able to fool people into the (false) equivocation 'shared source'=='open source'. Then point-haired bosses will just say 'same thing' when they are sold a 'shared source' license that lets you look at the source code (but not touch it).

Vendors and big customers are starting to demand 'open-source'. MS hopes that this will pull the wool over their eyes.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Yet another
by sappyvcv on Fri 27th Jul 2007 01:24 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Yet another"
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

If OSI says [some] of these licenses are open source, then how would they be fooling people?

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Yet another
by Beta on Fri 27th Jul 2007 14:21 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Yet another"
Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

The problem might be, once OSI approves 1 [one] (or more) licence as OSI-acceptable, people will confuse with the unapproved “shared source” licences Microsoft created, therefore muddying the waters.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Yet another
by sappyvcv on Sat 28th Jul 2007 16:12 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Yet another"
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

If Microsoft doesn't call those licenses open source licenses, then it is those peoples fault for not having a certain level of comprehension.

Unless you want Microsoft to go out of their way to cater to stupid people?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Yet another
by jayson.knight on Thu 26th Jul 2007 23:20 UTC in reply to "Yet another"
jayson.knight Member since:
2005-07-06

"Microsoft will only open up what gives them a advantage and give no advantage to linux if they can help it."

I'm real curious as to why the majority of the .Net framework is open when in fact that's helping out Linux quite a bit? I'd say that counts for quite a bit.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Yet another
by SlackerJack on Fri 27th Jul 2007 00:45 UTC in reply to "RE: Yet another"
SlackerJack Member since:
2005-11-12

Not really, helps port apps to Windows easier, from what I can see it don't give Linux a advantage. If it was such a advantage then people like Adobe would be using mono to port their apps like Photoshop, that's not happening.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Yet another
by kaiwai on Fri 27th Jul 2007 01:42 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Yet another"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Not really, helps port apps to Windows easier, from what I can see it don't give Linux a advantage. If it was such a advantage then people like Adobe would be using mono to port their apps like Photoshop, that's not happening.


Please, stop being so silly. Mono is .NET, and Photoshop, the last time I had a look, isn't a .NET application - it is C++. If they wanted to port their application to *NIX, they would use Mainsoft's software.

For me, I don't hold out hope for Adobe - the simple fact is that they're unwilling to port their applications to *NIX due to, what I consider, their down right hatred of end users and their concerns - it has nothing to do with marketshare of *NIX at all.

What I'd love to see is a white knight to come and challenge Adobe's monopoly in the graphics market - offering applications where by *NIX is a first class citizen and can out perform Adobe products in almost all respects.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Yet another
by SlackerJack on Fri 27th Jul 2007 01:51 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Yet another"
SlackerJack Member since:
2005-11-12

My mistake, I didn't think that the apps would need to be C# in the first place.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Yet another
by kaiwai on Fri 27th Jul 2007 01:56 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Yet another"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

In theory you could open up the project in Visual Studio (assuming they use that) compile it in MSIL, then reverse the process but back into C#, but it would also require major re-writing of parts which have manual memory management - doesn't include the issues regarding the fact that Winforms on *NIX isn't feature complete/comparable to Microsofts own .NET.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Yet another
by google_ninja on Fri 27th Jul 2007 04:14 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Yet another"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05


What I'd love to see is a white knight to come and challenge Adobe's monopoly in the graphics market - offering applications where by *NIX is a first class citizen and can out perform Adobe products in almost all respects.


You are going to be waiting a very long time. Adobe apps are not only top quality, but they arent doing the typical thing of just making it to the top and then sitting still. You still see really intelligent, innovative features coming out with each new release.

Now that they bought the macromedia stack (which was a fantastic move, makes everyones life alot easier), any professional web developement is done with at least some adobe products. With their absorption of freehand, there is now nothing else on the market that comes even remotely close to illustrator, and while Photoshop does have competition, they are still a few generations behind in virtually all respects.

For me, I don't hold out hope for Adobe - the simple fact is that they're unwilling to port their applications to *NIX due to, what I consider, their down right hatred of end users and their concerns - it has nothing to do with marketshare of *NIX at all.


Why does it have nothing to do with the marketshare? Desktop linux is typically put at between 1-5% of the market, is it really worth the overhead of porting all their apps to a system barely anyone uses out of the server room? You could argue that even 5% is pretty friggin big, but support costs on linux are a nightmare due to the lack of a standard platform.

Apple has a small marketshare too, but it is worth their while to develop for it. Commercial companies don't support linux because as much as it is a hackers wonderland, it is a very business unfriendly platform.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Yet another
by Jokel on Fri 27th Jul 2007 07:17 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Yet another"
Jokel Member since:
2006-06-01

Hmm... There is a Maya for Linux. It has the same version as the windows version (8.5) and works very well the last time I saw it. Also Softimage XSI has a Linux version - and there are a lot more very, very professional software makers that are making Linux software for years now..

So - it IS possible to develop a expensive, very complicated commercial program for Windows and Linux. Also there seems to be a market for it, otherwise these company's won't bother to do it...

Then.. If Adobe won't make a Photoshop for Linux they are in essence admitting they are less capable in writing software than the above company's. Seems weird.. There IS a market and there is a lot of money to make there - otherwise the above company's wont bother to make a Linux version at all.

So - there must be another reason to refuse to make a Linux version of Photoshop. I wonder what it is?

Sorry about my English - it's not my native language..

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Yet another
by kaiwai on Fri 27th Jul 2007 11:31 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Yet another"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

You're right; if I grabbed every MacOS X user who was willing to give up MacOS X if *NIX (be it Solaris or Linux) had Creative Suite, you would see a max exodus from Apple like you've never seen.

Adobe simply want to invest the *least* amount possible - and when their marketshare is erroded by a competitor like Microsoft, then run off to the DOJ demanding that Microsofts development to be castrated.

I can't wait till all these products from Microsoft coming out - you'll see Adobe gnashing of teeth but refusing again to port their applications to *NIX (Solaris and Linux) because it would actually require money to be spent on the business rather than inflated management salaries, bonus's and corporate jets.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Yet another
by google_ninja on Fri 27th Jul 2007 16:07 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Yet another"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

Professional CG has a long history of using UNIX as a platform (SGI anyone?) Professional image editing and publishing really doesn't.

How about the gaming industry? Why is it that 90% of new games arent even ported to OSX, even though OSX has at least twice the desktop install base of linux?

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Yet another
by SlackerJack on Fri 27th Jul 2007 17:26 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Yet another"
SlackerJack Member since:
2005-11-12

It's hardly the same thing, I dont think game devs would make much money with such a small user base, And they use DirectX anyway.

Windows/Consoles are where all the big money is, but that dont stop idSoftware, Epic and others porting. id and Epic have OpenGL in their engines anyway so it's not such a big deal.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Yet another
by Jokel on Sat 28th Jul 2007 07:41 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Yet another"
Jokel Member since:
2006-06-01

Whait a minute!

The complaint was, there are no professional apps for Linux. Nobody said anything about games...

Well - I showed you there are very, very professional apps for Linux. Adobe is missing the boat. Anyway - there are some programs like Photogenics HDR, although i have to admit there is more software available for rendering and film editing/producing...

Now - games. Yes there are more games for the Windows platform. I never denied that. But - to be fair, a lot of games can be played with wine/Crossover Office/Cedega and a few older games are ported to a native Linux version (X2-the thread and shortly X3-Reunion for instance). Other games (like Quake4, UT200x) had Linux versions from the beginning. There are also a LOT of native Linux games. Enough to keep anyone but the more-than-casual gamer happy...

Edited 2007-07-28 07:42

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Yet another
by SlackerJack on Fri 27th Jul 2007 16:01 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Yet another"
SlackerJack Member since:
2005-11-12

Well it must be worth it because Lord of the rings films and alot of others used Linux to do the CG. When they started Lord of the rings they were on a budget, using linux was ideal with Maya/SoftImage.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Yet another
by google_ninja on Fri 27th Jul 2007 16:13 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Yet another"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

CG has a long history of being developed on UNIX, as most desktop platforms dont do clustering anywhere near as well, and you need render farms for any serious work. If the publishing industry required HPC, then it would be another story, and it really would make no sense not to port to linux. However, that isnt the case, and most serious artists are on Mac and Windows, which is exactly what adobe supports.

As I said in another reply, the gaming industry is another prime example of the user base on linux being too small to be worth their while.

Reply Score: 3

MS Open Source?
by historyb on Thu 26th Jul 2007 22:11 UTC
historyb
Member since:
2005-07-06

Embrace and destroy, tactics they always use. I may be paranoid, but I will not trust anything from MS.

Reply Score: 4

Odd...
by Janizary on Thu 26th Jul 2007 23:33 UTC
Janizary
Member since:
2006-03-12

Considering the OSI is completely uselsss and means absolutely nothing, I really question why Microsoft would bother. Anyone can have something open source, if they open the access to the source.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Odd...
by dylansmrjones on Thu 26th Jul 2007 23:48 UTC in reply to "Odd..."
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Access to the source does not equal open source.
For something to be open source we need modification and redistribution rights ;)

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Odd...
by Janizary on Fri 27th Jul 2007 06:45 UTC in reply to "RE: Odd..."
Janizary Member since:
2006-03-12

No, in order to be open source, the source must be open. That is the literal meaning of the term. Much like with free software, one can not simply redefine words at their leisure, neither the OSI nor the FSF can redefine words.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Odd...
by dylansmrjones on Fri 27th Jul 2007 10:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Odd..."
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Again. Open != Accessible.

You are making the mistake you are warning against. You yourself are redefining the words at your own leisure. And of course people can define words as they please. That's why we have vocabularies and endless lists to define the meaning of words - not to mention kilometre long contracts written in legalese.

What does "open source" mean? You claim it only means accessible (possibly legally accessible?) whereas I count in factors as use right, modification rights and redistribution rights. The literal meaning of Open is not Access - and the literal meaning of "open source" is not "accessible". Accessibility is surely a part of it, but claiming that Open only means Accessible is illogical and flawed. If my Home is Open for you it means you are free to use it as your own at any given time - but then of course, my home isn't that open for you.

The mere fact that people can understand words differently is all the proof we need for the use of OSI - and therefore also OSI-approved licenses.

Reply Score: 2

First two
by Xaero_Vincent on Fri 27th Jul 2007 00:12 UTC
Xaero_Vincent
Member since:
2006-08-18

I think the first two licenses will be accepted. The most restricted one doesn't allow for modification nor distribution, so I don't think that will make it (but I could be wrong).

Reply Score: 2

Confused...
by kaiwai on Fri 27th Jul 2007 01:38 UTC
kaiwai
Member since:
2005-07-06

What do these 'licences' actually achieve? isn't this more smoke screen under the guise of 'open source' as if to say, "we're cute and fuzzy teddy bears - we'd never do anything to harm you! really!".

If Microsoft has a legitimate concern over GPL then why not use CDDL, BSD, MIT/X11, MPL etc. etc. There are so many licences out there, if people choose to develop yet another licence it tells me that obviously they don't truely want to opensource, they just want the halo that goes with the name to hover over their project.

Microsoft also just doesn't get it; maybe if they dropped the Napoleonic complex of 'we want to take over the world' to instead 'we want to make a boot load of money' then maybe they would be more willing to look at other business structures.

If they dropped it (the Napoleonic complex), then they could move alway from the model of releasing a 'big bang' every three years in favour of a model where by their products can be opensourced and people can purchase support licences which bring in perpetual long term revenue.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Confused...
by Marcellus on Fri 27th Jul 2007 12:43 UTC in reply to "Confused..."
Marcellus Member since:
2005-08-26

There are already many licenses out there because those that already existed when the newer ones were made were not enough or were perceived as not enough.

New licenses will be made for the same reasons, and may or may not be accepted by the Open Source Initiative.

If Microsoft's Shared Source licenses will fall into the "redundant" section or not remains to be seen.

Does your comments come from some anti-MS bias maybe?
I'll assume that it doesn't, and that you are also against GPLv3. Because if GPLv2 isn't enough, there's CDDL, BSD, etc. already.
And that it tells you that the FSF don't truly want opensource (which I suppose is true... they want "free" source after all).

Reply Score: 2

RE: Confused...
by MollyC on Fri 27th Jul 2007 16:08 UTC in reply to "Confused..."
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

Well, OSI members have been openly calling for Microsoft to submit at least Ms-PL for OSI cerification. For many months now, people have been saying that at least Ms-PL does qualify as an "open source" license, so I guess it may as well be certified as such. Microsoft is already using it for many projects (such as, I think, IronPython and DLR), so if those projects automatically become official "open source" projects, then OSS-advocates should be pleased.

Side note: Some months ago someone did submit Ms-PL to OSI without Microsoft's consent, and OSI asked Microsoft if they should go ahead and initiate the cerification process, but Microsoft declined. (I recall a Microsoft person suggesting that they didn't want to deal with the OSI at that time because the OSI website contained anti-Microsoft rhetoric. Some (outside of Microsoft) also suggested "It's A Trap!" theories, speculating that the guy that submitted Ms-PL behind Microsoft's back (perhaps in cahoots with OSI itself) did so in order to have OSI publicly reject it as an "open source license". The actual submitter said that wasn't the case; he submitted Ms-PL because he liked it.) It was around that time that I saw numerous articles and message board posts (e.g. at slashdot) from OSI members either calling for Microsoft to submit it and/or saying that they thought that Ms-PL passed muster. I did a quick search for such an article to back my claim, but the only thing I could find was a reference to the issue here:
http://lwn.net/Articles/239331/ .

Edited 2007-07-27 16:10

Reply Score: 2

FSF is right
by KenJackson on Fri 27th Jul 2007 03:31 UTC
KenJackson
Member since:
2005-07-18

This makes me appreciate the FSF's insistence on using the term free software instead of open source software.

While it is very, very unfortunate and confusing that the word free is used in English for two different concepts, open source just doesn't capture the most significant point, which is freedom.

Reply Score: 5

"detail its relationshhip"
by l3v1 on Fri 27th Jul 2007 07:20 UTC
l3v1
Member since:
2005-07-06

has launched a new website where it details its relationship with open source.

Well, detailing they do, alright, and give marketing speech instead of clearness.

"Q. What is Microsoft's perspective on open source?
Open source is neither an industry fad, nor a magic bullet. Rather, the development methods commonly encompassed by the term open source have provided customers and developers with additional options [...]"

So, what's OSS ? Just yet another option, which you can get here, so why bother going someplace else ?

"Q. What is Microsoft's open source strategy?
[blah blah] The Microsoft open source strategy is focused on helping customers and partners be successful in today's heterogeneous technology world. [...] increasing opportunities for business partners [...] increasing opportunities for developers to learn and create by combining community-oriented open source with traditional commercial approaches [...]"

So, increasing those opportunities and combining OSS with closed source. Not much, but thing is, those opportunities would be increased better if really going FOSS, not just playing with those SSI licences.

Problem is, "free" at MS means pretty much different than at FSF. And they should really hire someone who can speak non-marketing english. That would really "deliver value" to those shared customers.

Edited 2007-07-27 07:21

Reply Score: 2

#76
by renhoek on Fri 27th Jul 2007 17:13 UTC
renhoek
Member since:
2007-04-29

rule of acquisition # 76:

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

Reply Score: 1

Microsoft is being changed from within
by rdean400 on Sun 29th Jul 2007 16:13 UTC
rdean400
Member since:
2006-10-18

Ray Ozzie and others who are not "native" to Microsoft have been changing Microsoft -- for the better -- because of the realization that pragma beats dogma.

If Microsoft wants to remain relevant, and recuperate its public image in much the same way that IBM has, embracing open source is a must. The monopolistic tendencies must fall by the wayside, and they must be sensitive to courses of action that will be ill-perceived in light of their past actions. IBM, for example, still doesn't pre-announce products and features, a hold-over from the consent decree days.

Reply Score: 1