Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 17th Feb 2011 20:33 UTC, submitted by Radio
Windows Well, well, well. We all know Apple's App Store policies are incompatible with the GPL, and as such, software using this license can't be distributed in the App Store. So, what about Microsoft's Windows Phone 7 Marketplace? Well, whereas the App Store doesn't specifically mention the GPL (Apple's terms are simply incompatible), Microsoft drops the pretence and simply bans GPL and GPL-esque licenses outright.
Order by: Score:
Ah !
by Neolander on Thu 17th Feb 2011 20:45 UTC
Neolander
Member since:
2010-03-08

Here's the good old Microsoft that all of us know and love ! They had been acting so nicely recently, I wondered if their executives had been captured by freaking aliens or something ;)

Reply Score: 5

RE: Ah !
by Radio on Thu 17th Feb 2011 22:32 UTC in reply to "Ah !"
Radio Member since:
2009-06-20

Yeah, "acted so nicely", like making sure Meego and Qt...

...Do I need to say more...

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Ah !
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 17th Feb 2011 22:38 UTC in reply to "RE: Ah !"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Yeah, "acted so nicely", like making sure Meego and Qt...


Cut the nonsense.

MeeGo killed itself by not being ready when it needed to be ready. you can blame Intel and Nokia for that. Qt isn't dead at all, and while it sure isn't as widespread as it technically could be, that's most certainly not Microsoft's fault.

Can we please keep blaming Microsoft for genuine, truthful issues, like the damage they've caused to the desktop operating system market and the web?

Reply Score: 8

RE[3]: Ah !
by Radio on Thu 17th Feb 2011 23:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Ah !"
Radio Member since:
2009-06-20

MeeGo killed itself by not being ready when it needed to be ready.

And when, exactly, did it need to be ready?

How much older is WP7? Four friggin' months.

When will we see Nokian WP7 phones? Not before many, many months, and they won't be any different software-wise from the competition.

Just watch Nokia die in "the dark, cold, foreboding waters" it jumped into.

Reply Score: 6

RE[4]: Ah !
by nt_jerkface on Thu 17th Feb 2011 23:42 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Ah !"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

How much older is WP7? Four friggin' months.


It's state of progress that matters, not actual age.

What was MeeGo supposed to offer consumers? An Android like interface but with rougher edges and no software library?

Look at this MeeGo preview for yourself, there is no way that should have been dubbed a 1.x release:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqpVP414WJo

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: Ah !
by shmerl on Fri 18th Feb 2011 00:08 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Ah !"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

No software library? That's nonsense. It has a whole load of Linux software available.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Ah !
by nt_jerkface on Fri 18th Feb 2011 04:21 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Ah !"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Like what? Some desktop applications? Even for the ones that are written in Qt they would still have to be optimized for the hardware.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Ah !
by Radio on Fri 18th Feb 2011 13:32 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Ah !"
Radio Member since:
2009-06-20

No, but there is a ton a libraries available. You won't use Gimp, but you have all the graphic toolbox libraries ready for use.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Ah !
by bouhko on Fri 18th Feb 2011 13:11 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Ah !"
bouhko Member since:
2010-06-24

Good luck using stock Gimp on your touchscreen phone ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Ah !
by flypig on Fri 18th Feb 2011 15:43 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Ah !"
flypig Member since:
2005-07-13

You probably already know this (sorry if you do!), but GIMP is already available on the n900; I've not checked to see whether it's also available for MeeGo, but I guess there's no reason why not:

https://temporaryland.wordpress.com/2010/01/20/openoffice-org-and-th...

To be honest, it is pretty hard to use as an image editor, but it's okay for viewing, applying filters, converting images and so on.

Even though GIMP may not be ready for phones, I do think preventing GPL software is a mistake from a technical point of view, even if there are good legal reasons for Microsoft doing this. There are lots of useful libraries that WP7 now won't be able to benefit from.

Edited 2011-02-18 15:49 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Ah !
by shmerl on Thu 17th Feb 2011 23:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Ah !"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

Meego was ready. Nokia and Elop weren't ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Ah !
by flanque on Fri 18th Feb 2011 02:25 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Ah !"
flanque Member since:
2005-12-15

That's impossible around here Thom, you know that.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Ah !
by leech on Fri 18th Feb 2011 03:17 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Ah !"
leech Member since:
2006-01-10

"Yeah, "acted so nicely", like making sure Meego and Qt...


Cut the nonsense.

MeeGo killed itself by not being ready when it needed to be ready. you can blame Intel and Nokia for that. Qt isn't dead at all, and while it sure isn't as widespread as it technically could be, that's most certainly not Microsoft's fault.

Can we please keep blaming Microsoft for genuine, truthful issues, like the damage they've caused to the desktop operating system market and the web?
"

MeeGo didn't kill itself, in fact it isn't dead at all. There are quite a few major companies making MeeGo devices. In fact there is an article right there in the column next to this one that says Intel sees future for MeeGo Mobile System after Nokia.

MeeGo looks plenty ready to me. Hell, Maemo 5 was pretty damned close to ready (for intelligent people it was, but we all know that there aren't THAT many out there...)

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Ah !
by Aragorn992 on Fri 18th Feb 2011 07:26 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Ah !"
Aragorn992 Member since:
2007-05-27

MeeGo killed itself by not being ready when it needed to be ready. you can blame Intel and Nokia for that. Qt isn't dead at all, and while it sure isn't as widespread as it technically could be, that's most certainly not Microsoft's fault.

Can we please keep blaming Microsoft for genuine, truthful issues, like the damage they've caused to the desktop operating system market and the web?

---

MeeGo didn't kill itself, in fact it isn't dead at all. There are quite a few major companies making MeeGo devices. In fact there is an article right there in the column next to this one that says Intel sees future for MeeGo Mobile System after Nokia.

MeeGo looks plenty ready to me. Hell, Maemo 5 was pretty damned close to ready (for intelligent people it was, but we all know that there aren't THAT many out there...)


---

Devices being made != devices being ready. Right now Windows 7 is ready and is on devices that are shipping. Which devices are MeeGo on that are shipping? (btw: this is an honest question, I really would like to know).

Edited 2011-02-18 07:27 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Ah !
by Radio on Fri 18th Feb 2011 08:34 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Ah !"
Radio Member since:
2009-06-20

Devices being made != devices being ready. Right now Windows 7 is ready and is on devices that are shipping.
...Shipping less than Symbian^3 devices, and even less than WinMo 6.5 devices. WP7 isn't ready, with its lack of functionalities and bad thrird-party app performance.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Ah !
by Aragorn992 on Fri 18th Feb 2011 10:09 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Ah !"
Aragorn992 Member since:
2007-05-27

"Devices being made != devices being ready. Right now Windows 7 is ready and is on devices that are shipping.
...Shipping less than Symbian^3 devices, and even less than WinMo 6.5 devices. WP7 isn't ready, with its lack of functionalities and bad thrird-party app performance. "

Are you implying that a device that ships less units than another is less ready than the other? You use isolated sentences without proper conjunctions so I'm not really sure what you're trying to say. But anyway, popularity has no direct correlation to "readyness". iOS (when the iPhone was first realised) would also be less "ready" than, for example, WinMo 6.0 by your logic.

Anyway, got some links to back up those statements? Which specific lack of functionality are you talking about? And apart from the, now fixed, Yahoo mail app problem, what bad third party-app performance do you mean?

Again, honest questions. I have used WP7 for maybe 10 minutes in a phone store and don't really know.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Ah !
by Radio on Fri 18th Feb 2011 11:02 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Ah !"
Radio Member since:
2009-06-20

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3982/windows-phone-7-review/2

The minimalist, hardware-accelerated UI is very smooth, but:

once you start downloading apps from the Marketplace all bets are off. Many of the 3rd party apps and even Microsoft’s own Xbox Live Extras app drop frames like there’s no tomorrow. That’s the biggest concern I have for the initial wave of apps: they won’t be tuned for performance as much as the apps you get with the phone. The core OS is so fast you assume the rest of the WP7 world will be the same. Ultimately as performance agnostic as Microsoft has tried to make Windows Phone, you will eventually run into UI slowdowns - just not with the Microsoft apps that come with the phone.


As for readyness, it would have been easy for Nokia to launch MeeGo earlier by cutting out functionalities like Microsoft did. Meego without multitasking, copy&paste, unoptimised third-party app engine, could have been out months ago.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Ah !
by aliquis on Sun 20th Feb 2011 06:28 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Ah !"
aliquis Member since:
2005-07-23

He probably mean the copy&paste support which will be added in march, somewhat "multitasking" (rather pause-task-switch) in a future version, maybe native binaries, opengl, lots of hardware stuff (i don't remember what but maybe it was things like hdmi), not working as an UMS device.

Third party complaints may be based on .NET/Silverlight, or just number of apps.

Of course it will become better. But so could Nokias own OSes. But where Nokia may have a solid foundation but lack all the applications (social media, cloud storage, whatever more they may have wanted on top of regular phone services) and developer tools, Microsoft got something which looks pretty and which you can use even though it may not have all the OS features you would had wanted to. And maybe not as solid foundation.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Ah !
by vodoomoth on Fri 18th Feb 2011 11:43 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Ah !"
vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30

I can't believe someone can purposely choose to be that disingenuous.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Ah !
by Nth_Man on Fri 18th Feb 2011 17:41 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Ah !"
Nth_Man Member since:
2010-05-16

Which devices are MeeGo on that are shipping? (btw: this is an honest question, I really would like to know).

To avoid repeating myself, we can see:
http://www.osnews.com/thread?463061

Reply Score: 1

Killed?
by Nth_Man on Fri 18th Feb 2011 04:33 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Ah !"
Nth_Man Member since:
2010-05-16

MeeGo killed itself


Fujitsu launches a MeeGo-powered netbook
http://www.thinq.co.uk/2011/2/11/fujitsu-launches-meego-powered-net...
http://www.fujitsu.com/sg/news/pr/fpcap_20110211.html

Intel giving away lots of cash, trip to Antarctica, jet flight & more for MeeGo developers
http://thenokiablog.com/2011/02/16/intel-meego-prizes-developers/

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Ah !
by aliquis on Fri 18th Feb 2011 19:16 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Ah !"
aliquis Member since:
2005-07-23

TS. MeeGo is probably nice. People who buy the Apple hype killed everything by buying iconic crap-devices without carrying about über-inflated prices or being rammed from behind time after time again.

;)

Doubt MeeGo is totally dead, and QT most definitely isn't. And if nothing else maybe future Nokia products will build on lessons learned from developing MeeGo.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Ah !
by aliquis on Fri 18th Feb 2011 19:07 UTC in reply to "Ah !"
aliquis Member since:
2005-07-23

GPL bans itself.

Reply Score: 2

Not entirely accurate
by madcrow on Thu 17th Feb 2011 20:52 UTC
madcrow
Member since:
2006-03-13

They banned the GPLv3 family (GPLv3, LGPLv3 and AGPLv3) but other licenses like GPLv2 are still allowed. I suspect that the main reason that they banned the v3 stuff is to avoid having to deal with the patent guarantee and anti-Tivoization language in them.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Not entirely accurate
by cubidou on Thu 17th Feb 2011 21:00 UTC in reply to "Not entirely accurate"
cubidou Member since:
2006-04-09

"Excluded Licenses include, but are not limited to the GPLv3 Licenses"

Besides, I'd say that covers "v2 or later" anyway, so that wouldn't leave much.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Not entirely accurate
by jacquouille on Thu 17th Feb 2011 21:02 UTC in reply to "RE: Not entirely accurate"
jacquouille Member since:
2006-01-02

No! That's what the 'or' in 'or later' means. If you can't license undel GPLv3, just license under GPLv2.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Not entirely accurate
by bitwelder on Fri 18th Feb 2011 07:32 UTC in reply to "RE: Not entirely accurate"
bitwelder Member since:
2010-04-27

Where it would be good ol' Microsoft without a bit of FUD thrown in? ;-)

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Not entirely accurate
by testman on Fri 18th Feb 2011 09:25 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Not entirely accurate"
testman Member since:
2007-10-15

Certainly wouldn't be a front page news story without it. ;-)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Not entirely accurate
by steverez1 on Thu 17th Feb 2011 21:01 UTC in reply to "Not entirely accurate"
steverez1 Member since:
2006-12-06

Right on also you can still deploy whatever code you want on your own device just not list it in the Marketplace.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Not entirely accurate
by aliquis on Fri 18th Feb 2011 19:18 UTC in reply to "RE: Not entirely accurate"
aliquis Member since:
2005-07-23

Can anyone install them if they don't go by the market?

As in could I for instance put a VLC version on my own webpage for people to download?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Not entirely accurate
by steverez1 on Fri 18th Feb 2011 20:07 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Not entirely accurate"
steverez1 Member since:
2006-12-06

yep you can host your own apps for others to download that dont follow the restrictions of the marketplace on GPLv3

Edited 2011-02-18 20:11 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Not entirely accurate
by aliquis on Fri 18th Feb 2011 20:35 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Not entirely accurate"
aliquis Member since:
2005-07-23

Ok, so unless you're required to use Microsoft marketplace than no big or small deal at all.

GPL v3 isn't compatible with their market place so they can't allow it. And eventually not some others either. But you're free to fix it yourself.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Not entirely accurate
by jacquouille on Thu 17th Feb 2011 21:05 UTC in reply to "Not entirely accurate"
jacquouille Member since:
2006-01-02

Indeed, banning GPLv3 and not GPLv2 unambiguously means that this has nothing to do with copyleft (which didn't change significantly) and everything to do with the anti-tivoization clauses.

So Microsoft is not 'covering their bases' here, it's back at its old "let's undermine free software while pretending to support open source" tricks.

Edited 2011-02-17 21:05 UTC

Reply Score: 7

RE[2]: Not entirely accurate
by colstrom on Thu 17th Feb 2011 22:04 UTC in reply to "RE: Not entirely accurate"
colstrom Member since:
2011-02-17

Let's be reasonable here. As much as Microsoft has a long and colorful history of undermining free software, this situation is far less political than it might seem on the surface. The Windows Phone Market uses digital signatures. Section 6 of the GPLv3 requires the disclosure of "any methods, procedures, authorization keys, or other information required to install and execute modified versions of a covered work in that User Product from a modified version of its Corresponding Source."

So Microsoft gets to choose between releasing the signing keys used in the Marketplace, and undermining their business model there... or disallowing software that can't legally be distributed through the Marketplace without violating the license.

I've written a bit about this at: http://chris.olstrom.com/opinion/windows-phone-marketplace-and-the-...

Reply Score: 12

RE[3]: Not entirely accurate
by moltonel on Fri 18th Feb 2011 10:52 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Not entirely accurate"
moltonel Member since:
2006-02-24

So Microsoft gets to choose between releasing the signing keys used in the Marketplace, and undermining their business model there... or disallowing software that can't legally be distributed through the Marketplace without violating the license.


There's a perfectly valid 3rd solution : let the marketplace distribute apps without DRM if the author wants to. That fixes the GPLv3 requirement for "disclosure of keys and methods". As for the other GPL requirements (source code, etc), they can be provided by the app itself.

But they're either too lazy to do the work, or too happy to hurt FOSS, or too intent on a fully-DRMed world in general.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Not entirely accurate
by aliquis on Fri 18th Feb 2011 20:36 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Not entirely accurate"
aliquis Member since:
2005-07-23

So make your own FOSS Windows Phone market software repository.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Not entirely accurate
by sorpigal on Fri 18th Feb 2011 14:53 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Not entirely accurate"
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

There's a really simple solution: Allow software to be installed (not via their marketplace, but by some means) without being signed by Microsoft. Then the keys are not required. Although a hardline reading of the GPL might still require the keys, I think it could be successfully argued that the GPL does not require in this case that the user who receives the GPL'd app to be able to upload a modified version *to the marketplace*, only that he be able to put a modified version on his phone "somehow."

Otherwise you are quite correct and most of the commenters here are just being crazy.

Edited 2011-02-18 14:54 UTC

Reply Score: 2

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

They could allow unsigned apps with a clear warning. "we didn't vett this. it might break your device horribly if you contniue [Allow||Deny]" Nokia did just this with the Mameo repositories. Nokia signed apps slide in with no warning, non-signed apps have a clear warning and opt-in checkbox to allow the install to continue. It wouldn't be rocket science.

Reply Score: 4

oiaohm Member since:
2009-05-30

Chris please read and understand before keeping on being a idiot. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GiveUpKeys

Person must be given the key used to sign the binary? answer is no. Hang on how can this be no. "A Key" only has to be given if user cannot install the software and have it function.

If you cannot install software and have it function without a key it is a walled garden.

Next does the "A key" have to be a master key to all devices. Answer no. User must be provided with a key that the software they build works on the device they own. So this could be serial number based. Also nothing about GPLv3 says that device warranty cannot be voided in exchange for key to install own software.

Now this is still a walled garden but a tolerant one to home-brew.

"any methods, procedures, authorization keys, or other information required to install and execute modified versions of a covered work in that User Product from a modified version of its Corresponding Source."

The key word in the GPLv3 is required. As long as a person can install and execute modified version on the device they own GPLv3 is met. So Windows Phone Market digital signatures don't have to be at risk.

Now here is the stupid part. MS has no legal requirement to hand over the key on any device that follows Windows Phone 7 support for modification.

All they have to do is hand over a program that allows side loading and say load it yourself. Yes side loading is how you test out development version applications on Windows Phone 7 anyhow.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Not entirely accurate
by BrianH on Thu 17th Feb 2011 21:09 UTC in reply to "Not entirely accurate"
BrianH Member since:
2005-07-06

The GPLv2 family would be banned too. The particular restrictions they don't support are those that govern distribution of source code:

(i) disclosed or distributed in source code form; (ii) licensed for the purpose of making derivative works; or (iii) redistributable at no charge.

Patents are not mentioned, nor are the the extra anti-Tivoization restrictions. Only the stuff that also applies to the GPLv2 family is mentioned, hence the "but are not limited to" part.

It's clear that their marketplace won't have a way to let the user download source code, or to allow distribution without DRM that prohibits app copying. Probably no sideloading either, which (ii) and (iii) might require to be supported. So "open source" licenses would be supported, but not copyleft.

Reply Score: 8

RE[2]: Not entirely accurate
by shawnhcorey on Thu 17th Feb 2011 21:36 UTC in reply to "RE: Not entirely accurate"
shawnhcorey Member since:
2009-11-05

All the GPL-like licenses say that the changes to the source code must be made available, not made available on the device. They could publish it on their web site and be compliant with the license.

Reply Score: 7

RE[3]: Not entirely accurate
by BrianH on Thu 17th Feb 2011 22:18 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Not entirely accurate"
BrianH Member since:
2005-07-06

They could publish it on their web site and be compliant with the license.


In this case, "they" is Microsoft (or Apple) in their respective app store web sites and apps. Remember, an app store is a distributor of apps, so the "must provide source code" requirement applies to the app store itself, not only to the developer. This would mean providing a mechanism in the app store submission process to provide source code, and providing a way for the phone-side apps to direct the phone web browser to that source code (or some other method). It's possible, and would make more thorough app reviews possible, but those features don't exist in their process yet.

That doesn't even real with the free redistribution restriction, which would require the OS to support loading unsigned apps - sideloading. This would break their review process and antimalware restrictions. If the license only requires allowing free redistribution of the source then this wouldn't be a problem, but if it requires free redistribution of compiled binaries then the OS would need a different security model.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Not entirely accurate
by modmans2ndcoming on Thu 17th Feb 2011 23:29 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Not entirely accurate"
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

No... the "They" is the software developer.

Last time I bought a Linux distribution in a box (abut a decade ago), it was the software developer, not the distributor (the store), that had to make the source available.

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Not entirely accurate
by TheGZeus on Fri 18th Feb 2011 02:01 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Not entirely accurate"
TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

Anyone who distributes a binary is required under the license to produce the code used to make said binary when asked.

Reply Score: 4

RE[6]: Not entirely accurate
by modmans2ndcoming on Sun 20th Feb 2011 17:56 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Not entirely accurate"
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

Considering I just gave you a clear counter example of your assertion proves that you are wrong.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Not entirely accurate
by TheGZeus on Sun 20th Feb 2011 18:00 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Not entirely accurate"
TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

I'm wrong because you say so?
_Court cases_ prove you wrong.
Gee, a dude on the Internet, or the court system... which is the greater legal authority...?

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Not entirely accurate
by Slambert666 on Mon 21st Feb 2011 02:31 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Not entirely accurate"
Slambert666 Member since:
2008-10-30

No... the "They" is the software developer.


No it is not, it is anyone distributing, hosting or copying for the purpose of giving to someone else.

Last time I bought a Linux distribution in a box (abut a decade ago), it was the software developer, not the distributor (the store), that had to make the source available.


No, it was not. If the store is selling Linux they must host the sources (unless it came with source CD's
in the box)

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Not entirely accurate
by TheGZeus on Mon 21st Feb 2011 02:40 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Not entirely accurate"
TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

Exactly. There have been multiple court cases.
Pet peeve: People making absolute statements about legal matters without doing 1ml of research.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Not entirely accurate
by lemur2 on Thu 17th Feb 2011 23:49 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Not entirely accurate"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"They could publish it on their web site and be compliant with the license.
In this case, "they" is Microsoft (or Apple) in their respective app store web sites and apps. Remember, an app store is a distributor of apps, so the "must provide source code" requirement applies to the app store itself, not only to the developer. This would mean providing a mechanism in the app store submission process to provide source code, and providing a way for the phone-side apps to direct the phone web browser to that source code (or some other method). It's possible, and would make more thorough app reviews possible, but those features don't exist in their process yet. That doesn't even real with the free redistribution restriction, which would require the OS to support loading unsigned apps - sideloading. This would break their review process and antimalware restrictions. If the license only requires allowing free redistribution of the source then this wouldn't be a problem, but if it requires free redistribution of compiled binaries then the OS would need a different security model. "

None of this is necessary, all that is required is that the app store doing the distribution makes the source code of the GPL app available to any recipient on request. Burning a CD of the source code text files, and then posting it out, and charging the requester for the costs involved in doing so perhaps even with a reasonable margin of profit, is a perfectly acceptable means of making the source code available.

In fact, this is something similar to the original means of "making source code available" at the very start of GNU.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Not entirely accurate
by vodoomoth on Fri 18th Feb 2011 11:44 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Not entirely accurate"
vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30

Burning a CD of the source code text files, and then posting it out, and charging the requester for the costs involved in doing so perhaps even with a reasonable margin of profit, is a perfectly acceptable means of making the source code available.

I don't see Microsoft doing that. Or Apple. Or RIM. Or Samsung. I don't see app store distributor accepting to do that.

Reply Score: 3

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

It says you must point the user to the source code if they so ask not that you must host and distribute it. Since Microsoft would not be making changes, they could simply point back to the app developer for the source code. Add a "source available here" link in H5 and get on with it.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Not entirely accurate
by jabjoe on Fri 18th Feb 2011 17:09 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Not entirely accurate"
jabjoe Member since:
2009-05-06

That's fine, as long as you can build you own version, install it and use it. If not, it is a form of Tivoization. Maybe that's why they singled out the GPLv3.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Not entirely accurate
by aliquis on Fri 18th Feb 2011 19:09 UTC in reply to "Not entirely accurate"
aliquis Member since:
2005-07-23

GPL and Microsofts market license doesn't blend.

One has to go. And I guess they don't want to run their market with no license so ..

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Not entirely accurate
by TheGZeus on Fri 18th Feb 2011 20:50 UTC in reply to "RE: Not entirely accurate"
TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

...nor modify their license.

Edited 2011-02-18 20:51 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Come down!
by wigry on Thu 17th Feb 2011 21:07 UTC
wigry
Member since:
2008-10-09

There is a simple reason for this as

http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Microsoft-bans-free-software...

points out:

"Commercial application stores like Apple's and Microsoft's do not have mechanisms to make source code for applications directly available."

So in order to not deal with source code requirements, they just ban the open source licenses.

Edited 2011-02-17 21:13 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: Come down!
by caruccio on Thu 17th Feb 2011 23:33 UTC in reply to "Come down!"
caruccio Member since:
2010-10-19

Do you REALLY believe that ??

Reply Score: 0

v RE[2]: Come down!
by Lumbergh on Fri 18th Feb 2011 04:50 UTC in reply to "RE: Come down!"
RE[3]: Come down!
by Nth_Man on Fri 18th Feb 2011 05:09 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Come down!"
Nth_Man Member since:
2010-05-16

You can clarify doubts in the official FAQ
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html

It's only you freetards that don't understand the simplest of concepts.

When insulting, it's the insulter who gets the worst part.

Edited 2011-02-18 05:11 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Come down!
by TheGZeus on Fri 18th Feb 2011 05:33 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Come down!"
TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

馬鹿は「馬鹿」を言うのです。

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Come down!
by koki on Fri 18th Feb 2011 06:56 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Come down!"
koki Member since:
2005-10-17

それは馬鹿馬鹿しい! ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Come down!
by TheGZeus on Fri 18th Feb 2011 07:02 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Come down!"
TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

確かに帰納的です。

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Come down!
by Lumbergh on Fri 18th Feb 2011 17:38 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Come down!"
Lumbergh Member since:
2005-06-29

You braindead, basement dwellers think that you're involved in some big battle with Microsoft.

The rest of the world has moved on. You're stuck in some slashdweeb coma, circa 1999.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Come down!
by Nth_Man on Fri 18th Feb 2011 18:02 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Come down!"
Nth_Man Member since:
2010-05-16

You braindead, basement dwellers

When insulting, it's the insulter who gets the worst part.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Come down!
by TheGZeus on Fri 18th Feb 2011 20:49 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Come down!"
TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

繰り返し

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Come down!
by TheGZeus on Fri 18th Feb 2011 20:48 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Come down!"
TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

Yeah, that's why most governments are trying to leave MS behind, because they've won.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Come down!
by TheGZeus on Fri 18th Feb 2011 05:32 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Come down!"
TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

Like common courtesy.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Come down!
by wigry on Fri 18th Feb 2011 16:29 UTC in reply to "RE: Come down!"
wigry Member since:
2008-10-09

It is not about my beliefs. I am not in the target audience for appstores anyway and what ever is available in the stores does not matter to me at all.

I am very very happy with my touchscreen phone that do not have ANY support for add-on software (yes there are such phones available) and the phone is used only for calling, SMSing and taking photos. I have no plans to extend the functinality of the phone and therefore no need to move to advanced platform like iOS, Android, WP7 or even Symbian.

Never understood why people want to install software on their phones...

Tablets on the other hand need add-on software but the license of the software is certainly not my selection criteria. If the software is useful to me, I use it unrelated to license or openness of the software.

Edited 2011-02-18 16:32 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Come down!
by Nth_Man on Fri 18th Feb 2011 18:11 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Come down!"
Nth_Man Member since:
2010-05-16

If the software is useful to me, I use it unrelated to license or openness of the software.

I suppose you have found bugs in programs, and have had the wish of solving it (or contract someone to do it for you). Yes, the software works but can be repaired.

Maybe you have wanted to improve a software that works, but can be improved, and the company that made that software... has closed its doors and left, or forces you to buy a new version, or forces you to buy new hardware for the next version of the program, or is charging abusive prices for a new version, etc.

So thinking in long-term, that is where the license matters most, because a license like GPL makes things possible for you.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Come down!
by hamster on Fri 18th Feb 2011 19:13 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Come down!"
hamster Member since:
2006-10-06


So thinking in long-term, that is where the license matters most, because a license like GPL makes things possible for you.


Other open source licenses gives the same advantages without being banned from MS marketplace.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Come down!
by Nth_Man on Fri 18th Feb 2011 20:08 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Come down!"
Nth_Man Member since:
2010-05-16

GPL allows Microsoft to use GPL programs and have the source code, improve it and have all of its advantages but does not allow Microsoft to modify it and... forbid that people have access to the source code, improve it and have all of its advantages.

Edited 2011-02-18 20:13 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Come down!
by hamster on Fri 18th Feb 2011 21:10 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Come down!"
hamster Member since:
2006-10-06

GPL allows Microsoft to use GPL programs and have the source code, improve it and have all of its advantages but does not allow Microsoft to modify it and... forbid that people have access to the source code, improve it and have all of its advantages.


I for one don't believe to many of the people that cares about the gpl would buy a phone with WP7 on it anyways. But are there or are there not other open source licenses that could be used now that the gpl cant be used?

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Come down!
by TheGZeus on Fri 18th Feb 2011 21:16 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Come down!"
TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

But they might care about applications licensed under the GPL.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Come down!
by Nth_Man on Fri 18th Feb 2011 21:19 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Come down!"
Nth_Man Member since:
2010-05-16

If a license allows that: Microsoft can use a program under that license, can have the source code, improve it and have all of its advantages but later allows Microsoft to forbid that people have access to the source code, improve it and have all of its advantages.
... yes, that license has a chance :-(

Edited 2011-02-18 21:36 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: Come down!
by Nth_Man on Fri 18th Feb 2011 04:40 UTC in reply to "Come down!"
Nth_Man Member since:
2010-05-16

deal with source code requirements

This has been answered in other places like
http://www.osnews.com/thread?463032
http://www.osnews.com/thread?462975

Edited 2011-02-18 04:42 UTC

Reply Score: 3

Microsoft isn't to blame
by gedmurphy on Thu 17th Feb 2011 21:15 UTC
gedmurphy
Member since:
2005-12-23

It's not Microsoft who's at fault here, they're just protecting themselves. It's the terms of the GPL licenses which are the cause of this.

Other open source licenses like BSD and Apache are allowed as they don't enforce the same code availability issues.

Lots of companies come up against this issue with regards to the GPL, including my workplace, so companies simply avoid to ensure they don't get sued by accidentally breaking the license terms.

Reply Score: 12

RE: Microsoft isn't to blame
by jacquouille on Thu 17th Feb 2011 21:28 UTC in reply to "Microsoft isn't to blame"
jacquouille Member since:
2006-01-02

Aww poor little Microsoft can't afford a lawyer to understand licenses, and is so scared to be sued by the evil FSF!

GPL haters--- give me a break.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Microsoft isn't to blame
by gedmurphy on Thu 17th Feb 2011 21:37 UTC in reply to "RE: Microsoft isn't to blame"
gedmurphy Member since:
2005-12-23

I'm anything but a GPL hater, I've written tens of thousands of lines of code released under the GPL.
I'm just trying to understand it from their point of view. Why over-complicate matters by including a licence which is difficult to manage in an app store environment?

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Microsoft isn't to blame
by lemur2 on Thu 17th Feb 2011 21:58 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Microsoft isn't to blame"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

I'm anything but a GPL hater, I've written tens of thousands of lines of code released under the GPL. I'm just trying to understand it from their point of view. Why over-complicate matters by including a licence which is difficult to manage in an app store environment?


How is it difficult to manage? All it requires is a separate server with a bunch of text files (the source code for the app, which is not Microsoft's code anyway) to be downloadable by the user. The source code doesn't have to actually be in the app store, and not one in a thousand users would bother to download it.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Microsoft isn't to blame
by tomcat on Sun 20th Feb 2011 20:22 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Microsoft isn't to blame"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

"I'm anything but a GPL hater, I've written tens of thousands of lines of code released under the GPL. I'm just trying to understand it from their point of view. Why over-complicate matters by including a licence which is difficult to manage in an app store environment?


How is it difficult to manage? All it requires is a separate server with a bunch of text files (the source code for the app, which is not Microsoft's code anyway) to be downloadable by the user. The source code doesn't have to actually be in the app store, and not one in a thousand users would bother to download it.
"

Hahahahahaha. You've got to be kidding. You are so out of touch with reality, it's not funny...

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Microsoft isn't to blame
by TheGZeus on Sun 20th Feb 2011 20:31 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Microsoft isn't to blame"
TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

...That's just meaningless ad-hominem crap.
You said nothing to discount what they said, which is correct, and simply said "YOU SUCK!"
What a waste of oxygen you are.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Microsoft isn't to blame
by Nth_Man on Mon 21st Feb 2011 00:46 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Microsoft isn't to blame"
Nth_Man Member since:
2010-05-16

You are so out of touch with reality

For example, linux distributions have been doing this (like having a simple FTP server of source code (text files)) for many years.

Edited 2011-02-21 00:54 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Microsoft isn't to blame
by Brendan on Thu 17th Feb 2011 21:41 UTC in reply to "RE: Microsoft isn't to blame"
Brendan Member since:
2005-11-16

Hi,

Aww poor little Microsoft can't afford a lawyer to understand licenses, and is so scared to be sued by the evil FSF!


Ok, so "Mr. Rich Stall" decides to deliberately upload an application with the *wrong* source code, then waits while Microsoft distribute that application without the *right* source code, then...

I think Microsoft are perfectly capable of understanding the GPL licence.

-Brendan

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Microsoft isn't to blame
by lemur2 on Thu 17th Feb 2011 21:50 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Microsoft isn't to blame"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Hi, "Aww poor little Microsoft can't afford a lawyer to understand licenses, and is so scared to be sued by the evil FSF!
Ok, so "Mr. Rich Stall" decides to deliberately upload an application with the *wrong* source code, then waits while Microsoft distribute that application without the *right* source code, then... I think Microsoft are perfectly capable of understanding the GPL licence. -Brendan "

Microsoft is incapable of compiling source code for itself now? Since when?

Please cite previous cases when an open source project has attempted sabotage via incorrect source code? Isn't the whole point of open source to make the correct source code available to everyone?

I'll just go check ...

http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html

"I consider that the Golden Rule requires that if I like a program I must share it with other people who like it. Software sellers want to divide the users and conquer them, making each user agree not to share with others. I refuse to break solidarity with other users in this way. I cannot in good conscience sign a nondisclosure agreement or a software license agreement."

Yes, I thought so.

This is the apparently nasty, evil intent that Microsoft is trying to suppress. Hmmmmmm.

Edited 2011-02-17 21:53 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Microsoft isn't to blame
by Brendan on Fri 18th Feb 2011 06:08 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Microsoft isn't to blame"
Brendan Member since:
2005-11-16

Hi,

Microsoft is incapable of compiling source code for itself now? Since when?


Sigh. Sometimes I wish more people could read and think at the same time.

Nobody said it's not possible, but whether or not it's possible is irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is whether or not it's worth the hassle.

The general idea would be to create an (almost) fully automated "app store" system. Maybe the app developer goes to a web site, logs in, types in a description of their app and clicks the "upload" button. Done. No Microsoft employees directly involved (but if there are, it'd be "minim wage" type of work).

Paying someone to mess about downloading and configuring different (GNU?) toolchains for the sake of verifying source code that Microsoft isn't interesting in distributing to begin with (and end-users probably don't want either) can easily be too much hassle.

- Brendan

Edited 2011-02-18 06:10 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Microsoft isn't to blame
by TheGZeus on Fri 18th Feb 2011 06:16 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Microsoft isn't to blame"
TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

If the dependencies are properly declared, then it can be (almost) fully automated.
Hell, it _should_ be vetted by the distributor, or they're at least partially liable for any harm a malicious application causes.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Microsoft isn't to blame
by jabbotts on Fri 18th Feb 2011 18:30 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Microsoft isn't to blame"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

So app developer goes to the apps tore website, fills out the form that includes "url to source code" and uploads the app binary.

Not a hard issue to solve and one that really isn't going to but onous on Microsoft.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Microsoft isn't to blame
by FrankenFuss on Sat 19th Feb 2011 00:54 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Microsoft isn't to blame"
FrankenFuss Member since:
2009-08-05

So app developer goes to the apps tore website, fills out the form that includes "url to source code" and uploads the app binary.

Not a hard issue to solve and one that really isn't going to but onous on Microsoft.


You are probably making it sound more simple than it actually is to execute. But the greater point is this...why should Microsoft change its store just to accomodate the GPL? Microsoft has it practices and procedures in place...if an app meets the criterion, it's accepted. If not? It's not! Microsoft and Apple did the right thing by banning those apps because they don't want or need the headache.

Reply Score: 0

RE[7]: Microsoft isn't to blame
by jabbotts on Tue 22nd Feb 2011 20:21 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Microsoft isn't to blame"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

"why should Microsoft change it's app store just to accomodate GPL"

Why should Microsoft intentionally change it's app store just to block GPL?

It's a development model that produces legitimate software. Windows Phone 7 apps would be no less legitimate because they happen to be produced using open source code and development methods.

Why is it legitimate for Microsoft to block a huge potential developer base from participating in it's WP7 software repository and what is involved in setting up third party repositories for WP7 apps? Can WP7 work with repositories outside of Microft's blessed or will it be artificially limited as Apple has done with Ios?

(If it is simply adding a second repository entry in the package manager then fair enough, no worries, FOSS developers can still produce WP7 software and Microsoft's walled market can get stuffed rather than stocked.)

Reply Score: 2

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Oh no. The horror. If only Microsoft had some way of turning the source code into the application which could then be checked against the app itself.

But alas such advanced technology is even beyond the grasp of the worlds largest software company. Surely, it would take a vast team of computer geniuses centuries to accomplish the feat.

all hope is lost.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Microsoft isn't to blame
by polaris20 on Thu 17th Feb 2011 23:08 UTC in reply to "RE: Microsoft isn't to blame"
polaris20 Member since:
2005-07-06

No, actually sometimes companies/people don't want to waste resources worrying about this kind of thing when there are other alternatives that are compatible, yet don't cause a hassle. Simple as that.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Microsoft isn't to blame
by Nth_Man on Fri 18th Feb 2011 04:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Microsoft isn't to blame"
Nth_Man Member since:
2010-05-16

No, actually sometimes companies/people don't want to waste resources worrying about this kind of thing

Have they read the particular EULAs of what they are using? Those gives people a lot of legal things to worry about.

At least with the GPL they know that if they don't distribute programs outside they company, they don't have to worry about.

And if they distribute it, they just have to make the source code available.

For inusual cases, they can see even a FAQ in http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html

Reply Score: 3

RE: Microsoft isn't to blame
by lemur2 on Thu 17th Feb 2011 21:43 UTC in reply to "Microsoft isn't to blame"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

It's not Microsoft who's at fault here, they're just protecting themselves. It's the terms of the GPL licenses which are the cause of this. Other open source licenses like BSD and Apache are allowed as they don't enforce the same code availability issues. Lots of companies come up against this issue with regards to the GPL, including my workplace, so companies simply avoid to ensure they don't get sued by accidentally breaking the license terms.


What exactly would be the issue with making source code available on request to end customers? Particularly source code that Microsoft didn't write in the first place?

Note: A GPLv3 open source app can still contain DRM. You can still make it so that it is ONLY installable on the target platform as a signed binary via an app store. All you have to do is also provide the source code on request, this can easily be done via a separate mechanism and as an entirely separate download.

Is Microsoft so inept that it is incapable of providing a separate ftp server for source code? It is just a bunch of text files, after all.

Edited 2011-02-17 21:54 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Microsoft isn't to blame
by gedmurphy on Thu 17th Feb 2011 21:55 UTC in reply to "RE: Microsoft isn't to blame"
gedmurphy Member since:
2005-12-23

It's not just the issue of providing source code on request, the GPL is fraught with other issues.

Microsoft can't add terms and conditions to the download as the GPL doesn't allow it.
GPLv3 doesn't allow its software to be distributed in places which use anti-circumvention measures.

The GPL is banned because of the terms and conditions it enforces. Microsoft only banned the GPL, not open source. Open Source fanboys can choose one of the many other licenses if they want their code to be made available.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Microsoft isn't to blame
by lemur2 on Thu 17th Feb 2011 22:05 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Microsoft isn't to blame"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

GPLv3 doesn't allow its software to be distributed in places which use anti-circumvention measures.


Not correct.

http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/application-development/2006/07/28/gpls...

The approach in the second draft of GPL version 3 "only directly restricts DRM in the special case in which it is used to prevent people from sharing or modifying GPLv3-covered software", the foundation said in a statement. "GPLv3 does not prohibit the implementation of DRM features, but prevents them from being imposed on users in a way that they cannot remove."

You are perfectly allowed to use DRM, as long as the application's source code is available to users on request. A separate mechanism to provide the text files of the source code (even of an application which includes DRM) is perfectly acceptable.

If provision of the source code of an app which worked with the DRM system would break the DRM system, then the DRM system is not doing it right. "Security through obscurity" of the mechanisms is not secure at all, the only secrets are supposed to be the keys.

Edited 2011-02-17 22:06 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Microsoft isn't to blame
by gedmurphy on Thu 17th Feb 2011 22:10 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Microsoft isn't to blame"
gedmurphy Member since:
2005-12-23

Any code that is incompatible with the rules of the app store / marketplace won't be allowed. I'm pretty sure this is the only reason Microsoft have disallowed the GPL (as Apple also did). It's not some vendetta against open source as most other open source licenses are allowed.

Microsoft aren't going to modify their marketplace rules just to coincide with the GPL.

Why can't the developers just choose a new license?

Edited 2011-02-17 22:11 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Microsoft isn't to blame
by ssokolow on Fri 18th Feb 2011 01:21 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Microsoft isn't to blame"
ssokolow Member since:
2010-01-21

Why can't the developers just choose a new license?


Because they'd have to identify every person whose code still resides in the current version of the program, contact them for permission, and then rewrite any pieces which they can't get the OK for... and do it clean-room so they don't risk accusations of plagiarizing the code they removed.

The whole point of the GPL was to make the default behaviour for novices strong against the kind of tactics companies like Microsoft have used in the past.

Now the focus is shifting to teaching the open source ecosystem to be wary of copyright assignment and to insist that corporate-spawned projects be managed by an independent non-profit (either a new one or an existing one set up for the purpose) so that things like the Java mess, the OpenOffice-LibreOffice split, and the growing unease over Canonical's reasons for asking for copyright assignment are less likely.

Edited 2011-02-18 01:21 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Microsoft isn't to blame
by Nth_Man on Fri 18th Feb 2011 04:50 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Microsoft isn't to blame"
Nth_Man Member since:
2010-05-16

Any code that is incompatible with the rules of the app store / marketplace won't be allowed

Any app store rules is perfectly compatible with GPL, unless the app store rules are oriented to vendor lock-in.

Why can't the developers just choose a new license?

Those developers are the given source code to study it, modify it, improve it, etc. and like that people can do the same with the improved code, without becoming dependents on a provider (which goes against any quality system, by the way).

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Microsoft isn't to blame
by werterr on Sun 20th Feb 2011 16:36 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Microsoft isn't to blame"
werterr Member since:
2006-10-03

Because this is undermining freedom.

If say; just chose another license. This gives these companies the power to choose for you what is an acceptable license and which is not.

And since since they control 90% of the market share, it's not really a choice anymore for the developer.

I guess this kind of practice isn't against the ideas of a free market as such... A company is free to limit there devices to there market store and there rules right ? In the same sense as the free-market does not exclude said market to be in a dictatorship or include racists companies. People are still free to get there services somewhere else or not at all.

But if you join the market in a free society and then start limiting freedoms within your own little corner of that society, that feels just wrong to me...

It's like saying; we don't allow handicapped people in our shop because then we have widen our alley's or hold the door open every once in a while...

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Microsoft isn't to blame
by TheGZeus on Sun 20th Feb 2011 17:15 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Microsoft isn't to blame"
TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

Nice.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Microsoft isn't to blame
by mrhasbean on Thu 17th Feb 2011 22:01 UTC in reply to "RE: Microsoft isn't to blame"
mrhasbean Member since:
2006-04-03

"It's not Microsoft who's at fault here, they're just protecting themselves. It's the terms of the GPL licenses which are the cause of this. Other open source licenses like BSD and Apache are allowed as they don't enforce the same code availability issues. Lots of companies come up against this issue with regards to the GPL, including my workplace, so companies simply avoid to ensure they don't get sued by accidentally breaking the license terms.


What exactly would be the issue with making source code available on request to end customers? Particularly source code that Microsoft didn't write in the first place?

Note: A GPLv3 open source app can still contain DRM. You can still make it so that it is ONLY installable on the target platform as a signed binary via an app store. All you have to do is also provide the source code on request, this can easily be done via a separate mechanism and as an entirely separate download.

Is Microsoft so inept that it is incapable of providing a separate ftp server for source code? It is just a bunch of text files, after all.
"

Umm, but this was tried by those who wanted to distribute their goodies on the iApp store. Sadly it wasn't good enough so Apple made the call to pull them. Contrary to Thom's misleading article Apple did try, it was the GPL community that didn't...

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Microsoft isn't to blame
by tomcat on Sun 20th Feb 2011 20:21 UTC in reply to "RE: Microsoft isn't to blame"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

What exactly would be the issue with making source code available on request to end customers? Particularly source code that Microsoft didn't write in the first place?


Because it provides zero incentive to Microsoft. And that's enough of a justification to ignore it.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Microsoft isn't to blame
by TheGZeus on Sun 20th Feb 2011 20:30 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Microsoft isn't to blame"
TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

Customer satisfaction?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Microsoft isn't to blame
by Nth_Man on Fri 18th Feb 2011 04:58 UTC in reply to "Microsoft isn't to blame"
Nth_Man Member since:
2010-05-16

To not to repeat comments, we can see http://www.osnews.com/thread?463068

Reply Score: 1

RE: Microsoft isn't to blame
by danieldk on Fri 18th Feb 2011 07:38 UTC in reply to "Microsoft isn't to blame"
danieldk Member since:
2005-11-18

I think there may be another reason. Application stores are a pipe dream for Apple, Microsoft, and others. You can take a cut from every application, and have some lock-in. Microsoft will also bring the app store to the desktop.

Now remember that Office is one of Microsoft's the biggest cash cows. One day, people will be buying Office from the Windows application store. However, suppose that The Open Document Foundation or Oracle decide to submit LibreOffice or OpenOffice.org to the application store. Suddenly, everyone who searches 'office' not only gets to see Microsoft Office, but also free (as in money) alternatives. Obviously, a large share of people will try a free office suite first. And as much as I dislike OpenOffice.org, if you are only typing letters, it is probably good enough, and people will not spend whatever amount Office costs.

In other words, I think Microsofts rationale is two-fold:

- Less worries, since there are no GPL enforcements worries (and if some GPL/LGPL code ends up in the application store, it is the developer's fault).
- Avoid competition with their cash cows.

Note that Apple is in a very different position. Sure, they have iWork, but it is not important to their bottom line.

Edited 2011-02-18 07:38 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Microsoft isn't to blame
by avgalen on Sat 19th Feb 2011 06:39 UTC in reply to "RE: Microsoft isn't to blame"
avgalen Member since:
2010-09-23

Proof that Microsoft is bringing the appstore to the desktop please

Also, Microsoft has a free (as in money) online version and Microsoft Office is SUCH a big, well known name that people will not often choose another (free as in money) office bundle instead of Microsoft Office.

(and for letters wordpad might be enough for most users)

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Microsoft isn't to blame
by TheGZeus on Sat 19th Feb 2011 14:03 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Microsoft isn't to blame"
TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

Now is not the future, and who writes snail-mail any more? Anything that needs to be printed is for internal memos, mailings from companies, notices, etc.
Basically, stuff that needs a paper-trail.

Edited 2011-02-19 14:05 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Thu 17th Feb 2011 21:43 UTC
shmerl
Member since:
2010-06-08

Who uses their store anyway?

Reply Score: 2

.
by d.marcu on Thu 17th Feb 2011 22:00 UTC
d.marcu
Member since:
2009-12-27

Soon on mac os and windows the only way you can install something will be by using the app store, and they are already banning opensource software. Welcome to the future

Reply Score: 6

RE: .
by lemur2 on Thu 17th Feb 2011 22:08 UTC in reply to "."
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Soon on mac os and windows the only way you can install something will be by using the app store, and they are already banning opensource software. Welcome to the future


We have a winner here, someone has uncovered the entire point of the exercise. well done.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: .
by tomcat on Sun 20th Feb 2011 20:24 UTC in reply to "RE: ."
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

"Soon on mac os and windows the only way you can install something will be by using the app store, and they are already banning opensource software. Welcome to the future


We have a winner here, someone has uncovered the entire point of the exercise. well done.
"

And that's a positive thing. Because the percentage of malware is near zero.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: .
by Nth_Man on Mon 21st Feb 2011 00:48 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ."
Nth_Man Member since:
2010-05-16

Because the percentage of malware is near zero.

Mmmm... how can they say that? I mean, they have not the source code, they don't really know what those apps are really doing.

Reply Score: 2

RE: .
by nt_jerkface on Thu 17th Feb 2011 23:13 UTC in reply to "."
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Not possible, most software is in-house.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: .
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Fri 18th Feb 2011 03:24 UTC in reply to "RE: ."
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Most software .... used in home or professional settings? Hm.. If they were to introduce a two different versions of windows that simply had different sets of features targeted towards these different sets of users...

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: .
by nt_jerkface on Fri 18th Feb 2011 04:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ."
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

I'd like to make a tin foil hat before continuing this conversation.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: .
by Radio on Fri 18th Feb 2011 14:14 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: ."
Radio Member since:
2009-06-20

I'm not sure you have anything to protect with a tin foil hat.


(For a less offensive retort, see below.)

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: .
by nt_jerkface on Fri 18th Feb 2011 20:04 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: ."
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Well I said the Nokia deal was likely and believed the CEO memo was real unlike that professional analyst/ex nokia employee this website linked to that writes books about the mobile industry.

So maybe I should protect my brain and go for a book deal.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: .
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Fri 18th Feb 2011 17:30 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: ."
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Ok, just remember to get real tin. Its becoming a lot more difficult to find these days. They've been replacing it with aluminium for a while... Sneaky bastards.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: .
by Nth_Man on Fri 18th Feb 2011 05:02 UTC in reply to "RE: ."
Nth_Man Member since:
2010-05-16

Not possible, most software is in-house.

Paying previously, a lot of things become possible :-(

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: .
by Radio on Fri 18th Feb 2011 14:11 UTC in reply to "RE: ."
Radio Member since:
2009-06-20

So what? Apple already provides companies with their own app store if they need.

http://www.apple.com/iphone/business/integration/

iPhone enables enterprises to securely host and wirelessly distribute in-house apps to employees over Wi-Fi and 3G. Apps can be updated without requiring users to connect to their computers. In-house apps can be hosted on any web server accessible to users. Users simply tap on a URL to install apps wirelessly without needing to connect to their computers.


I wish we could all do that...

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: .
by nt_jerkface on Fri 18th Feb 2011 20:12 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ."
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

You don't understand how a lot of in-house software works and how many endless dependencies it can have or how much of it was written years ago and isn't cost effective to replace.

Just look at how much of it is still tied to IE6.

Any announcement of locking Windows into an app store would incite corporate rage from all corners of the planet. MS is not going to give up their corporate customers.

Apple on the other hand.

Reply Score: 2

Solution?
by james_parker on Thu 17th Feb 2011 22:07 UTC
james_parker
Member since:
2005-06-29

Why not create a modified license which exempts those who distribute unmodified binaries, provided a mechanism exists for those who receive such binaries to locate and obtain the source code? Then, any binary which provides a way to find a URL for the upstream provider ("help" or "about" options are the logical place for these) could be included under such terms.

It's a legitimate issue for intermediaries (since it adds an additional cost/burden), but one which this would solve with little difficulty.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Solution?
by lemur2 on Thu 17th Feb 2011 22:13 UTC in reply to "Solution?"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Why not create a modified license which exempts those who distribute unmodified binaries, provided a mechanism exists for those who receive such binaries to locate and obtain the source code? Then, any binary which provides a way to find a URL for the upstream provider ("help" or "about" options are the logical place for these) could be included under such terms. It's a legitimate issue for intermediaries (since it adds an additional cost/burden), but one which this would solve with little difficulty.


You don't need to modify the GPL v3 at all for that purpose, that is already perfectly acceptable the way the licesne is. The only proviso is that the distributer themselves must make the source code available, and not rely on the upstream provider. However, since the code is unmodified, this merely means Microsoft placing an unmodified copy of the source code on their own servers somewhere.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Solution?
by james_parker on Thu 17th Feb 2011 22:17 UTC in reply to "RE: Solution?"
james_parker Member since:
2005-06-29

The only proviso is that the distributer themselves must make the source code available, and not rely on the upstream provider. However, since the code is unmodified, this merely means Microsoft placing an unmodified copy of the source code on their own servers somewhere.


Which creates an added burden on the distributor -- one that that do not wish to take on. By eliminating that burden from the distributor, the objection is removed, the end user loses nothing, and the provider takes on a slightly larger burden.

If, of course, a distributor finds that unacceptable, then an ulterior motive is almost certainly at play.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Solution?
by lemur2 on Thu 17th Feb 2011 23:02 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Solution?"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"The only proviso is that the distributer themselves must make the source code available, and not rely on the upstream provider. However, since the code is unmodified, this merely means Microsoft placing an unmodified copy of the source code on their own servers somewhere.
Which creates an added burden on the distributor -- one that that do not wish to take on. By eliminating that burden from the distributor, the objection is removed, the end user loses nothing, and the provider takes on a slightly larger burden. If, of course, a distributor finds that unacceptable, then an ulterior motive is almost certainly at play. "

How is it a burden?

Microsoft could accept the source code from the upstream provider, check that it compiles & runs properly, put the source code on a separate server and the binary DRM'd installable app in the app store (thereby being fuuly compliant with the GPLv3 license requirements), and provide their WP7 users with more free choice for almost no cost to Microsoft.

This is a lot easier than a commercial third party app, where Microsoft has to work out revenue sharing with the provider.

Edited 2011-02-17 23:02 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Solution?
by james_parker on Thu 17th Feb 2011 23:15 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Solution?"
james_parker Member since:
2005-06-29

How is it a burden?

Microsoft could accept the source code from the upstream provider, check that it compiles & runs properly, put the source code on a separate server and the binary DRM'd installable app in the app store (thereby being fuuly compliant with the GPLv3 license requirements), and provide their WP7 users with more free choice for almost no cost to Microsoft.

This is a lot easier than a commercial third party app, where Microsoft has to work out revenue sharing with the provider.


Revenue sharing decisions are made by non-engineers, and in most cases will be boiler-plate.

This would add:

1) The need to identify which products required/offered source code to be publicly available.

2) Creating a process for uploading, backing up, and downloading the source code.

3) If there were a step to verify that the source matched the binaries, engineers would be required to obtain the tool chain and libraries needed to re-create the environment in which the original binaries were created.

This is effort. This requires that distributors adapt their processes to the provider, rather than set terms that the provider must meet. This is a cost to the distributor, one which a distributor can reasonably object to taking on.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Solution?
by Nth_Man on Fri 18th Feb 2011 05:16 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Solution?"
Nth_Man Member since:
2010-05-16

This is effort.


Having a FTP server for source code (so someone can know what his computer is doing, etc) is no effort for Microsoft (we're talking about a company with billions of dollars). Hey, Debian is doing it for a lot of years.

Also, a distributor could inspect whatever they are distributing, you know, to not to serve malware to people, etc.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Solution?
by vodoomoth on Fri 18th Feb 2011 12:54 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Solution?"
vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30

Come on! We all know it's even less than an effort for Microsoft; it would cost them less ... (fill in the blank) than it costs me energy to have a single thought.

But we also know Microsoft's general stance about free software. We also know what Debian's is. Are you surprised that Microsoft doesn't want to do anything that could help a movement that basically (although on a different environment) undermines their business?

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Solution?
by Nth_Man on Fri 18th Feb 2011 17:53 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Solution?"
Nth_Man Member since:
2010-05-16

No, I'm not surprised :-), I just was answering that this is possible with virtually no cost for a big company.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Solution?
by vodoomoth on Fri 18th Feb 2011 12:51 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Solution?"
vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30

How is it not a burden?

You are listing actions that they would to take and at the same time say it's not a burden. If you as a person had to do that, it would require some time from you. Whether it's a negligible amount of time and they are a company with resources beyond what I can imagine doesn't remove its "burden" nature.

This is a lot easier than a commercial third party app, where Microsoft has to work out revenue sharing with the provider.

Hmm, no. Microsoft doesn't have to "work out" anything. It's because the App Store model initiated by Apple has proven such an easy way to make money that Apple recently changed license terms in regard of distributors selling ebooks independently and added an app store for Mac OS X; this, we all know. It's because it's so easy that other application stores followed that same model. It's such a bonanza-without-efforts that Amazon steps in the battle (or should I say "hot tub"). It has become a widely accepted way for companies to levy a tax and those that can would be utterly stupid to not jump on the bandwagon.

Reply Score: 2

...
by Hiev on Thu 17th Feb 2011 22:18 UTC
Hiev
Member since:
2005-09-27

Im pretty sure the GPLv? license won't be missed by anyone in the market.

Reply Score: 0

RE: ...
by d.marcu on Thu 17th Feb 2011 22:21 UTC in reply to "..."
d.marcu Member since:
2009-12-27

well, vlc is missed in apple store

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: ...
by Hiev on Thu 17th Feb 2011 22:43 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

really, who?

Reply Score: 1

RE: ...
by Radio on Thu 17th Feb 2011 22:27 UTC in reply to "..."
Radio Member since:
2009-06-20

Yeah, it's not as if anything even remotely useful came out of GPL.

/dumbass

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: ...
by Hiev on Thu 17th Feb 2011 22:44 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

Not really.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: ...
by ephracis on Thu 17th Feb 2011 23:16 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
ephracis Member since:
2007-09-23

One could argue that it's not that GPL is not missed, it's just that there's no one there to miss it. ;)

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Calipso
by Calipso on Thu 17th Feb 2011 22:57 UTC
Calipso
Member since:
2007-03-13

I don't understand why MS would be responsible for distributing the source. They're not really the distributor. Isn't the person that's actually selling the software using MS's appstore the distributor and therefore they would be required to provide the source? As long as the source is available someplace, the GPL rules should be met. Which I believe can be done by simply providing a link in the About section of the app to some other website with the source.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Calipso
by Hiev on Thu 17th Feb 2011 23:00 UTC in reply to "Comment by Calipso"
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

Thats logict and correct but the looneys at the FSF says the contrary, so they are the ones to blame for the unpopularity of the GPL in mobile devices.

Edited 2011-02-17 23:00 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by Calipso
by Kishe on Thu 17th Feb 2011 23:02 UTC in reply to "Comment by Calipso"
Kishe Member since:
2006-02-16

Actually Skype got sued for not distributing source for a product manufactured by a third party and which Skype was only reseller to...forcing them to drop all support for that product.

GPLv3 is a borg licence, it doesn't play well with other licences.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by Calipso
by lemur2 on Thu 17th Feb 2011 23:13 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Calipso"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Actually Skype got sued for not distributing source for a product manufactured by a third party and which Skype was only reseller to...forcing them to drop all support for that product. GPLv3 is a borg licence, it doesn't play well with other licences.


Sigh!

Since it wasn't Skype's code, how would it have hurt Skype to simply supply the source code on request and thereby become license-compliant?

Why would Skype have to drop it? It isn't Skype's code to start with.

GPLv3 liecense applies only to code which the author decides to release as GPLv3. There is nothing "assimilated" ... it is not the least bit Borg like.

The only problem is if Skype tires to include somone else's GPLv3 source code into a Skype closed-source proprietary product. This is only allowable if the original (non-Skype) code was LGPLv3, not GPLv3.

However, even this situation is a case of Skype trying to steal someone's GPLv3 code, and not at all someones's GPLv3 code being somehow "Borg-like", or a case of "not playing well with other licences". It doesn't matter if the originnal code was commercial or GPLv3 license, Skype still aren't allowed to steal it and include it inside their own product.

At least get the actors right when you ascibe a description to something.

Edited 2011-02-17 23:14 UTC

Reply Score: 6

RE[3]: Comment by Calipso
by tomcat on Sun 20th Feb 2011 20:15 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Calipso"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

You're either missing the point -- or you're being obtuse. Microsoft obviously doesn't want to get involved with licenses like GPL which put a legal burden on the distributor to do anything special that they aren't required to do otherwise. If somebody wants to create their own parallel App Store for WP7, they're welcome to do it. Just don't expect Microsoft to change its policies to suit ideologically-driven software licenses.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Calipso
by nt_jerkface on Thu 17th Feb 2011 23:27 UTC in reply to "Comment by Calipso"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

It should work that way but it doesn't.

The GPL was created before internet access was ubiquitous.

It's designed for a different era.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Calipso
by Calipso on Fri 18th Feb 2011 03:23 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Calipso"
Calipso Member since:
2007-03-13

If a person can access the marketplace to get the application, then they have internet access to get the source code from the people that wrote the application. You would also think that since v3 was created just a few years ago, it would expect people to have access to the internet to get the software and source code.

That being said, if the gpl was designed in a different era than in that case a phone number or mailing address where you can get the source from, in the About field should work. These days a link to a website would be the equivalent.

Maybe someone on here with a law degree in this field can confirm if a link to a site with the source code would be enough to meet the license requirements. I personally barely understand all the legal talk but to me it sounds crazy if it wouldn't. The code is out there and available and provided by those that licensed the software.

Edited 2011-02-18 03:27 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by Calipso
by nt_jerkface on Fri 18th Feb 2011 04:29 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Calipso"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

The distributor has to provide the source, that's what it comes down to. Just read about the MEPIS case:
http://lwn.net/Articles/193852/

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Calipso
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Fri 18th Feb 2011 03:37 UTC in reply to "Comment by Calipso"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

No, thats not the definition of the word "distributor" means in common language. If I am a store and I buy alcohol like Guiness, I'm not buying it from Guinness, even though they are the ones who made it. I'm buying it from the ones who distribute it to me. A "distributor" is the one who does the "distribution" not the "creator" who does the "creating".


Microsoft and Apple run their app stores, the software comes from them to you. Its pretty clear they are the distributor in this case.

To solve the problem an "app store" exclusion would have to be added to the licenses to change the responsible party to some one else other than the distributor in these situations.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Calipso
by nt_jerkface on Fri 18th Feb 2011 04:38 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Calipso"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Microsoft and Apple would still be distributing binaries.

If you distribute a binary then you need to make the source available to anyone who requests it.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Calipso
by Calipso on Fri 18th Feb 2011 11:15 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Calipso"
Calipso Member since:
2007-03-13

Think it's time for a gplv4 then. Should be that whoever generates the binary should be required to release the source. As long as you're not the one compiling the software you don't have to provide the source. This way a store could sell the software without having to provide the source. This way a store would just be the means by which the person that compiled the code is distributing the binary.

It really should just be this simple but of course that's wishful thinking ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by Calipso
by Neolander on Fri 18th Feb 2011 11:34 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Calipso"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

And how are people who just want to know how some app works supposed to find out how to contact the guy who made the binary ?

Good side of putting the burden on the distributor is that he is well-known.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment by Calipso
by Calipso on Fri 18th Feb 2011 15:26 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Calipso"
Calipso Member since:
2007-03-13

About menu in the app or info on the download site from where the purchased the application.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by Calipso
by nt_jerkface on Fri 18th Feb 2011 20:20 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Calipso"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

A reformed gpl4 could just require that the program state it contains open source upon installation or loading and provide a url.

A distributor that doesn't modify the program shouldn't have to provide an additional mirror.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Calipso
by nt_jerkface on Fri 18th Feb 2011 20:29 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Calipso"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

No it isn't wishful thinking, the GPL could be a lot simpler and cleaner.

Sourceforge is a free service, it isn't as if server space is a problem.

The GPL was written before such services existed.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by Calipso
by TheGZeus on Fri 18th Feb 2011 20:51 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Calipso"
TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

Thus, AGPL

Reply Score: 2

Comment by caruccio
by caruccio on Thu 17th Feb 2011 23:36 UTC
caruccio
Member since:
2010-10-19

Why am I not surprised?

Reply Score: 1

Comment by mutantsushi
by mutantsushi on Fri 18th Feb 2011 04:10 UTC
mutantsushi
Member since:
2006-08-18

I don`t see the technical problem on MS`s side that `requires` this as Thom suggests.

Certainly, MS might be on the hook if GPL software was sold/distributed by their store without access to licence-required source, etc. Simple fix: require Apps to fulfill the terms of their licence, e.g. providing html link within their product profile to access source code. Free modification licences can be adressed by allowing users to install their OWN self-built apps (based off modified code), which is actually possible on Apple as well.

So yeah, this sucks. MS doesn`t like Open Source.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by mutantsushi
by nt_jerkface on Fri 18th Feb 2011 04:47 UTC in reply to "Comment by mutantsushi"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Simple fix: require Apps to fulfill the terms of their licence, e.g. providing html link within their product profile to access source code.


You would think that would be kosher but the FSF (Stallman) has stated that sending the user to the parent source is not good enough. MS has to be able to provide the source upon request.

So yeah, this sucks. MS doesn`t like Open Source.


No they don't like the GPL. MIT, CDDL and FreeBSD don't have the same problem.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by mutantsushi
by vodoomoth on Fri 18th Feb 2011 12:55 UTC in reply to "Comment by mutantsushi"
vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30

Simple fix: require Apps to fulfill the terms of their licence, e.g. providing html link within their product profile to access source code. Free modification licences can be adressed by allowing users to install their OWN self-built apps (based off modified code), which is actually possible on Apple as well.

I'm sure some hardcore GPL fans will still ask Microsoft to provide the source code and throw a hissy fit when Microsoft directs them to that link.

So yeah, this sucks. MS doesn`t like Open Source.

In general, most probably. In this specific case, no: from what I've read BSD and Apache licenses are allowed.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by mutantsushi
by vaette on Fri 18th Feb 2011 15:04 UTC in reply to "Comment by mutantsushi"
vaette Member since:
2008-08-09

The Tivoization clause in GPLv3 is the issue; if you distribute the software on a device you must also make it possible for anyone to update the software without some special digital signature. Clearly not something Microsoft can do within the scope of their marketplace with limited sideloading support.

This also explains why only GPLv3 is listed while GPLv2 appears to remain allowed.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by mutantsushi
by Nth_Man on Fri 18th Feb 2011 17:59 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by mutantsushi"
Nth_Man Member since:
2010-05-16

if you distribute the software on a device you must also make it possible for anyone to update the software without some special digital signature

Yes, so you can solve bugs (or contract someone to do it for you), or improve the software, etc. even if the company has closed its doors, or wants you to buy a new hardware, or is charging abusive prices for a new version, etc. Those are reasons for avoiding tivoizations.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by mutantsushi
by tomcat on Sun 20th Feb 2011 20:29 UTC in reply to "Comment by mutantsushi"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

I don`t see the technical problem on MS`s side that `requires` this as Thom suggests.

Certainly, MS might be on the hook if GPL software was sold/distributed by their store without access to licence-required source, etc. Simple fix: require Apps to fulfill the terms of their licence, e.g. providing html link within their product profile to access source code. Free modification licences can be adressed by allowing users to install their OWN self-built apps (based off modified code), which is actually possible on Apple as well.

So yeah, this sucks. MS doesn`t like Open Source.


It's not as simple as saying "the app developer is responsible for fulfilling the terms of the license". Microsoft is the actual distributor of record, so it would become a party to any lawsuits which resulted; and, frankly, Microsoft is the one with deep pockets that people would go after, so they're simply preventing the possibility that the problem could occur. Frankly, it's a reasonable mitigation.

Reply Score: 2

Who cares?.
by tuaris on Fri 18th Feb 2011 06:31 UTC
tuaris
Member since:
2007-08-05

This is why Android exists.

Reply Score: 3

keep the control
by sironym on Fri 18th Feb 2011 07:39 UTC
sironym
Member since:
2011-02-18

It may be about patents or fear. Misunderstanding the GPL. But I am quit sure that Microsoft can handle every quest that the GPL has, if they like or have to offer GPL apps. All in all it's not magic nor a big thing.

In my humble opinion, there is another mechanism more significant: Stay in control.

Could there be a DoS when one GPL app is in and MS is forced to include and sign hundreds of forks of that app?

Most significant, there has to be another way to install a GPL app without the store. The store isn't the only way to bring software to the devices. MS will lose control what happens on those devices. There could and will be other stores that offer apps for less. There will be competition. They don't like competition. It's bad for their income and margins and reputation. MS can't control other stores and can test those apps for malware and bugs.

Perhaps a very simple feeling is enough? Greed of gain? Fear of malware?

Perhaps it is a complex combination.

But that doesn't make the result more comfortable.

Reply Score: 1

RE: keep the control
by Nth_Man on Fri 18th Feb 2011 17:45 UTC in reply to "keep the control"
Nth_Man Member since:
2010-05-16

Could there be a DoS when one GPL app is in and MS is forced to include and sign hundreds of forks of that app?

Linux distributions have been delivering cdroms and dvds for many years, and they have servers (can be simple, like FTP ones) with the source code. They do not have to include the source code of the forks, only the source code of the binaries they are delivering.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: keep the control
by vaette on Sat 19th Feb 2011 01:35 UTC in reply to "RE: keep the control"
vaette Member since:
2008-08-09

Edit: Ooops, commented in the wrong place, sorry!

Edited 2011-02-19 01:36 UTC

Reply Score: 1

GPLv3 is the hint
by vaette on Fri 18th Feb 2011 14:57 UTC
vaette
Member since:
2008-08-09

This has already been pointed out, but the only listed license is actually specifically GPLv3. It is easy enough to see where the problem lies there, the famous "tivoization" clause, which states that you can't limit a GPLv3 piece of software to being installable only if it matches a digital signature. Which effectively makes it impossible for Microsoft to distribute a GPLv3 app on the marketplace without also allowing all modified versions of it to be sideloaded by everyone. You may remember this clause from the heated debate between the FSF and the Linux kernel lists, since Linux is popular in embedded systems where signed updates are standard practice. In the end Linux is forever locked to GPLv2 for this (as well as some practical reasons).

The fact that WP7 doesn't allow arbitrary sideloading is a bit of an annoyance as far as freedom goes, but it is more or less standard practice on mobile platforms today. Effectively Apple must also ban GPLv3 for the same reason. Google is in a more interesting situation, since most Android phones allow sideloading, but in some cases the carriers block it anyway, in which case it is unclear who is really responsible for the breach of GPLv3.

Edited 2011-02-18 14:58 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: GPLv3 is the hint
by TheGZeus on Fri 18th Feb 2011 15:43 UTC in reply to "GPLv3 is the hint"
TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

"standard practice" != good

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: GPLv3 is the hint
by vaette on Sat 19th Feb 2011 01:34 UTC in reply to "RE: GPLv3 is the hint"
vaette Member since:
2008-08-09

Indeed, I wouldn't argue that this is necessarily good, but there is a more rational reason why Microsoft did this than "lets mess with open source software, our sworn enemy!".

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: GPLv3 is the hint
by TheGZeus on Mon 21st Feb 2011 05:15 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: GPLv3 is the hint"
TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

Ok, so they're also lazy and stingy.
These are good reasons?

Reply Score: 2

Hey FSF, Learn what freedom means!
by deathshadow on Sun 20th Feb 2011 12:44 UTC
deathshadow
Member since:
2005-07-12

You know it's funny...

On the one side you have a group who's plaintext license is larger than the Declaration of Independance AND Constitution (sans ammendments) COMBINED that imposes a bunch of restrictons on what you cannot do with the software released under it.

On the other side you have a company saying they will not let you impose those unrealistic and at times outright silly restrictions especially when they require an infrastructure to support they are unwilling or unable to create.

Which one's promoting freedom again? I swear someone needs to smack the folks at the FSF upside the head and explain what freedom means. As I've said a billion times, if you have to weigh down your "freedom" with 33k of plaintext worded entirely as what you CANNOT do with it...

Does the phrase "Snake Oil" ring a bell?

Usually this is the point where we call them dirty hippie commies, but increasingly it's more like they're a bunch of hipster wannabe's as even communists make more sense than the FSF with their outright card stacking lies and market-speak headgames that anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together should be smart enough not to fall for.

Literally, I cannot understand how ANYONE could possibly think that what the FSF calls "freedom" has anything to do with the word. You'll have more luck finding compassion in religion or rational thought from a fundementalist than freedom in the FSF's rhetoric, card stacking and lies!

Reply Score: 2

ari-free Member since:
2007-01-22

It's called a contract. People should be free to make them between parties. Of course, since Microsoft isn't the government, it should also be free to reject the GPL if it so chooses.
Someone who wants his code under the GPL doesn't just want the code to throw at people. He also wants to build and maintain a *community* around the code so that it will always be maintained and developed. While I happen to favor BSD/MIT, I can understand why the GPL may work better for many projects.

Edited 2011-02-20 14:58 UTC

Reply Score: 2

TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

You should get a job at FOX News.
You're pretty good at fucking up the facts and smearing shit all over people.

Reply Score: 3

deathshadow Member since:
2005-07-12

>> You should get a job at FOX News. You're pretty good at fucking up the facts and smearing shit all over people.
How very adult of you, should we suggest you go back to singing kumbaya around a drum circle with the other foul mouthed teenagers?

Care to elaborate what facts I'm abusing? You want to talk abuse of facts and smearing manure on people like a second rate German porn, look no further than the FSF with it's dirty hippie commie agenda... Leftist moonbat slant is no better than right-wing nutjobs... Need an example?

Window7Sins.org

A stunning combination of scare tactics, glittering generalities, name calling, transfer and implied malice. Taking M$ to task for lobbying and marketing, when they (the FSF) themselves spend tons of money on that very thing with their biggest supporters (IBM, Novell, Oracle) each spending more on lobbyists in a year than Microsoft does?

Let's review a few of their bullet points:
Poisoning education -- Yeah, because when I think education I think PC's... No, wait... Education means Apple, even if it does completely handicap the kids when they graduate into the world where adults use real computers unless they're career educators or unwashed hipsters.

Invading privacy -- Classic marketing tactic of implied menace, which is to say FUD on the highest scale. God forbid software send JUST a 'yes' or 'no' to Microsoft's servers to find out if you actually PAID for something they INVESTED money in creating. They use "inspect the contents of the users hard drive" in a manner to scare people who don't know any better into thinking it goes through every one of your files reporting every activity you do -- the farthest thing from the truth.

Monopoly Behavior - Never occurs to them that vendors install Windows because the majority of people want windows. Great example of this is Linux on netbooks, which proved a giant flop as people wanted netbooks because they were downsized laptops that could run COMPETANT desktop apps -- of which Open source has yet to provide ANY apart from browsers. It's funny how as the largest M$ is constantly bashed for monopolistic behavior when compared to their competitors -- like Apple, they are a warm and fuzzy company.

Lock-in -- much like "freedom" someone needs to explain "lock-in" to the FSF. Updates are not 'forced', you can disable them at any time... and it's not like ANY serious Open Source OS at this point doesn't have automatic updates of it's own. As to their claim of increasing hardware requirements explain how XP SP3 lowered the bar, or Vista SP1, or say... compare Win7 to Vista? That entire complaint was pure fantasy.

Considering Microsoft was the first to say go ahead and run anyones software on any hardware you can get our OS to run on -- that's the exact opposite of lock-in; as opposed to Apple's "our way or the highway" approach -- and you watch, while M$ won't let certain software onto their version of the app store, they also will be very unlikely to prevent you from actually running software from other sources -- something every other device maker goes out of their way to block. (Though admittedly with Nokia on board...)

Abusing Standards -- real laugh given their example. They didn't "attack opendocument", they released a format FIRST. Oh, did we mention theirs was FIRST? ... much less the wild unfounded accusations of bribery. NOw they're just making things up!

Enforcing DRM -- because of course all these .h.264 MKV, MP4, MP3 and AVI files are blocked from running on my system. Sure WMP might occasionally block you on DRM files, there is NOTHING to prevent you from using third party players.

Threatening user security -- Of course being the biggest target has nothing to do with the vulnerabilites; Users turning OFF security features that are near identical to their *nix equivalents has NOTHING to do with it. People not WANTING user accounts and passwords couldn't possibly hinder their efforts.

"but Microsoft has its own security interests at heart, not those of its users." -- would they care to back that up with something called facts?

NO links inside their page to support any of their allegations, end to end marketspeak that anyone who watched film-reels in grade school shouldn't be dumb enough to fall for, and stuffed full of lies, FUD, and misinformation that would have made Goebbels proud.

So yeah, I SO value the FSF's opinion on things.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TD4a4u9AbZA

WISH there was a full copy of that online instead of leaving 3 minutes of it on the cutting room floor.

Reply Score: 2

TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

I didn't say you were "abusing" facts. That's not even possible.
I said you were "fucking up facts".

The GPL is _more_ permissive with what one can do with a binary than proprietary licenses.

If you redistribute it, you need to make the source code available. If you go v3, you need to give the ability to load a self-altered version available if you make a program available for that platform.

That's all. Compare that to the restrictions in a license for any Microsoft or Apple product. Wait, no one reads those, they just violate them.

Reply Score: 2

Nth_Man Member since:
2010-05-16

The GPL is _more_ permissive with what one can do with a binary than proprietary licenses.

Yes.

If you redistribute it, you need to make the source code available. If you go v3, you need to give the ability to load a self-altered version available if you make a program available for that platform.

I would like to say that, with v3, you can modify, study, improve, etc. the programs and the manufacturer can't stop you.

That's all. Compare that to the restrictions in a license for any Microsoft or Apple product. Wait, no one reads those, they just violate them.

Yes, some of they (like the EULA of Microsoft Office) even tells you that some things depend on your local legislation. How many people do know that all to accept the EULA and use those programs legally?

Reply Score: 2

deathshadow Member since:
2005-07-12

>> I said you were "******* up facts".

Which I wasn't going to quote because I was wondering how the **** you haven't been banned yet given that so far you've been more profane than I usually am -- made all the worse by your "is not" ranting with a complete lack of anything approaching FACTS behind it.

Seriously, WHY is this dipshit even allowed to continue posting given this behavior?

Reply Score: 2

TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

Because I'm fucking awesome.

Reply Score: 2

Nth_Man Member since:
2010-05-16

Those posts have so many errors that it's difficult to list them all.

Reply Score: 2

TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

That combined with the avatar is why I referenced FOX News.

"FUCKING COMMIES WANT TO STEAL YOUR MONEY AND RAPE YOUR TRUCKS!"

Reply Score: 2

deathshadow Member since:
2005-07-12

Interesting, I use the word damn once and I get reamed -- while this dipshit is allowed to say f--k in every post and gets voted up?

That he doesn't recognize General Patton and instead thinks it's some patriotic bullshit is just par for the course.

"Ignorant twit is ignorant" to go with the "obvious troll being obvious" I guess.

Seriously dude, what are you, like ten? Fifteen?

I've got the feeling this is much akin to "say no to war unless there's a democrat in office" -- go after people for profanity unless they are directing it at someone who dares to call the FSF on their noodle-doodle lies?

Edited 2011-02-22 01:56 UTC

Reply Score: 2

TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

"WAAAAAHH! NOBODY LOVES ME!"
Shut up.

Reply Score: 2

OK kids
by ari-free on Mon 21st Feb 2011 09:32 UTC
ari-free
Member since:
2007-01-22

Enough of the emotionally loaded rhetoric and inappropriate political/ideological analogies. It's just software.

Reply Score: 2

RE: OK kids
by TheGZeus on Mon 21st Feb 2011 17:53 UTC in reply to "OK kids"
TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

Software is a vitally important component of the most powerful invention mankind has made since language.

It's a big fucking deal.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: OK kids
by deathshadow on Tue 22nd Feb 2011 01:58 UTC in reply to "RE: OK kids"
deathshadow Member since:
2005-07-12

IF you're ten years old with a completely unrealistic world view since you're still having life paid for by mommy and daddy.

Which is the ONLY way you could put software in such terms. Lemme guess, you actually think OLPC was a good idea?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: OK kids
by TheGZeus on Tue 22nd Feb 2011 02:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: OK kids"
TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

That makes no sense whatsoever.

I can only determine that you're a troll.

Reply Score: 2

lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

http://gnuosphere.wordpress.com/2011/02/20/google-has-no-plans-to-b...

Both Apple and Microsoft have blocked the distribution of copylefted Free Software through their App Store and Windows Phone Marketplace respectively. Though there’s no indication or reason to believe this might happen with Google’s Android Market, I wrote their Open Source Programs Manager, Chris DiBona, asking him about the possibility. He replied:

"No, we have no plans to restrict copyleft based programs. When we were creating our application market for android, we wanted to make sure that developers could offer programs that contained open source and free software."

Reply Score: 2

www.1shopping.us
by hehe93 on Mon 21st Feb 2011 13:48 UTC
hehe93
Member since:
2011-02-21

welcome to:

===== http://www.1shopping.us ====

Air jordan(1-24)shoes $30

Handbags(Coach l v f e n d i d&g) $35

Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $15

Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30

Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,A r m a i n i) $15

New era cap $12

Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $20

accept paypal and free shipping

====== http://www.1shopping.us ====

Reply Score: 1

deathshadow Member since:
2005-07-12

Which I posted a question there, were they GPL2 or GPL3?

Near as I can find none of the problems Microsoft has with GPL3 or any other licensing is a problem with GPL2.

... Which reminds me, didn't Linus reject GPL3 on similar grounds?

Reply Score: 2

Concise summary of thread topic (tl;dr)
by lemur2 on Tue 22nd Feb 2011 05:36 UTC
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

A succinct summary of this topic can be seen here:

http://twitter.com/carlopiana/status/39746895769370624

Reply Score: 2