Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 4th Mar 2008 20:23 UTC, submitted by SomeMicroserf
OSNews, Generic OSes Microsoft has released source code from the Singularity research project onto Codeplex under an academic, non-commercial license. "The Singularity Research Development Kit is based on the Microsoft Research Singularity project. It includes source code, build tools, test suites, design notes, and other background materials. The Singularity RDK is for academic non-commercial use only and is governed by this license."
Thread beginning with comment 303415
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: license
by segedunum on Tue 4th Mar 2008 22:43 UTC in reply to "RE: license"
segedunum
Member since:
2005-07-06

yea, you cant earn money on it, but by the looks of it, microsoft may very well earn money on your work on the code...


Yep, that's exactly right, and it just shows how Microsoft doesn't get how open source software processes work and how sad they are about creating soundbites around the whole subject.

In any open source project, those contributing code have to be getting something in return for the code that they're contributing. In the case of the GPL, this might mean that they are guaranteed to get other peoples' code contributions in return on a level playing field, or in the case of a more permissive license, they can at least use it for commercial or proprietary uses.

Who in their right mind is going to contribute to a Microsoft project, for free, where they get nothing in return in terms of being able to use the code commercially, or as part of a proprietary endeavour, and where Microsoft can simply take code contributions, make money off them themselves and not contribute any of their code back to everyone else?

It's a huge waste of time, and one great big yawn. For anyone wanting to create anything of actual use, they'd better not look at any of this code.

Edited 2008-03-04 22:44 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: license
by MollyC on Tue 4th Mar 2008 23:51 in reply to "RE[2]: license"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

"yea, you cant earn money on it, but by the looks of it, microsoft may very well earn money on your work on the code...
Yep, that's exactly right, and it just shows how Microsoft doesn't get how open source software processes work and how sad they are about creating soundbites around the whole subject. "

It doesn't show anything of the sort. In fact, it shows the exact opposite. Microsoft doesn't intend this code to be open source, so they didn't use an open source license. If they had intended this code to be open source, they would've used MSPL or MSRL, as they've done with the DLR, IronPython, IronRuby, etc.

Just because they don't want Singularity code to be "open source" and therefore didn't use an open source license, doesn't mean that they don't understand open source, quite the contrary.

If your main concern is using this code in an open source project, then you aren't the target for this code. Not everything is about you.

Edited 2008-03-04 23:53 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 16

RE[4]: license
by segedunum on Wed 5th Mar 2008 01:08 in reply to "RE[3]: license"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

It doesn't show anything of the sort. In fact, it shows the exact opposite. Microsoft doesn't intend this code to be open source, so they didn't use an open source license.


It shows exactly that. There is little point, if any at all, in releasing any source code to anyone in this case - and certainly not publicly on a web site. Microsoft doesn't get what releasing source code publicly actually means, and implies. They are still under the mistaken impression that they can publish source code and keep some form of control.

It looks as if neither you, nor Microsoft, get what 'open source' means as a concept - and no, it does not mean publishing something under an OSI approved license.

Reply Parent Score: -1

RE[3]: license
by google_ninja on Tue 4th Mar 2008 23:55 in reply to "RE[2]: license"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

You don't seem to understand how an academic liscence works. The MS-LA is for use in teaching and learning, the MS-PL is for open source. Since this whole thing was always just meant to be an internal research project, it is nice that they did this. It would be great if they published it under the MS-PL, but this is not exactly useless.

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[4]: license
by segedunum on Wed 5th Mar 2008 01:21 in reply to "RE[3]: license"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

You don't seem to understand how an academic liscence works. The MS-LA is for use in teaching and learning, the MS-PL is for open source.


No, I understand it well enough. Publishing source code publicly in an open source manner and trying to lock it down via an academic-only license is pointless. You've already opened the source code publicly regardless, and the license means that it is basically useless to everyone who attempts to look at it, and especially, do anything with it. There are plenty of similar projects out there now to Singularity that have reasonable communities around them, more communication and licenses that allow code to be contributed, that are going to be of far more interest to people in academic circles. Academia is also going to choose to use a project with a license that gives them more scope and where they're less likely to get stung later.

You can't just publish source code and then turn around and say "Oh, this license is for open source software and this is for academic purposes". You either do it or you don't do it at all, and that's what Microsoft doesn't get.

Reply Parent Score: -1