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.
Thread beginning with comment 462998
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Solution?
by lemur2 on Thu 17th Feb 2011 23:02 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 Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Solution?
by james_parker on Thu 17th Feb 2011 23:15 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 Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Solution?
by vodoomoth on Fri 18th Feb 2011 12:51 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 Parent Score: 2