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 463022
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Solution?
by james_parker on Thu 17th Feb 2011 23:15 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Solution?"
Member since:

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

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 Parent Score: 3

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

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 Parent Score: 2