Slashdot Log In
Microsoft Releases FlexWiki as Open Source
Posted by
michael
on Tue Sep 28, 2004 10:19 AM
from the jumping-on-the-bandwagon dept.
from the jumping-on-the-bandwagon dept.
davemabe writes "Microsoft is apparently releasing its FlexWiki wiki implementation as an open source project. FlexWiki is the software used to run the wikis over at Channel 9. My question is: Is this software as good as the ever-extensible Kwiki implementation?"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Microsoft Releases FlexWiki as Open Source
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 340 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Re:make microsoft bob open source (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.chessthecat.com/)
Re:Wiki spam. (Score:5, Informative)
Honestly, if you are looking for wiki software, there is lots of great stuff out...
OpenWiki -- Windows, easy to edit, featureful, fast, good. My favorite.
http://www.openwiki.com/
PHPWiki -- Cross Platform, easy to setup, fast.
http://phpwiki.sourceforge.net/
KWiki -- The king of Wiki's!
http://kwiki.org/
Uses the IBM Public License (Score:5, Informative)
(http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Friday March 26 2004, @09:01AM)
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html
GPL Incompatible due to patent clauses. Draw your own conclusions...
Re:WiX and WTL are CPL (Score:5, Insightful)
Note how it is designed to stop unscrupulous people from charging you a royalty. Something that GPL doesn't do.
Imagine I add code to Apache that contains a patent I hold. Now, I wait a few years for it to become popular, and then start suing left, right and centre).
The CPL basically says that this bad behaviour is illegal, when you release, you don't just gove away the source, you allow people to use it freely. Under the GPL, you could legitimately charge for the 'free' software.
Of course, this brings out the conspiracy comments mainly because of the religious zealotly over the GPL (oh, and against MS of course).
The problem is only that the GPL requires you to release under the GPL, regardless of the original licence. That's why it is incompatible - not for any other reason, and certainly not because the CPL is 'less free' or 'patent encumbered' or 'theyre out to get you and your little FOSS doggie too'
Re:WiX and WTL are CPL (Score:5, Informative)
Imagine I add code to Apache that contains a patent I hold. Now, I wait a few years for it to become popular, and then start suing left, right and centre).
You can't do that under the GPL. By attempting it, you've given up your rights to distribute the software.
The GPL's wording on this is, IMHO poor. But the subtlety of the wording is very very important, and may provide better protection than the CPL... (which I haven't read)
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html [gnu.org]
"7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. . . ."
The odd part about this is that 1. if you contribute the patented code and don't implicitly grant license to use it, you violate the GPL and are guilty of copyright infringement.
More interesting, and this is where it might beat the CPL (or at least your example), is in situations where somebody notices a patent violation in a GPL'd product which they didn't write, there is absolutely no way they can profit from exploiting the patent while simultaneously allowing the software to be distributed.
This is a double-edged sword, and, IMHO a very sharp one. There's no incentive to persue patents on GPL'd products... except to stop their distribution and hold the author of the patented system guilty of violating the GPL.
Now the patent holder might persue the author punatively, but the copyright holders will probably not care.
The GPL is tricky and subtle.
IANAL of course.
RTFA :) (Score:5, Informative)
Personally, I tend to side with the FSF when some software developer invents his own open source license which has not had the same legal scrutany of existing licenses, is incompatible with existing licnenses, causes fragmentation in potential codebases, and then accuses the FSF of being inflexible when they try to help the developer resolve these problems. I mean what is the the FSF foundation expected to do - change thier license according to the whims of every new license that comes around? It is the newcomers that are causeing incompatibility not the FSF.
But the CPL is becoming very popular among business, is a very fair Free Software license, has had the scrutiny of IBM lawyers, and does include some good ideas that are not in the GPL. So I really hope that the FSF makes it a top priority to work on the new version of the GPL which solves the patent-based conflicts with the CPL and other licenses.
/. effect (Score:5, Funny)
/greger
But I thought... (Score:3, Insightful)
What's with all the open-sourcing of Microsoft stuff lately?
Aren't these the guys who said open source harms innovation and damages the economy? Can't have it both ways, guys.
Here's proof. [gearlive.com] Free 27" flatscreen TVs, 17" monitors. [freeflatscreens.com]
Re:But I thought... (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://judahgabriel.blogspot.com/)
Someone once said about MS's business practices (so no cracks about software bugs please), they make mistakes like any other company, but they'll only make them once. If they discover OSS can help them and benefit them, which it certainly could IMO, they will change their ways no matter how much about-facing they have to do.
It's a marketing problem (Score:5, Insightful)
The bottom line is that, at some level, certain OSS is good for Microsoft. WiX being open is good for Microsoft. So are ASP.NET hosted Wikis. They need to find a way to capitalize on that.
Microsoft's FUD against the GPL is an attempt to shift Linux's "category" from being "Open Source Software" to "GPLed software". The fact that many biz people are confused about the GPL makes it a more convenient target. Once that association is in people's heads, Microsoft can employ OSS to their benefit, with stuff like this, WiX, and so on.
It is very unlikely that Microsoft will ever be an OSS company in the same way that Red Hat or even IBM is, but they might be one in the manner that, say Apple, is. Apple's involvement in OSS is little more than the Darwin kernel and a collection of associated goodies, really not that much if you think about it. While this is certainly more than Microsoft right now, it might not always be that way.
What!! (Score:5, Funny)
(http://vrthra.googlepages.com/ | Last Journal: Sunday September 25 2005, @06:04AM)
Re:What!! (Score:5, Funny)
From www.flexwiki.com (Score:3, Interesting)
* interested in a good software, leave this page!
Likewise good grammar it would seem...
Why Not? (Score:5, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Thursday November 11 2004, @12:40PM)
Re:Why Not? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Why Not? (Score:4, Insightful)
Umm, I think you missed the point the parent was making. The issue isn't whether Microsoft submits all of the software as Open Source. It's the fact that they are trying to litigate against Open Source while at the same time releasing some of their own projects as Open Source. I don't think you can make the same argument about IBM, Novell or Red Hat.
Re:I find it ironic (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I find it ironic (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.interlingua.com/)
As huge as they are, that would hardly be surprising. Governments are notorious for suffering from this problem, and Microsoft seems to be bigger than many governments.
Re:I find it ironic (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://www.cyberlot.net/ | Last Journal: Tuesday May 10 2005, @10:40AM)
They lobby against more then just GPL, they clearly support and finance the push of bills that will restrict the use of opensource in the goverment and other areas.
They claim its because "opensource is not secure" and other reasons..
I say its because "the goverment has large pocket books and policies can be set to affect there buying ability, You can't say the same for the average consumer"
They are doing nothing but trying to "shore up" a sector of business that they can control by using there money and power to bully the goverment around.
One clear problem, a large percent of public officals have no real clue of technologies, When a big company comes up and says "This is bad pass a bill to prevent it" They nod there head and agree because they just don't know better.
We need to get off our geek asses and vote for the people that support jobs in america and all that other stuff but also for people that show they can handle todays technological issues that are becoming more and more important in our everyday life.
Actually MS is NOT anti-open source (Score:5, Interesting)
I've talked with a few Microsoft partners and developers, including published authors who are authorities in their subjects. These people eat, sleep and breathe Microsoft--the technology, the strategy and philosophy. You might say that they are well indoctrinated in other words. I can tell you that not a single one of them were opposed to the concept of open source. In fact some really like what certain open source projects have to offer and use it themselves. I'm told this is typical throughout Microsoft.
The REAL issue is the TYPE of open license. Microsoft is terrified of the GPL and I'm not convinced that they understand it at all. They have come to truly believe their own FUD. They cannot comprehend how Linux came to be where it is today by forcing all who "embrace and extend" it to disclose their contributions. They believe the GPL is far more onerous than it really is. For example I was discussing it with a developer and she wouildn't go near GPL projects. She was afraid that anything she compiled and ran under Mono would have to be made GPL because the compiler is GPL. She thought that you could be at risk of being compelled to disclose the source to all the firmware in peripherals you created, and maybe even the schematics, if you wrote a driver for or otherwise made it work with Linux.
I explained that only the compiler was GPL and that the runtimes were actually *L*GPL which permits proprietary programs to run on the platform. She still thought using the GPL was legally treading on thin ice and preferred BSD licensing as it offered "true freedom" for developers as it was not as restrictive.
This fits right in with the Microsoft philosophy. The whole company was built on the borrowing of ideas. Microsoft essentially stole DOS from SCP (which created DOS as rip off of CP/M for hobbyists). Microsoft stole the GUI idea from Apple (who had lifted it from Xerox). Microsoft "stole" IE from Spyglass when it needed a browser to play catch-up. It even stole networking code from BSD and the underlying architecture of VMS for Windows NT. To Microsoft, open source is useless if it can't be lifted and incorporated into a proprietary system for profit. How it can be used for direct profit is what defines its value.
Microsoft is also very cautious about what it contributes as open code and what open projects it participates in--it has to not only be non-GPL. MS open source must not interfere with their revenue streams. For example, regardless of the license, Microsoft wouldn't contribute to Apache because it conflicts with IIS. PostgreSQL is under a MS-friendly license but it competes with MS SQL Server--as such they wouldn't contribute to PostgreSQL, although they might be inclined to steal code from it to put into MSSQL should they find it serves their needs (maybe they should, seeing as PostgreSQL is a superior product to MSSQL).
I think Microsoft's strategy in spearheading some open source products is to try to establish a new business model. Their profit centres are dwindling--only the OS and Office divisions make a great deal of money--and they need a less expensive development model. They are testing the waters with products outside those divisions. The model is to create a vibrant, popular project in open souce land out of languishing or overlooked proprietary code--the way Netscape spawned the Mozilla project. With the "right" licensing and ownership of the copyrights MS can easily embrace and extend it to release it as a proprietary product (or component thereof), keeping the extensions secret.
This way, Microsoft only has to maintain "extensions" instead of entire systems. Millions of developers can become familiar with the internals, promoting both internal and third-party development. Most importantly, Microsoft maintains their slight edge because it knows the secret extensions and can create superior products to compete with successful third-party software--in effect letting others create MS Bob
Re:Actually MS is NOT anti-open source (Score:4, Informative)
Most excellent post. I've talked to some MS employees and they don't seem to have anything against the concept of open source itself. I feel that the fear of the GPL is purely because of legalities, and probably a bit of misunderstanding as well. It would be terrible from MS's standpoint if some GPL'ed code accidentally made its way into Windows, which results in the open-sourcing of some component they don't want open. And yes, I am confident they do not steal GPL code; it's made very clear internally that such code (and I think other outside code) is unacceptable in Microsoft products because of possible legal issues. Note that I do not mention something like "because GPL sucks ass!" To reiterate, my impression is that it's purely legal with a bit of misunderstanding.
About your example, a similar thing has happened with .NET. The .NET Framework SDK and compilers are freely available, but the Visual Studio.NET IDE is not. Although the VC++ compiler wasn't free in the past, the SDKs for Windows development have been free for as long as I can remember. Actually, I don't know if this is related to what you've said anymore, but it's an interesting example of how Microsoft places closed, $$ functionality on top of a layer of closed but free functionality.
Conversely... (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bA-DReZYftg | Last Journal: Sunday November 12 2006, @01:05AM)
My question is: is there anything Microsoft can do that we won't question?
Applaud them for their newfound approach to open source. More alternatives are always better. I'll bet this software does something Kwiki can't do.
We need a place... (Score:4, Funny)
to store all these implementations - some kind of repository.
I propose we call it the Kwiki-Mart.
Credit where it's due? (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, Microsoft has done an incredible number of crappy things, and they deserve most of the flak they get, but I don't understand why we can't just once acknowledge them for taking a positive step without making some cheap jab like this.
"Microsoft released something as open source -- but let's all assume that a non-MS alternative is better even though we haven't made an actual comparison!" How immature can you get?
Yes, I know I could just stop reading
Re:Credit where it's due? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you look at the few Open source apps MS has released, they have all been very insignificant. MS will impress me when they make one of their bigger apps Open Source and Free Source. I am not talking about one of their apps that they sell or generate direct revenue from. I am talking about the tons of other apps they include with their OS or other software that they do not sell. I know i would like to get my hands on explorer.exe the desktop shell and file manager. That code is crap and is always crashing on me even in WinXP SP2. It locks just about every file it touches when you use the explorer.exe file manager requiring using task manager to kill and restart it. It is the biggest headache for me using WinXP at work.
To me this just seems like a PR effort from MS so they can say "me too" when asked about Open Source. Free Software is by far more important to me then Open Source. I don't care if I can look at the code, I want to be able to do something with the code. Free Software gives you the rights to be able to do something with the code while Open Source doesn't alwasy give you those rights. For example, can I take the FlexWiki code MS is releasing and fork it and do something with it MS does not like or agree with? Are there patents encombering FlexWiki? I cannot get to the site right now to check.
Ok, I just got to the site and read this from the license (IANAL).
To me (IANAL), that doesn't sound too good. It looks like MS trying to keep a back-door in their "open" source code just in case they have something in there that they can require a license for. Exactly how is this Open Source if it can be encumbered by patents and other "IP"?Why the use of the "F" word in FlexWikiBinaries? (Score:3, Funny)
Information about the CPL (Score:3, Interesting)
(http://www.funwithheadlines.net/)
In this case, they chose the IBM-developed Common Public License, or CPL. What is the CPL? Here is what the Wikipedia says [wikipedia.org]. Note this section:
"The CPL is a copyleft license, broadly similar to the GNU General Public License in its terms. The main addition is a patent clause designed to prevent unscrupulous contributors from contributing code which infringes on their patents, and then attempting to charge royalties; in such a situation, the CPL requires the contributor to grant a royalty-free license to all recipients. This additional requirement renders the CPL incompatible with the GPL (in the opinion of Eben Moglen)..."
Hmm..incompatible with the GPL. Let's see what Groklaw has said about the CPL [groklaw.net]. All right, call me paranoid, but with Microsoft's history, I would tread cautiously. This may be altruistic of them, and maybe they are really nice guys, and trying to be good corporate citizens. Or maybe there is another motive that will become clear in the future. Time will tell.
Re:Information about the CPL (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.littleblur.com/ | Last Journal: Wednesday June 27, @07:32PM)
Re:Information about the CPL (Score:4, Interesting)
If my memory serves me right, Linus himself said he would have prefered to use CPL if it existed at the time Linux was born.
ASP.NET (Score:4, Informative)
(http://zzz.zggg.com/)
Microsoft Released? (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not totoally sold on Microsoft releasing this software as open source. It was written by David Ornstein [asp.net], who works at Microsoft. While this tool is used internally at Microsoft, and I'm sure MS has the rights to the software too, I just don't think it's fair to David to classify this as a Microsoft Product.
BTW, David's weblog has a bunch of info on FlexWiki being posted to SourceForge [asp.net].
I thought ... (Score:3, Interesting)
(http://www.fallingyou.com/)
Regards,
John
License? (Score:3, Informative)
(http://www.traxel.com/)
Hats off to David Ornstein (Score:3, Informative)
(http://www.bernsrite.com/ | Last Journal: Monday June 27 2005, @11:36PM)
What's wrong with a gift horse? (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.clemsontalk.com/vb/member.php?u=954 | Last Journal: Thursday September 15 2005, @06:20PM)
Talk about looking gift horses in the mouth. That's like seeing Houdini get out of a lock box hanging from a crane and asking "Yeah, but can he levitate?"
The point is Microsoft put something out that's open source. If it were 30 shades of awesome they'd be selling it instead. For now it's just there for the community to improve upon and keep.
Comparison is a good thing (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://syn.cs.pdx.edu/~jsnow | Last Journal: Sunday July 11 2004, @08:36PM)
It's a reasonable question. Being open source puts it on a level playing field with all the other wikis out there, so why not compare them on a per-feature basis? I certainly wouldn't use it if I didn't have some compelling reason to prefer flexwiki over other wikis I like and am already familiar with (I'm using mediawiki right now).
-jim
FlexWiki was open source long before this. (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.schkerke.com/ | Last Journal: Thursday March 18 2004, @07:57AM)
This might be Microsoft's implementation of FlexWiki (FlexWiki is a BSD license type, if I remember correctly) but FlexWiki has been available for a while.
What Wiki engine suitable as PIM? (Score:4, Interesting)
I like it fine, but I was wondering if someone could suggest a really lightweight Wiki to use as PIM (Personal info Manager) on my Windows PC.
I really like the ease of updating and changing the info flow of wiki (well Twiki so far), and would like a PIM that worked like this. Don't care about collaboration features, this is for personal use.
Good discussion on open source at Microsoft @ (Score:4, Informative)
(http://scottonwriting.net/)
More commentary... [msdn.com]
one of the mowt easy wiki-engines: (Score:3, Informative)
(http://newsbyte.blogspot.com/ | Last Journal: Monday June 06 2005, @10:46AM)
It has all the basic needs without the bells and whistles nobody uses, but, for most the wikiserver is very, very easy to use and to maintain. Contrary to almost all wiki's you don't have to know anything about webservers, php or other programlanguages, nay, not even detailed knowledge of a wiki is required. It just installs and works out of the bow, everything is straightforward, and I would say this wikiserver is what Ford was to the automobile-industry: it brings it into the grasp of everyone interested.
The latest version of Rian, wxwikiserver has all what it takes, unless your requirements are ultra-high, and it's coppled with an astonishing ease-of-use - and for once, this is no exageration. I have tried several others, but this one is truelly the most easy one to install and run.
Re:NO!!! (Score:3, Funny)
(http://www.handfield.org/)