Microsoft Releases FlexWiki as Open Source 340
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?"
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]
I find it ironic (Score:2, Insightful)
Does the right nut know what the left nut is doing over there?
One nut is releasing open source projects, The other nut goes as far as to try to make legislation to slow down or stop adoptation of open source.
Sorry Microsoft, you can't have your cake and eat it to.. MAKE UP YOUR MINDS.
Conversely... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
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:I find it ironic (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Why Not? (Score:3, Insightful)
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:Credit where it's due? (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, given that microsoft's open source != our open source (i.e. ms shared source license vs gnu gpl or bsd), there's no surprise some people are not really overwhelmed by this step.
A bit greater step would be required from MS to make some of us jumping around in ecstasy.
s
Re:Information about the CPL (Score:3, Insightful)
Should there be clauses covering trademarks too?
What's wrong with a gift horse? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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.
Re:Credit where it's due? (Score:3, Insightful)
How is that a cheap jab? It seems like a very reasonable question to me: how does this new project compare to this other existing project?
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:I find it ironic (Score:3, Insightful)
I think they're probably aware just fine. This is the third "open source" project that they have released, and you'll notice that again it's pretty much just crap that's either reinventing the wheel, or crap that is of no value to the community. Additionally in this case, the fact that it's implementing a Wiki system kind of feels like the old "Embrace, Extend & Extinguish" of which they are so often accused. One way or the other, it's opening the source to utterly insignificant projects (in terms of their business plan and profits, I don't mean that the Wiki principle is in any way worthless) presumably so that when the next anti-trust case comes up, they can confidentally claim that they're a 'community player' for open sourcing some of their projects.
I also saw mention from another poster about the use of the IBM Public License [ibm.com], which is listed on the GNU website as being "not inherently a bad idea", but "incompatible with the GPL". In this way, Microsoft can continue it's FUD and public declarations that the GPL is like a "Pacman" that eats up intellectual property.
They can quite happily keep releasing insignificant projects, slating the GPL and Linux at every opportunity, and claiming all the while that they're not as proprietary and hostile as everyone thinks.
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"?Re:ASP.NET (Score:3, Insightful)
Not at all. And to all of the people who have said something along the lines of, "why can't we praise them for this release," questioning the quality of one piece of softwre vs. another is a tradition on Slashdot and has nothing to do with Microsoft (other than that they happen to be the author of one of those pieces of software in this case).
If this were a post about MySQL's latest release, you'd expect questions of how it stacks up to PostgreSQL. Same goes for Gnome/KDE or Evolution/Thunderbird, etc.
It's not that we're slapping MS down for doing this, it's fine if they release open source software, but we're not going to take it easy on them either.
Slashdot's approach to releases can be summed up thusly:Fair or unfair, it's not because it's MS.
Re:What!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Amazon -> One Click
Adobe -> Skylarov
Microsoft -> Developers Developers developers... Stomp stomp stomp (can somebody make a techno tune out of that NOT?)
Apple -> DRM ridden iPod?
Sony -> ???
Sun -> let go of Java already...
RedHat -> Licence fees for Enterprise Edition? WTF?
George Lucas -> Boba fired first? (how do you "fire" a laser gun?)
Oh, but before the bloomer and doomer come along, here's our "To Love" list:
IBM -> In spite of the chalk-based street ads, linux support, ThinkPads.
NOVELL -> SUSE and Ximian and Evolution.
The Immature Script Kiddies Show Up (Score:2, Insightful)
The news hits that Microsoft is involved with contributing a piece of software to the community at large, and immediately it's website is completely defaced and vulgarized. If I was Microsoft or Pro-Microsoft I'd be using that as major FUD against corporations thinking about using Open Source anything.
So many losers in the world with nothing to do but smoke, drink, jerk off, and cuss at Microsoft.
Idiots.
Someone's been having fun (Score:1, Insightful)
Timeo Microsoftem et dona ferentem (Score:3, Insightful)
Go ask a Trojan, if you can find one.