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?"
I thought it was a joke (Score:2, Interesting)
How open source? (Score:1, Interesting)
I'm a die-hard MediaWiki guy myself, anyway, and this software can call back when it's successfully handling an encyclopedia site of over a million articles. :)
(now there's a thought: do Encarta with this thing...)
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)
Information about the CPL (Score:3, Interesting)
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:But I thought... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
kwiki vs mediawiki vs twiki vs.... (Score:2, Interesting)
License, Ease-of-use, Power, Compatibility, Language should all be in the chart.
This is getting confusing!
I thought ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Regards,
John
WiX and WTL are CPL (Score:3, Interesting)
When I say "draw your own conclusions," I meant "determine for yourself the reason why Microsoft used this license," not anything nefarious about Microsoft or the license.
IMHO, they did it because MS Legal told them they needed to consider the fact that Microsoft thinks software patents are really important. What "consider" entails can be varying.
Re:I find it ironic (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Information about the CPL (Score:2, Interesting)
Seriously.. if anyone is willing to release ANY code that was previously proprietary under ANY conditions, it's a step forward.
Being GPL compatable is not a good benchmark to judge by... CPL is perfectly acceptable... in ways, it's even better than the GPL.
This is wiki code.. there is LOTS of good wiki code out there already.. it's a good, open concept. This is just YAWI (Yet Another Wiki Implementation)..
what's wrong with that?
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.
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.
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:Will it run with apache? (Score:3, Interesting)
If you look down at the "20 Sep 2004" entry on the above link you will find a nice new gtk# installer for integrating gtk# gui apps into MS Visual Studio .Net 2003.
You can find more about Mono's ADO.net and ASP.Net here [mono-project.com] and here [mono-project.com] respectively.
Re:like a drug dealer (Score:0, Interesting)
Re:Conversely... (Score:3, Interesting)
The implications are that the any patents owned by MS and included in that software AREN'T being released. Should we, perhpaps, just TRUST them to not be planning something sneaky?
There are a lot of bones beside the trail left by those who did *that*.
Comparison is a good thing (Score:4, Interesting)
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
Re:WiX and WTL are CPL (Score:1, Interesting)
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.
You are only guilty of copyright infingement if you distribute the results yourself.
If you contribute patent encumbered code to an existing GPL project and let THEM distribute it, then the folks that are acting in good faith turn out to be guilty of copyright infringement and you are free to sue end users to your heart's content.
What about a wysiwyg wiki (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:WiX and WTL are CPL (Score:3, Interesting)
You can't put the code back into the source tree without agreeing to the GPL... that's distributing your modification.
You can sue the end users, but the courts would probably frown on you not providing a warning before asking for blood, and the code would be further undistributable by anyone in the jurisdiction of the patent.
Re:WiX and WTL are CPL (Score:3, Interesting)
OK, IANAL, but I think that's a gray area for GPL.
For example, if you add a module to a GPLed program that the program didn't have before, that would be the code that you added and not modified - copyright by you. So, for GPL to "work" in such circumstances where, most or all of the code is added and not modified, it has to rely on contract law and not copyright law.
To make the case more complicated, you don't necessarily need to redistribute others' copyrighted code to *add* yours - you can simply contribute only your additions to a GPLed project. By doing so, and if you acknowledge that in this case the GPL has no copyright backing, you - the contributor - may avoid the [general public] license of the original program altogether. Now, the question is - what happens if such contributed code is patented? Can GPL make you implicitly license your patent? Is that legal, or does a patent license require explicit written agreement between the parties?
If an explicit written agreement is required, then you could imagine a scenario when a malicious party A, that holds a patent on function X, hires party B to inject X into a GPLed project; wait until the said project becomes popular; then A could claim patent infringement; "settle" out of court with B; and sue all distributors and users of that patent.
What do you think?
FLIPPITY FLOOP (Score:2, Interesting)
He was against a Homeland Security Department. FLIP
Then he was for it. FLOP
He was against the McCain Feingold campaign finance bill. FLIP
But then he was for it. FLIP-FLOP
Bush said he was for free trade. FLIPPITY
But then he put on steel tariffs. FLOP
Then he was against the tariffs again. FLIPPITY FLOP
Bush said the states should decide about gay marriage. FLIPPITY
Then he was for changing the Constitution. FLIPPITY FLOP, OR IS IT FLOPPITY FLIP?
Bush said he would put mandatory caps on Carbon Dioxide. FLOOPITY
Then he said he wouldn't. FLOOPPITY-FLEE
Bush said he'd leave no child behind. FLOPITTY
But refused to fund it, leaving millions of children of behind. BYE BYE POOR CHILDREN, WE'RE LEAVING YOU BEHIND, SORRY. OH, I CAN'T SEE YOU NOW, YOU'RE SO FAR BEHIND. I'VE FORGOTTEN ABOUT YOU.
Bush said he against an independent 9/11 commission. FLIIIIIIIIIIIIIP
But then reluctantly agreed to one. FLOPPITY FLOOP
Bush said we were going to war in Iraq to disarm Saddam Hussein. FLIPPITY
But when it turned out there weren't any WMD's, he said the war was to fight al Qaeda. FLIPPITY-FLOPPITY
But then he admitted there was no evidence of ties between Saddam and al Qaeda FLIPPITY-FLOOPITY-FLOOP
So then he said the war was to bring Western style democracy to the entire Middle East. FLIPPITY-FLOOPITY-FLOP, FLOP FLOP FLOP FLOP
He said he wouldn't invade Iraq without a vote in the UN. FLIP
But then he invaded without a vote. FLOPPITY FLOOP
But now he wants to UN to save his butt. (to tune of: Off to See the Wizard) FLIPPITY FLOPITTY FLOOP. FLIPPITY FLOPPITY FLOOP, FLIPPITY FLOPPITY, FLIPPITY FLOPPITY. FLIPPITY FLOPPITY FLOOP
He said he was ushering in an era of personal responsibility. FLIPPITY
But refuses to take responsibility for all his flip-flops. FLIPPITY BYE BYE BUSH. SEE YOU IN FLIPPITY FLOPPITY LAND - THAT'S RIGHT - CRAWFORD FLIPPITY FLOOP TEXAS. FLOOP FLOOP!
Re:WiX and WTL are CPL (Score:3, Interesting)
The fellow who incorporated the code, "B" would be on the hook for violating the GPL... it doesn't say you have to know about the patented code(!)
This stuff treads onto the tough area of "derivative works". A lot of arguing about this occured regarding binary-only kernel modules.
What you're describing is more of a source-only kernel module (as an example) written and distributed by somebody who disagrees with the terms of the GPL... so they can still use the GPL'd software, just not distribute it... and their code is offered with a different license (e.g. BSD) to the main source tree, for some unsuspecting person to compile into the kernel.
It's really hard to argue that it is not a derivative work because the result... the compiled executable... is utterly unatainable without the original work from which it derives. The derivative code, without the original work is useless and nonsensical.
I think one would stand a better chance to create some kind of standard practical binary interface, then code your program to that standard (it wouldn't be a module anymore), and write a GPL'd module which provides that interface.
To be a real twerp, you could write and publish your spec and your non-GPL'd side before you write and publish your GPL'd side... or even depend on somebody else to write it from only the spec.
For kernel modules this is generally considered impractical, but for other stuff, like spell checkers or whatever, I think it's been done.
Re:WiX and WTL are CPL (Score:3, Interesting)
What I am wondering, or having doubts about is not the binaries but whether the source of such a "derivative work" GPL claim would be backed by the copyright law or not; just like your example of source kernel modules. If a "derivative work" - like a module (as an example) - that is 100% written by its author and does not include anybody else's copyrighted/GPLed/etc. works, then what effect does the GPLed original work have on that new module source code in terms of copyright law?
Even though the module source code is defined as "derivative works" in GPL, how much protection does copyright law offer to back up the GPL restrictions? If you argue that, in a pure copyright sense, since you wrote the whole module source code and did not use anybody else's copyrighted code in it - hence, it's copyright by you, the author, then the copyright holders of the original works should not have any interest, influence or power over how you redistribute your own copyrighted source code; never mind that the module source code is useless without the original work - I don't think copyright law would differentiate whether it's "useful" on its own or not on that basis.
So, if you agree to this that what is 100% your code (even what GPL may call a "derivative" work) should be copyright by you, and by distributing it - the source code - you are not violating anybody's copyrights, then you can make a case that, in effect, the GPL restrictions on those types of works cannot be based on copyright law. They would be based purely on contract law.
Now, if that's the case, you don't need to agree to the GPL contract if you are not distributing anybody else's GPLed works. You would only be distributing 100% your own copyrighted code. So, it could potentially open up a scenario for a malicious contributor to [hire someone to] inject their patent-encumbered code.
And now in the beginning you said:
Yes, but any GPL (or patent and copyright) disputes would be between parties A and B, which could be conveniently "settled" out of court. The seemingly innocent developers and users would still be open for patent lawsuits from party A.