Microsoft Treating "Windows-Only" As Open Source 383
mjasay writes "The Register is reporting that Microsoft is hosting Windows-only projects on its 'open source project hosting site,' CodePlex. Miguel de Icaza caught and criticized Microsoft for doing this with its Microsoft Extensibility Framework (MEF), licensing it under the Microsoft Limited Permissive License (Ms-LPL), which restricts use of the code to Windows. Microsoft has changed the license for MEF to an OSI-approved license, the Microsoft Public License, but it continues to host a range of other projects under the Ms-LPL. If CodePlex wasn't an 'open source project hosting site,' this wouldn't be a problem. But when Microsoft invokes the 'open source' label, it has a duty to live up to associated expectations and ensure that the code it releases on CodePlex is actually open source. If it doesn't want to do this — if it doesn't want to abide by this most basic principle of open source — then call CodePlex something else and we'll all move on."
Nothing new here. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is microsoft trying to help kill open sour (Score:2, Insightful)
Who owns this label?
I'm not surprised at all by this... (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe they're thinking along the lines of the 'open door policy' that some managers use as a means of 'communication with employees'. I mean, it's 'open', after all... right? He might throw a chair at you, but you're welcome to step in?
Nobody owns the words 'open source" (Score:0, Insightful)
Says who? I don't recall anybody owning the phrase "open source" or "free software".
Even if somebody did, I'd think that's as just asinine as other engineered bogus trademark claims.
This is the type of complaint... (Score:0, Insightful)
This is the type of complaint that makes open source evangelism appear pointless.
What exactly is open source software? Do I really need to be able to compile this on my TI99/4A? Why should I care if this software is initially only available on Windows?
Re:This is microsoft trying to help kill open sour (Score:5, Insightful)
It is not a matter of ownership. Words have a particular meaning and this is a case of MS trying to throw its weight around to change the popular understanding of the meaning of "Open Source" to something that is favorable for them. Last time I checked, "Open Source" does NOT mean "something that is only legal to use on Windows".
Re:Shocking secret of open source (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmmmm, I discovered something with the latest Ubuntu......I could install it within MS windows and run it.... like an application.
Re:This is microsoft trying to help kill open sour (Score:3, Insightful)
A case could be made that it's a trademark of the opensource initiative, and/or software in the public interest...
That Microsoft got their Microsoft Public License accepted by the OSI as an open-source license certainly indicates they know who defined the term... Then they go back and misuse it...
Re:Nothing new here. (Score:3, Insightful)
This is people trying to play with words. (Score:2, Insightful)
"Publishing the code, and saying, "You may do this, only, and no more", is certainly within their rights, but it ain't open."
Licenses by definition aren't open and they most certainly serve an end. All the OSI approved licenses restrict what I can do in one way or the other. Otherwise everything would be public domain which is as free as this world can offer.
Re:There is no problem here (Score:3, Insightful)
No, "open source" means no license restrictions on what you do with the code. If the license forbids you to run the code on another OS, or another pieces of hardware, it is not open. Neither is it open if you prevent the use of the code for a particular purpose. If you want to use the code to tabulate a list of people who you intend to round up, incarcerate, and incinerate, people will deplore your morals, but the OSS movement in principle defend your right to use open source code to do it (but does not allow you to create a license that says that same group of people cannot use your software).
Read point 10 of the Open Source Definition [opensource.org]
Bad summary (Score:3, Insightful)
From the article:
Honestly, please read more than a paragraph or two of the article before submitting it to Slashdot. You can submit any code under any licence you like to CodePlex, and indeed encourages you to do so. Where's the problem here, exactly? That "open source" means different things to Microsoft than it does to some other people? That term means many things to many people, from the idea of being able to view the source of software but do little else with it, to the BSD/public domain-ish idea of all code being available for modification under virtually any terms. That's all this is. Nothing to see here, move along.
Re:This is microsoft trying to help kill open sour (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem isn't that the code is built solely for Windows...there are lots of projects that are considered open source that are built for a single operating system. The issue is that the license expressly forbids developers to port the code to any other OS.
Call it what you will, but that ain't open source.
Re:This is the type of complaint... (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're an awesome enough hacker to take code written for Windows on x86 and compile it on a TI99/4A, then go to. The problem here is that the licence forbids it to be used on non-Windows platforms, not that it's difficult in practice to do so.
Re:This is microsoft trying to help kill open sour (Score:2, Insightful)
Publishing the code, and saying, "You may do this, only, and no more", is certainly within their rights, but it ain't open.
I find that statement to be slightly ironic, since it's exactly how the GPL works, and most people consider that open.
'Course, now I'm the one playing word games, since the GPL is arguably restricting what you can do to keep openness, but still, the point is that almost all open source licenses place some form of restriction on what you can do with the code.
The difference between truly open and closed depend on what those restrictions are.
Re:This is microsoft trying to help kill open sour (Score:4, Insightful)
A real open source license wouldn't do that
That's your opinion. As far as I'm concerned, open source means exactly that - the source is open. People seem to be intent on tacking on a whole load of 'moral' obligations that someone has to follow to qualify to use 'open source', when nothing could be further from the truth.
Definitely a very liberal sprinkling of "Open Source is our phrase, you can't use it" going around the comments on this article.
Re:This is microsoft trying to help kill open sour (Score:5, Insightful)
Their publicity agencies are here on Slashdot pumping that angle every day.
Bruce
Re:This is microsoft trying to help kill open sour (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the rights that are important. You're missing that entirely.
Bruce
Re:Nothing new here. (Score:3, Insightful)
While I appreciate the various efforts to define, evaluate, and compare open source licenses, I don't want someone to be declaring an absolute manifesto of what it is. I wouldn't have disagreed with your post if you said "to clarify, here is the Open Source Definition as defined by opensource.org" and "here is the mainstream recognition of what Free Software is according to the FSF." But treating these definitions as absolutes is taking it too far.
I've hosted and worked on many open source projects, and I've never had to go to some site to see if what I did fit someone else's definition of open. The last thing open source needs is a dictator.
Getting back to the topic on hand, the association of Linux with open source is over simplified, in the same way that Microsoft is using oversimplifications to define what they are doing as open source. There's plenty of open-source operating systems, and there's plenty of open-source projects on closed-source operating systems. So open source != Linux, instead Linux is a subset of open source.
Re:This is microsoft trying to help kill open sour (Score:3, Insightful)
By your definition, the latest feature films are "open" as well. After all, you can look at them. You can't copy them, distribute them, compile them, or anything else.
C'mon, we both know you're cleverer than this. We're talking about the definition of 'open source', not open in general and certainly not Software Freedom or copyright of any kind, which is what the article would like us to get incensed about.
I respect you and your work Bruce, but I'm going to have to disagree with you completely here - I'm not missing a damn thing, and I believe you're getting yourself lost in a moral definition of a very simple English phrase - the source is open and it therefore is 'open source'. One of the plus points of open source as I'm led to understand is that others can review the code to increase trust in that code, many eyes and all that. This is possible with the license as given and as such provides at the benefits that open code can provide. I agree that it doesn't follow the FSF-approved definitions of Free Software or "software libre" but that's not what this is about in the slightest.
Re:This is people trying to play with words. (Score:5, Insightful)
technically you are right about what licenses are. but what open source licenses all have in common is that they aim to make the software source code the most freely available to others, thus maximizing its utility, with the minimal licensing restrictions to achieve this goal.
Microsoft's use of "open source" not only goes against the spirit of FOSS, but also violates the basic definition of "Open Source" [wikipedia.org] used by the OSI:
5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups - The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.
6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor - The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product - The rights attached to the program must not depend on the program's being part of a particular software distribution. If the program is extracted from that distribution and used or distributed within the terms of the program's license, all parties to whom the program is redistributed should have the same rights as those that are granted in conjunction with the original software distribution.
9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software - The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software.
in the end, what "open source" means is defined by the community. it is what the community finds acceptable and conducive to the goals of the Open Source movement. if they decide that they are willing to accept Microsoft's definition of "open source" then the Ms-LPL can be called a genuinely open source license. however, that would require changing the current accepted definition of open source. but not only would that require arriving at a new consensus, but it would likely destroy the open source movement by undermining its original aim of fostering open collaboration and combat the increasingly restrictive IP laws and cultural attitudes.
Re:This is people trying to play with words. (Score:3, Insightful)
9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software - The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software.
Would you happen to know why this point was worded to be specific to other software, instead of applying to anything that might accompany the licensed software? I can say "this sofware may not be distributed with fur coats", and as far as I can see that's be perfectly OK.
Re:This is microsoft trying to help kill open sour (Score:3, Insightful)
And for it to be made into a Cross Platform code tree, the source would have to be completely open which is not how Microsoft is publishing this stuff. Just because the code is (supposedly) available , doesn't make it open . There's a big difference there.
You are missing a damn thing (Score:3, Insightful)
Windows is a very simple phrase. Trademarked.
Apple? TM
"Start me up"? That was restricted with Win95.
etc.
And Open Source MEANS something. The use of words to mislead a customer is why trademarks were invented.
If you bought a Sony product and found out it was a Latvian company called Sony making your LCD TV, that would be wrong. Not because they didn't sell you a Sony TV but that you thought the Sony was a particular company.
Same here.
Open Source defined by OSI in computer markets.
Re:There is no problem here (Score:3, Insightful)
No, damnit.
Open source means that the source is open. That's it.
You could hypothetically define "Open Source" (with capitals) however you see fit, or be a lot more specific and refer to GPL, BSD, Creative Commons, etc.
However, in this case "open source" is very simply referring to software that has its source code openly available. You cannot simply redefine the meaning of already-existing words, especially when you're not using them as a proper noun. There is absolutely no debate to be had here.
Also, what's the deal? Microsoft seem to be heading in the right direction, and actually seem to be addressing the criticism being thrown at them. Miguel de Icaza has a fantastic track record for being diplomatic, and persuading Microsoft to "do the right thing."
Finally, please don't bring up the extend-embrace-extinguish argument. It's a cynical logical fallacy that can be used against any seemingly-benevolent action undertaken by anybody.
Like Organic Farmers (Score:3, Insightful)
This is, unfortunately, a prelude or realization that Microsoft can embrace/extend/extinguish the _meaning of the phrase_ "open source" just as well as it can anything else.
Sadly, the exact same thing happened to all the "organic farmers". Big companies started slapping "organic" on all their products because it would sell, irrespective of any meaning behind the words.
The only defense would have been to trademark "organic" / "open source" and have it be held by some public committee, but it's too late now.
Re:There is no problem here (Score:3, Insightful)
No, "open source" means no license restrictions on what you do with the code.M
Every single "open source" license out there completely contradicts your statement.
Re:This is microsoft trying to help kill open sour (Score:5, Insightful)
We need more than you think for something to be open even by your over-restrictive definition of "open". Consider that the report on the security of Sequoia voting machines has been supressed by the court [freedom-to-tinker.com]. In that case, the software was trade secret and all rights reserved. But what if it had been source code that was disclosed but still "all rights reserved"? Since that prohibits compilation and use, it would be difficult for security testers to legally do their work at all. Since it prevents derivative works and redistribution, we'd be unable to include code snippets in any report. We would be legally unable to modify the software for the purpose of testing bug fixes. And we'd be unable to distribute fixes.
The rights are a lot more important than you think. Even to have a kind of code that is disclosed mainly for the purpose of increasing trust, we'd have to design a license to convey significant rights, if the examiners were not to be placed at legal risk.
Bruce
Re:This is microsoft trying to help kill open sour (Score:2, Insightful)
IIRC, his point was basically that "free software" allows you to study, modify, and use the software. Open source, on the other hand, means just that; the source is there for you to look at, but different licenses have different restrictions on the use and modification of the code.
In RMS's own words: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html [gnu.org]
OSI's definition of Open Source: http://opensource.org/docs/osd [opensource.org]
Re:This is microsoft trying to help kill open sour (Score:2, Insightful)
Open Source is what is defined by the Open Source Definition.
A number of microsoft dweebs and/or campaigners would like to have it otherwise. But then Microsoft would like to have a lot of things. It's called corporate totalitarianism.
Bruce
Unlike the totalitarianism of redefining the meaning of common words like 'free' and 'open' and then insisting everyone else use your definition.
Open source means the source is publically available. Like Paint.net.
Re:This is microsoft trying to help kill open sour (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You are missing a damn thing (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is microsoft trying to help kill open sour (Score:3, Insightful)
First, I can read 17 USC as well as the next guy, and it's pretty clear:
the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright
That doesn't say, "is a defense against a lawsuit for infringement". That says "is not an infringement of copyright". So, if you are doing any of those things, you are not infringing, and you don't need a "defense".
The gray area is what, exactly, is meant by "fair use". The list of examples given shows what the law intended, but defining it specifically is maybe not as easy. Still, I'm pretty sure that saying "this code sucks because of this buggy line right here" would fall under "criticism". If you word it a little differently, I think "research" would apply.
Second, there really is no need for an affirmative fair use right unless you are distributing copies, as like anything else, if the right isn't granted or limited to a specific group or person, it is reserved for "all the people". For computer software source code, here is the complete list of all "the exclusive rights to do and to authorize" that the copyright holder has:
For everything else, the copyright holder has no special rights.
What this means is that until you distribute something copyrighted by someone else, you are not infringing, and you don't need to worry about a "defense". So, re-compile that code and test it as much as you want...you aren't infringing on copyright. Or, print out thousand copies and store them in your basement if that floats your boat...you may be crazy, but you're not infringing on copyright.
And it has been substantially eroded, and continues to be.
The "erosion" of fair use is primarily because of the back door of "no circumvention" Otherwise, "fair use" has done nothing but increase. Time shifting and device shifting have been upheld by courts as "fair use", and ventures like YouTube have greatly expanded fair use through more lawsuits over the length and completeness of copies.
Re:This is microsoft trying to help kill open sour (Score:3, Insightful)
Meaning of words (Score:3, Insightful)
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'
nobody should be surprised at this. It is MS-SOP (Score:4, Insightful)
come on, are people really surprised that Microsoft is not only taking MS .Net to the world of Windows-only but also making sure anyone who uses their sites/services are Windows-only partners too?
Get real folks. With out a monopoly hold on the pre-load computer market, Microsoft would be dead meat. They know they need to make sure their customers do not have a choice to try another OS because they will not put their software on another OS. Remember, without Windows they are dead meat. Outside of one package, MS Office for Mac, they have never put their software on another OS with the intention of making a business profit from it. They put Internet Explorer on Solaris to kill off all the Win32-UNIX licensees and keep anti-trust judges from nailing them for it. When Palm had 80% marketshare and WinCE was less than 5% IBM, Sybase, and other dbase vendors released lite versions for the PalmOS. Microsoft released MS Access-lite for WindowsCE.
Miguel is an idiot for kissing Microsoft's ass every time they expose it to him. MS .Net was created to stop Java from taking Microsoft developers over to a cross platform API and software stack plain and simple. Anything "open" about it is a trick/game/hoax/etc because they own the spec.
Microsoft's business is to own/control all software development and make sure it is all done on Windows. This is a fact. Everything they do must first protect the Windows marketshare. This is reality. Open source is a threat to Microsoft when it runs on anything other than or along with Windows. Another fact. So cry all you want Miguel, you're an idiot for following Microsoft and playing the Pied Piper to those too naive to understand. IMO.
LoB
Re:There is no problem here (Score:3, Insightful)
Again. As long as you capitalize Open Source, you're correct.
However, the insistence on using the most ambiguous language possible to describe an ideology has ultimately resulted in arguments such as this. RMS and co. should have avoided naming their movement using words such as "Free" or "Open," which can be used to mean something quite different.
Granted, part of this is the fault of the English language, which fails to differentiate between "libre," and "gratis," though you'd think that they'd have just sidestepped the problem entirely, considering that RMS has been explaining the difference between "Free Speech vs. Free Beer" since the beginning.
You could also argue that the GPL and BSD license are two very fundamentally different ideologies. Do they both also belong under the same umbrella, or is there room for a third ideology?
Re:It's their code, stop whining. (Score:3, Insightful)
Not possible. Anybody who receives the library under the GPL can port the library as he or she pleases.
If you don't realize that platform independence is a key tenet of the Free and Open Source software communities, you're missing the point entirely, and you're unlikely to be contributing positively to the discussion.