Does Microsoft Have the Best App Store For Open Source Developers? 339
WebMink writes "Microsoft seems to have been in combat against the GNU GPL throughout the history of free and open source software. But that may be changing. They have recently updated the terms of use for software developers in their Windows Phone app store to allow any OSI-approved open source license — even the GPL. They include extraordinarily broad language that gives the open source license priority over their own license terms, saying: 'If your Application or In-App Product includes FOSS, your license terms may conflict with the limitations set forth in Section 3 of the Standard Application License Terms, but only to the extent required by the FOSS that you use.' Could it be that the most open source friendly app stores will be the ones run my Microsoft?"
Re:No (Score:5, Informative)
Companies don't survive (and thrive) as long as they do without some forward thinking.
Or a strangehold monopoly on an entire market. That helps too.
Re:No (Score:5, Informative)
Or a strangehold monopoly on an entire market. That helps too. I'm sure that'd help if it were true, sure. I don't think what you're saying applies in this particular situation, though.
So you cannot fathom how the Windows monopoly on 90+% of all PCs sold for the last couple of decades may have provided them a steady revenue source? Interesting.
Re:so they can steal your code (Score:5, Informative)
Re:so they can steal your code (Score:3, Informative)
"Stealing implies that you don't keep your copy. You still do." is that the same for downloading music?
The act of downloading music is not called stealing. If the download is done illegally then it may be called copying or sometimes more loosely piracy.
Re:Not Bill Gates' Microsoft (Score:4, Informative)
1) There is this thing called "Linux" out there. Have you tried it? KDE is better than W7 in so many ways... And IceWM is better in other ways.
2) Mozilla throwed IE < 9 under the buss, Chrome started the bus and made it move. MS was just watching all the time, trying to save it. After it was dead, MS released IE 9 (it is still a piece of shit, mind you) out of desperation, and in a way that had the least possible impact. Also, stopping figtinhg against something (because you lost al your forces) does not equals supporting something.
3) Yeah,ok. I don't know about that. (You are talking about Visual Studio, right? Because Word...)
4) That's good news for .Net developers. Not a reason to develop in .Net and not a reason to put MS in a good light. I'll make sure some .Net developers around here know about it.
5) You either have a funny definition for "threatened" or you don't know a thing about Mono. MS threats are what shape the entire project.
6) Yeah, they either do that or peole will use something else. Gotta love a free market.
7) What does that mean?
Re:Not Bill Gates' Microsoft (Score:5, Informative)
"Microsoft has started to really become an advocate for open standards to the point of"
No, they have not. Microsoft is an advocate of what benefits them. Have you forgotten already the OOXML problems? They will only support open standards until they can extend and extinguish them. You are confused because right now they've been forced to move back to the Embrace step, but if they could find a way to own access to the internet, they would.
"Microsoft's tools produce standards compliant web output."
Great, maybe they can attempt to implement C99 now 12 years later. I am still required to cripple my C code so it will be accepted by Microsoft's crappy compiler, years after everyone else has moved on. Respecting standards in one place doesn't mean they actually respect standards.
"Microsoft has never once threatened Mono or any open source .NET effort"
OK, but they have threatened patent action against open source. Do you REALLY believe they won't attack Mono if they find it in their interest? They will, whether you believe it now or not. Don't be naive.
"Windows 7 is arguably the best desktop OS out there right now for the vast majority of the public."
OSX is Unix with a usable GUI, that's basically the win right there. Microsoft does deserve credit for respecting backwards compatibility, though.
Re:so they can steal your code (Score:4, Informative)
Improving the code in a proprietary product without releasing the patches to the public. That's stealing. And that's what Microsoft had already done at least once: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=ms+gpl+violation [lmgtfy.com]
??? those google results show that Microsoft *DID* release their derived work to the public under GPLv2.
Re:so they can steal your code (Score:5, Informative)
The code was "written" by a contractor, and MIcrosoft immediately took action. I think turning that into "Microsoft has already stolen code" is unfair. Much as I dislike Microsoft and their business practices, I'm pretty sure they don't make a habit of "stealing" GPL code themselves. It would make very little sense for them to do so.
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/microsoft/microsoft-admits-its-gpl-violation-will-reissue-windows-7-tool-under-open-source-license/4547 [zdnet.com]