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?"
slashvertisement? (Score:2, Interesting)
MS advertising coffers well spent, looks like.
Enjoy that new surface, timothy.
Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix (Score:4, Interesting)
That's a bit deceptive. Microsoft contributed code needed for its VMs to host Linux, nothing more.
I don't see what's deceptive about it. You either contribute or you don't; they did.
Re:Not Bill Gates' Microsoft (Score:4, Interesting)
Let's look at the bigger picture...
1) Windows 7 is arguably the best desktop OS out there right now for the vast majority of the public. Even many of the Apple fans I know, myself included, have been forced to concede that Windows 7 is better than OS X in many ways.
I work in a mixed environment, Windows 7/OSX and Linux. I've never heard an OSX user claim Windows 7 is better. Especially on a portable where the gestures on OSX make it absolutely the best experience out there, if you bother to learn it. I've never in fact seen someone with a MacBook Air, for example, switch it to windows. I've never even seen them run boot camp.
I can't think of a single thing Windows 7 has that OSX doesn't but better. Windows 7 is a decent OS, emphasis on decent. It's the best Microsoft seems to be able to do. That doesn't make it good, nor does it make it better than OSX in any way shape or form.
Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix (Score:4, Interesting)
If they contributed solely out of their own business interests, and their contributions add nothing of value other than compatibility with Microsoft's proprietary software, and nobody who doesn't want to use Microsoft's proprietary software will see any benefit whatsoever from any of the changes Microsoft contributed to the kernel, then yeah, I would say it's fair to rate Microsoft's contributions to the Linux kernel lower than those of a company like, say, Red Hat.
Speaking of Red Hat it looks like the guest support for Hyper-V is a fairly big feature in Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.9 [redhat.com]. I'm just speculating here, but it is likely that Microsoft's contribution adds business value to companies like Red Hat and eventually to their customers. So I don't get what is so bad with Microsoft contributing to open source.