Microsoft Seeks Open Source Certification 220
eldavojohn writes "Microsoft is applying for OSI certification for its Shared Source Initiative. The move is described in a blog post by an MS OSS lab worker: 'Today, we reached another milestone with the decision to submit our open licenses to the OSI approval process, which, if the licenses are approved, should give the community additional confidence that the code we're sharing is truly Open Source. I believe that the same voices that have been calling for Microsoft products to better interoperate with open source products would voice their approval should the Open Source Initiative itself open up to more of the IT industry.' According to PC World, reaction from the community has been mostly positive."
In Related Stories (Score:5, Funny)
Lamb Found "Shacked Up" With Lion!
Paris Hilton Receives Rhodes Scholarship!
Bush Announces Iraq Withdraw!
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
/. makes me sad (Score:2)
Microsoft could easily become a huge positive contributor to the FOSS world. Does nobody want that?
Re: (Score:2)
We WOULD like Microsoft to become not evil, but after all those experiences of trying to be good and then spoiling everything, we (slashdot crowd) are just careful with such moves.
Re: (Score:2)
Troll on little trollies , troll on ..... (Score:2)
LOL
Gates in a press conference openly admits the only way they are doing well
in Asia is piracy, or it would be linux on top.
I find that hilarious.
You prolly reach over to your Vista box to check your portfolio.
Hahaha.
Re:FOSSies desperately fear MSOSS (Score:5, Interesting)
FOSS just wants their freedom. They don't want to have to be shit upon by a criminally convicted monopolistic company that has a reputation of stealing other's intellectual property.
FOSS has not slammed anyone except to say that it makes no sense to pay money to a criminal monopolist is to continually bury your head in the sand. If you continue to use a product that locks you into continued purchases then it isn't FOSS that is shitting on others. It is Microsoft shitting on you. To continue to pay for something that locks you in is silly. To use a product that costs you money when there's a free nice alternative, well that's crazy. On top of that it was the Office zealots that dumped on Open Office (in prior threads on
How on earth can you not see what they have done and how harmful that has been to the whole industry? The opportunities for strong competition in the OS market are essentially non-existent due to Microsoft's criminal behavior.
The FOSS movement has done absolutely nothing wrong. They've stolen from no one. They've hindered no one. All they want is to keep a criminal monopolist out of their home. I'm sure you would feel the same way about allowing a criminal into your home.
On top of that you fail completely to understand that Microsoft is spying on you. They have 47 programs in Vista that collect information about you and return that information to their servers for analysis. They also have programs that essentially search and can seize your computer (refuse to work if they believe it is pirated, even if it isn't). They do this without most people's knowledge. They spy on you after having stolen from you for so many years. And you let them continue while essentially attacking the benevolent group of people who just want to have a fair free competitive market. Something that Microsoft has denied so many for so long.
On top of that you also fail to understand some of the largest companies in the world support FOSS and Open Source. What the FOSS industry doesn't want is Microsoft tainting the waters. Microsoft is already extorting cross licensing from other companies upon threat about IP violations that have never been proven nor the IP ever been identified. How would you like it if I stood in your neighborhood and told your neighbors that you were stealing and that I had proof of X number of thefts. You, and they, would demand that I tell them what you stole (what crimes you committed). They wouldn't put up with it.
Microsoft is like the big oil company that threatens all car owners that drive because they buy gasoline from one of their competitors. They say that the gasoline is refined using IP that they own. On top of that they are threatening any large company even more so if they don't agree to not just pay them money but give up their own intellectual property. It doesn't seem to matter that no proof is offered nor evidence of any sort yet they still claim that all car drivers will have to pay a price to them.
Don't you think it is silly that they threaten their competitors customers because they aren't using their gasoline? They can't compete on their own merits?
And your attitude is appalling. You have no idea, you have no knowledge, you have no eduction in this matter and you have never taken the time to actually understand what is happening. Then you come here and abuse everyone else who differs in opinion to you. Its rather sad if you ask me.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
How on earth can you not see what they have done and how harmful that has been to the whole industry? The opportunities for strong competition in the OS market are essentially non-existent due to Microsoft's criminal behavior.
Bingo! As good an example of any is the DR-DOS debacle, the court filings of which may be found at http://www.courttv.com/archive/legaldocs/cyberlaw/ microsoft/msnsued.html [courttv.com]. The point is that Microsoft lied to their customers, over-sold their own 'coming soon' versions of DOS, and built checks into Win 3.1 startup code to refuse to start over DR-DOS, even though their was no technical impediment to running Win 3.1 over DR-DOS.
And per-processor pricing was the real kicker - if you didn't sign into the mu
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, it's gone beyond common sense and being skeptical of MS and it's tools and ventured into the world of group think. Certification of a license with OSI is a bad thing? I'm not grasping this.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"FOSS just wants their freedom. They don't want to have to be shit upon by a criminally convicted monopolistic company that has a reputation of stealing other's intellectual property."
Microsoft has never been "criminally" charged with anything, let alone "criminally convicted".
Learn the difference between civil law and criminal law.
Since you can't even understand that simple concept, or can but still choose to toss around the false "criminally convicted" rhetoric, it's safe to assume
Re:Parent is completely true and why shouldn't it (Score:2)
My Apologies & Thoughts (Score:5, Interesting)
I apologize for submitting a dupe.
From that blog posting:
But this blog is written by someone who's genuinely interested in Microsoft becoming part of OSS efforts. Will it happen? Probably not as a good many of you pointed out.
The real question is, when it doesn't happen, what was the real reason? This is tough, because Microsoft is a large company. I felt the pain of using their products when I had to stay at work until midnight on Wednesday trying to get AJAX (that worked fine in Firefox) working in IE. But this is only one of their many products. Is it fair for me to condemn their application for hundreds of other products for OSS certification based on a few tools I've used?
My answer to that is that "I don't think so."
What I'm trying to say is that the open source community is a community. Once you start to blame Microsoft for everything, turn a cold shoulder towards them whenever they even mildly reach out, you're essentially becoming them on the other side of the mirror. What's worse is that this attitude will ensure that there will never be a point in time in the future when Microsoft can reconcile with OSS. I think the fact that even one person inside the company is reaching out says that Microsoft as an entity is not 100% against opening a code base. They have great marketing and business tactics, they are hear to stay for as far as I can see. I think that the attitude should be open arms under the right conditions instead of a persistent never ending cold war or middle east-style conflict in software today.
Will I be jumped on as not being a hardliner open source advocate? Probably. Because I care far more about the success of everyone than I do the success of either side.
The people running the accreditation will no doubt be very stringent on the licenses passing OSS certification. I'm not a lawyer but I doubt any of the MS-GL/SL/RL licenses will pass. I hope it's not an outright rejection. I hope there's talking between the OSI and MS, I hope there's negotiations, I chances are given, I hope for compromise, I hope that some of the projects end up as OSS, I hope to use Microsoft's software, whether I pay for it or not, and to be able to see the source in the future.
Everyone needs to make money, I need to make money. This is a capitalistic society. I don't blame Microsoft for making money, I blame them for failing to see the folly of their position. I believe a different pricing scheme could net them billions more dollars & millions more users. I believe that slowly opening up the code on more and more of their products can only improve it. I believe that people will steal it one way or another if they want to so your job shouldn't be to catch them but to take away that motivation.
In the end, if you rail against Microsoft for doing this, you're only building the barrier higher. I wouldn't recommend an "you're either with us or against us" attitude, I personally do not feel that has gotten anyone anywhere before. The world is not black & white, software is no different.
Re:My Apologies & Thoughts (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft may hold out an olive branch from time to time, but just remember what's on the other side.
FOSS Vs OSS (Score:3, Interesting)
FOSS
I think there's a difference between FOSS & OSS. FOSS has that modifier 'free' and OSS is just opening your source. You can still open your source and charge money for the product. In fact, I think if you opened your source to only the people that bought your product, you'd still be pretty close to being OSS, right?
Linux is open source to an extent. You only have to release the source code to those who you distribute it to. Take Google, for example, to my knowledge they run a stripped down Re
Re:FOSS Vs OSS (Score:4, Interesting)
Sorry, but MS is very, very hard to trust. They'd be willing to let you look at Windows/.NET/whatever code alright. Only I would expect this would come with strings attached that'd ensure you'd be "contaminated" for the purpose of contributing to anything related. Say, they let you look at MS SQL, and then the moment you try to contribute to MySQL/Postgres they'd claim you're stealing their IP or something of the sort.
Personally, I wouldn't touch any source from MS with a 10 foot pole, unless BSD or GPL licensed. What do they need their own license for anyway? Like there aren't enough already.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but MS is very, very hard to trust. They'd be willing to let you look at Windows/.NET/whatever code alright. Only I would expect this would come with strings attached that'd ensure you'd be "contaminated" for the purpose of contributing to anything related. Say, they let you look at MS SQL, and then the moment you try to contribute to MySQL/Postgres they'd claim you're stealing their IP or something of the sort.
I dont know if you have a job yet, but this is pretty much par for the course when you get one.
I am a software developer. My current contract says I cannot work for another company in the same line of work for 6 months after I leave. This prevents our competitors from poaching me and also prevents me from setting up my own business and taking any of their clients with me.
I believe that when the GNU toolchain was being written one of the authors was worried that his current employer would claim it was deriv
Re:FOSS Vs OSS (Score:4, Informative)
Are you referring to Richard Stallman?
FYI, GNU is an operating system, just like Solaris and BSD. The fact that one piece of it can be replaced with Linux to make it far more useful doesn't make it any less of an operating system
Re: (Score:2)
That will be true the day they announce that The Hurd, or some other kernel, is ready to go. Until then, it's a userland. The purpose of an operating system is to allocate memory, schedule processes, handle networking, manage filesystems, and other I/O, etc.
GNU software can be very good, and I don't mean to take anything away from them. But calling GNU an operating system is just wildly wrong. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_system [wikipedia.org] or a huge
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It might be a hard to install, and still be fairly unstable, but you can run X and people are using it.
So, GNU is an operating system.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The purpose of an operating system is to provide that set of functionality necessary to run applications. You can't run Firefox on the Linux kernel, but you sure can run it on a GNU+Linux system. Even if you just limit yourself to allocating memory and doing IO, you generally use a C library - which on GNU/Linux is GNU libc. Generally people who plan to use an operating sy
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the confirmation.
Re: (Score:2)
I have, since several years. And no, it isn't, at least for mine.
My contract includes nothing of the sort.
This misses the point anyway. Su
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you are lucky enough to work for an open source shop but unfortunately I am not.
Please do not comment on any silly typing or gramatical errors in this post as I am quite pissed.
Re: (Score:2)
Download it too, if you like
http://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/ [gnu.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No NDA or anything like that. My contract doesn't include absolutely anything related to programming. I'm simply hired to code for X hours a week.
Again, that's irrelevant for the purpose of the discussion. I MIGHT be willing to sign NDAs and agreements, PROVIDED I get something out of it. No way I'm agreeing to anything of the sort attached to a license from a third party manufacturer who isn't paying me, or who I may be paying for the privile
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Like all corporations the personality of M$ is the personality of it's management, in the case of ballmer a lying insurance salesman. So the question is not whether you can trust M$, obviously replace the current pathetic liars with decent and honest management with integrity as their defining characteristic,and you could trust them, but can you trust ballmer, the communist, viral, terrorist, cancer man, absolutely not.
The reality is of course, if they co
Re: (Score:2)
On top of that they have threatened every Linux user with lawsuits. Do you really thing anyone can trust them after that?
Microsoft wants to kill Open Source. In fact, Microsoft's representatives clearly stated that 2007 was the year of the death of Open Source. You really trust that? The Microsoft representative should have been fired immediately. Most companies
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not worried about the code they ARE sharing being Open Source, I'm worried about the Open Source code they're NOT sharing.
The words spoken look like they were very carefully chosen by the legal department...
Re:My Apologies & Thoughts (Score:4, Interesting)
At least when I look at Balmer [pocketpicks.co.uk] , I think Ferengi...
Yep, you are on target. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd also like to point out that you are a geek... As if you didn't know...
Pot, Kettle, Black... there, now that that's done I'm going to bed.
Re: (Score:2)
Man, that analysis you're pulling off there is amaaaaazingly deep! I love it.
And this thing I'm smoking is making it even better.
Curiously enough everything you said is true about every single big corporation.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Microsoft "can't embrace" Linux (Score:3, Interesting)
In that light, this move only looks even more suspicious to me. If they're not going to embrace OSS, what are they doing here? Hoping to strangle it?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No right minded programmer is going to join Microsoft unless they are just stupid.
Don't blame Microsoft's failing on the GPL. The GPL is a choice not a requirement. You choose to not support the contract of the GPL then don't try to get free code to use. What's so viral
Re:My Apologies & Thoughts (Score:5, Insightful)
I think this is what they need to address in order to be trusted because it looks to me like the only reasons they would need to create a new license are to try to get away with something the existing licenses wouldn't allow or (more likely) to try to cast a shadow of doubt on the appropriateness and safety of the licenses everyone else in the community uses.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
On top of that, in the inside you have the ideas of the project managers, architects, developers, etc, all conflicting. People wi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Compromise, as in "in between". It sure isn't a valid license if they want a little certificate of approv
GPL restricts (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I will *never* license any of my code under the GPL. It's an extremely restrictive license that takes away the rights of the developers. If I release something as open source and it's modified, I don't care who modifies it. There's no good reason for them to have to release their changes to the public. The only thing I care about is if my code is used to generate profit. Any other uses... *shrugs*
Alright. So the GPL isn't for you (the GPL requires giving back changes and has no issue with profit). Pick another OSS license.
Re: (Score:2)
The GPL takes nothing. Ignore it and pretend you got a look-but-don't-use license.
You are still drunk. (Score:2)
Ok, so after I submitted this story this morning (while I was grasping for sobriety), ...
Not another one night stand [slashdot.org], I hope.
I know many of you saw this as disingenuous, deceptive and/or highly manipulative tactics on order with a politician, the RIAA or Steve Ballmer.
Can you tell me why someone who works for Steve Ballmer should not be looked on as a pawn [slashdot.org], or why we should suddenly trust Ballmer/Gates? Do you really want them telling you what software freedom is?
Take a nice cold shower, compile
Re: (Score:2)
Some of these licenses won't do (Score:5, Informative)
From reading the higher modded posts on the previous story, I was surprised that few people seem to have bothered to take a quick look at these licenses. Let's give that a try-
Both the Microsoft Limited Permissive License (Ms-LPL) and the Microsoft Limited Community License (Ms-LCL) contain a clause like this:
The Open Source Definition has this:
5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
Either 5 or 6 look a like a clear contradiction to above clause. So IMHO, the 'limited' licenses shouldn't qualify for OSI approval. Then the Microsoft Reference License (Ms-RL) has this:
(Emphasis mine). Basically a 'look but don't touch' license. Thanks to other commenters for pointing out Open Source vs. Free/Libre: this could qualify as Open Source, but definately does not qualify as Free/Libre software.
I don't see any obvious problems with the other licenses though. And 1 thing I do like: they're nice and short, so that you can actually read them, and (try to) understand what they say. As opposed to reading through the pile of legal mumbo-jumbo in common EULA's.
One final point I'd like to make: one shouldn't take a license and complain about whether it does or doesn't suit your purpose. Instead, start with what you want to do with your code, and use a license that best suits that purpose. For some funny, new app the GPLv2/3 may be good, but for an implementation of a low-level networking protocol, that you want to become the defacto standard, a BSD-style license may be more appropriate (so that it can be used by anybody, even hidden deep inside black boxes, but using your protocol). You might be worried about the exact purpose of these MS licenses, but they may also be a vehicle to have your code included in MS products (and help improve standards compliance/interoperability). Not to mention that it's zero problem to contribute things like small bugfixes to projects licensed under these.
So I agree very much with parent poster. Why complain about MS when you think they're throwing you a bone, and you don't trust it? Simply throw them a bone back sometimes, and see what happens.
Re: (Score:2)
My interpretation was that it started off as the BSD license, then had clauses added for patent claims and the "shared source, all your copyright belong to us" stuff and basically locking the
It's offensive... (Score:2)
Maybe Microsoft would have better luck "building bridges" to the Open Source community if they stopped trying to screw us at every turn.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me add two observations:
First, anyone who hasn't taken a good hard look at CodePlex has no relevant opinion.
Then, as much as this community would like to be Microsoft's problem, it doesn't come close to noise level. When Microsoft releases code, it's giving it away to IBM, Sun and HP. That's what worries them.
Re: (Score:2)
As for who eats MS's lunch... Well, MS doesn't sell any workstations, mainframes, or OSes suitable for them. It does sell a PC OS, and apps, but very little server capable.
Oh sure, if you call some $8k PC a "server", MS does just fine. Run their priciest OS, accept limitations like a hard-coded number of TCP/IP connections at a time, CPU limits, etc. All that, and it barely performs as well on similar h
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What I'm trying to say is that the open source community is a community. Once you start to blame Microsoft for everything, turn a cold shoulder towards them whenever they even mildly reach out, you're essentially becoming them on the other side of the mirror. What's worse is that this attitude will ensure that there will never be a point in time in the future when Microsoft can reconcile with OSS. I think the fact that even one person inside the company is reaching out says that Microsoft as an entity is not 100% against opening a code base. They have great marketing and business tactics, they are hear to stay for as far as I can see. I think that the attitude should be open arms under the right conditions instead of a persistent never ending cold war or middle east-style conflict in software today.
I'm all for it. And here's how Microsoft can do it... use a license that can be trusted. You know why that works? Because IBM has done it already.
When IBM started to embrace Linux and Open Source, there was a lot of eye-rolling from some of the old-timers. They remembered the old IBM. They had the same view of IBM as they do Microsoft. Who could trust them? The thing is... nobody has to trust IBM. IBM's commitment comes from the licenses they use whether they're contributing to GPL projects or rele
Why apologize? - Because I was wrong. (Score:4, Insightful)
If not, I don't see any reason for you to apologize. Even if you are, it's not like you're duping an article within a couple of days or less.
Too many times, I've said that if they just went to Google or Google news and typed "site:slashdot.org Microsoft OSI [google.com]" they would find the dupe from a few days ago about a story with basically the same keywords. I mean, you could even build a link on the admin page for them to click and do that search.
I apologized because I submitted before taking my own advice, leading to what I considered a dupe.
I apologized for being a hypocrite. It's a basic idea of not contradicting yourself that was ingrained into me when I was a child & seems to be lost these days. You act like you would want someone else to act (the ultimate maxim) and it's clear to me that everyone hates a dupe so I apologize.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For a "24-year veteran of IT, you sound remarkably immature. You sound like a self-rightious know-it-all 12-year old. I imagine the reason you've worked at so many places is that you couldn't hold down a job because your coworkers couldn't stand working with such a whiner.
Second, I can't help but notice that nearly every place you've worked got its butt kicked by Microsoft. Is that why your'
And crickets were heard... (Score:2)
Microsoft, of late, has been pretty responsive to public outcries. Now, I know at the heart of it they're just responding for financial reasons. But, an era ago they didn't have to care -- and they didn't care. They were the game.
But now, I don't think we care. We being the few, the proud, the OS hackers. I would love to get my hands on the Windows kernel, and it's "DOS". I would love to get into its scheduler.
Until some monumental step by Microsoft, I can't be im
PC World (Score:5, Funny)
PC World hadn't yet read this Slashdot thread.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
wtf? (Score:2, Insightful)
Show me the Freedom or Go Away. (Score:4, Insightful)
the same voices that have been calling for Microsoft products to better interoperate with open source products would voice their approval should the Open Source Initiative itself open up to more of the IT industry.
What a pile of M$. The only barrier to products that interoperate better is them. Everyone else has bent over backwards for years, only to treated as a pawn in the quest for M$ dominance of everything [slashdot.org]. M$ is the only organization using such sleazy language. The goal is not some kind of imperfect interoperation, it's the use of real standards, the end of M$'s silly games and the beginning of real freedom. Without the four freedoms, everything M$ does is just another game.
If M$ sends the OSI software freedom, great. If they don't and the OSI certify it, the OSI will not have raised M$ in anyone's opinion, they will have disgraced themselves and further diluted the terms "free" and "open". We will all be able to judge for ourselves, but I don't expect anything useful from a company that's rabidly threatening everyone with patents.
At this point, M$ has very little of value to offer and the best thing they can do is cease hostilities and start to repair the damage they have done. It would take the community a decade to fix the mess Windoze and Intel BIOS are. It will take even longer to undo the DMCA, software patents and other evil stuff they have promoted. The market itself is doing a better job of fixing the problem by ignoring them.
No, Show me the Freedom or Go Away. (Score:2)
And that's the problem, people will never be happy. Nothing MS ever does will ever be good enough, short of going all out, and that won't happen. [long winded, condescending apology for non free waste, blame the victim and other nonsense]
Poor little M$, all beat up by big mean Twitter. All of M$'s evil behavior is his fault. Right. Back in reality ...
I'm perfectly happy without anything from M$. If and only if you can show me how they are willing to respect my software freedom will I consider any
FAIL (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't the LGPL fail that test? IIRC, you can only use LGPL code by linking to it via dynamic library.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Exactly! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That certainly depends on what you mean by requires. If the license says, you must use it together with a closed source product, then it does not match the definition of open source. But if an open source product happen to technically depend on some Windows API, but is released under an open source license, then it is still open source. Anybody are allowed to take such a product and remove the dependencies on that API an
Re: (Score:2)
That certainly depends on what you mean by requires. If the license says, you must use it together with a closed source product, then it does not match the definition of open source. But if an open source product happen to technically depend on some Windows API, but is released under an open source license, then it is still open source. Anybody are allowed to take such a product and remove the dependencies on that API and make it work on some other systems (known as porting). And being allowed to do things like that is exactly what open source is all about.
Basically, the license says "no porting". That doesn't sound very open source to me.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If you're going to say that hardware isn't open, that's solvable as well [opencores.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Open hardware seems to have been manufactured [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
In other words open source that REQUIRES closed source to use is not open source at all.
In the mid-1980s to early 1990s, the GNU operating environment ran as a layer on top of proprietary UNIX operating systems; it needed those UNIX systems to work. (Now, it commonly runs on top of Linux, a free kernel.) But even nowadays, in order to start Linux, you need a bootloader such as GNU GRUB. But how do you start GRUB? Doesn't a bootloader require proprietary software, namely the BIOS?
I think the original poster was talking about the intentional-explicit Licensing requirement that the software can only be run on the "Microsoft Operating System", not the implied TECHNICAL limitation that the software can only be run on the platform it has already been ported to.
One is a technical limitation. And one is a legal limitation. There is a difference.
Same outcome you would say, you end up with a limitation either way. But I highly doubt that the GNU libraries would have garnered much support
It's called "Embrace and Extend" (Score:3, Interesting)
nice try (Score:2)
source vs object code... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:source vs object code... (Score:4, Informative)
First of all, I see no conflict between
and
(D) If you distribute any portion of the software in source code form, you may do so only under this license by including a complete copy of this license with your distribution. If you distribute any portion of the software in compiled or object code form, you may only do so under a license that complies with this license.
There is source code. You are allowed to distribute it. You're also allowed to distribute the software in compiled form.
Also, the requirement that you must include a full copy of the license if you distribute the source seems pretty standard and sensible. After all, if you didn't, how would the recipient know their rights and obligations?
Finally, the part about being allowed to distribute the object code under a compatible license also makes a lot of sense to me. I'd say, obviously, the license should be compatible with the present license. However, the license is allowed to be a different one, which is good if you're distributing the object code as part of a larger work.
In short, I don't see what you're complaining about.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This from the MIT license, one of the most permissive open source licenses:
Beware of large wooden horses (Score:3, Interesting)
The other possibility, if all the OSS folks assume the above and don't take the bait, is that Redmond cues the violins about how they made oh, so great an effort to meet the other side and act in "good faith" to promote interoperability, and use it as an excuse to continue going their own way.
First they ignore you (Score:5, Insightful)
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then they pretend to join you and stab you in the back at the first opportunity. Never trust Microsoft.
Gandhi (somewhat adapted)
Re: (Score:2)
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - Santayana
What you've said Microsoft has done over and over and over. Yet people are still willing enough, naive enough, stupid enough, to play along. When they get burned, they have no one to blame but themselves.
PR stunt at the most. (Score:5, Insightful)
I just don't care about their code (Score:2)
I do care about a level playing field when buying equipment. I do not wish to be forced to pay for a license for software that I will never use.
I do care about a level playing field when it comes to interfaces. Standards must be open and drivel like render this p
Windows isn't all shit, just mostly. (Score:2)
Windows is what happens when you take a promising kerne
OSI (Score:2)
the farmer and the snake (Score:3, Insightful)
the snake said 'please help me out, pick me up in your coat and i wont freeze to death'
the farmer said 'but you are a snake, you will kill me...'
the snake said 'no, i promise i wont. please help me'
so the farmer picks up the snake and puts him in his coat. after a while, the snake warms up.
his natural instincts take over. the snake bites him.
as the farmer lays dying, he says 'what on earth has happened. you rascal!'
the snake said 'you knew i was a snake when you picked me up!'
No. More. Licenses. (Score:5, Interesting)
Seriously, we're way past the point that new licenses are tolerable. It seems like every major project demands its own license, even if the result is 99% similar to other common ones. Is there really a need for the Apache, CDDL, Mozilla, and Artistic licenses and their countless derivatives?
If you want other developers to use your code, no strings attached, pick BSD or maybe MIT. If you're more interested in end users but want the developers to still have a few avenues to lock the code down, there's GPLv2. If you're really into end users and care about patents, etc., then pick GPLv3. Repeat after me: no new licenses!
Really, I think OSI needs to pretty much reject all new submissions unless they are substantially different from the pre-existing major choices. Fragmenting codebases by writing Foo License and Bar License that are almost identical but incompatible in some subtle way can only appeal to Microsoft and other proprietary vendors. Just say no!
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, because GPL2/3 are viral and actually prevents cooperation*, and BSD is obsolete (doesn't cover many important aspects of modern business).
* Why GPL prevents cooperation? Because the GPL requires that the whole software must be licensed under the GPL. Now imagine a large open source project consisting of portions written by hundreds of authors all licensed under BSD. Some of the authors are dead,
Microsoft doesn't want to be a "software company" (Score:3, Funny)
Can MS survive several decades? (Score:2)
MS is on a glide slope and has been for a while now. Sure they have a lot of cash and altitude and can glide for a while... but decades? I think not!
My God... (Score:2)
If I'm not mistaken you have to sign all sorts of agreements including the agreement that you won't try to compile the source. That's right, no way to verify that they really gave you the real thing.
How about actually, you know, interoperating? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think they'd voice their approval much quicker should Microsoft make a concerted effort to actually interoperate better with other products, open source or not. It's interoperation that is really the key... for example: back in the early '80s the yet-to-be-named open source community embraced UNIX not because it was open source - in fact at the time it wasn't - but because it was designed to be easy to interoperate with at every level.
It's not good enough to provide open source components that only actually work on top of your API, or to provide libraries that allow people to talk to your protocols through the cut-out of your system software, you need to open the black box and commit to supporting documented and non-proprietary wire protocols and file formats.
Otherwise what you've got is better described as an "open pit-trap".
You're missing the point (Score:3, Insightful)
They aren't "reaching out" at all. If they really wanted to reach out, they would open the APIs for Outlook, Exchange, SMB, and who knows what else. Until they open these products, they're merely hand-waving. It's that simple.
Re: (Score:2)
Good News! (Score:2)
Or have I missed a point here?
difference (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You guys worship IBM, right? Has IBM open sourced AIX? Notes? Smart Suite?
In fact, I'd dare say that Microsoft has released more code for more projects than has IBM.
They've rleased more code than has Sun.
They've released more code than has Google.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually in some of cases it is easier to see what the MS centric source does then all you need is to pick an