Microsoft Makes Second GPLv2 Release 218
angry tapir writes "Microsoft has made its second release under the General Public License in two days with software for Moodle, an 'open-source course management system that teachers use to create online learning Web sites for their classes[, which] has about 30 million users in 207 countries.' It comes on the heels of Redmond contributing drivers to the Linux community. No reports as yet on dropping temperatures in hell."
Bravo (Score:2, Insightful)
Not contribution; use (Score:5, Insightful)
This is an moodle plugin for microsoft's own groupware. Like their previous driver offering, it's not a wholehearted contribution to making an open source project better, but instead just a thing to make microsoft's own services work better when people need to use open source.
It's good to see a willingness to do even this much, but hardly a staggering change of heart. They've a long way to go yet.
Let's thank Microsoft (Score:1, Insightful)
and give them something back. What about a binary driver for their FAT filesystem?
Re:Not contribution; use (Score:2, Insightful)
For a company so anti-open source, this is a staggering change of heart.
Re:Not contribution; use (Score:2, Insightful)
We were thinking of using Moodle (Score:5, Insightful)
AS far as I'm aware, the only thing they have for Moodle is a Windows Live Plugin, that lets you do Windows Live Searches and have some sort of MSN Messnger functionality.
This isn't Microsoft caring about GPL or whatever, it's about a small project that gives them more hooks into more websites. It gives people learning to use the web in a formal environment MORE Microsoft.
Re:v2? why not v3? (Score:2, Insightful)
Moodle is GPLv2, so the plugin must be GPLv2 also or it won't be compatible with the existing software.
Comment removed (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Not contribution; use (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the change some of us wanted and I believe it to be a very good one! Why would anyone have the right to force Microsoft to contribute to open-source? What we really needed was compatibility. Nobody cares about the way Microsoft manages its code and nobody should have the right to bother them about it.
Re:Not contribution; use (Score:2, Insightful)
Unlike Red Hat, Sun, Novel, IBM, etc which are just contributing to Linux and other open source through pure altruism!
Re:Not contribution; use (Score:2, Insightful)
So let me get this right, if you're not contributing in GPLv3 you're self serving and anti-FOSS?
Re:v2? why not v3? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmm, this is interesting. The more cynical part of me wonders why, and can't help but recall the protections against patent litigation built into GPLv3, and notably missing from GPLv2...
What's interesting about it? The Linux kernel is GPLv2 so a GPLv3 driver is unlikely to make it in. Moodle is also GPLv2 so it's perfectly logical that they'd release their plugin that works with it under the same license. Did you forget that whole big thing about GPLv3 being incompatible with GPLv2? In fact, it would be stupid on their part to release source code to work with programs under incompatible license terms which would disallow anyone from legitimately being able to distribute it.
Re:But... (Score:3, Insightful)
And, if they are changing, it takes a long time to reverse a reputation as bad as the one they have.
MS have a long and distinguished history of fucking people over. It will take a long time of them specifically not fucking people over for people to stop expecting anything MS announce to have ulterior motives. In much the same way as those people suspicious of MS cannot expect a turnaround in the attitude of the company overnight, you cannot realistically expect an overnight turnaround in the way Microsoft is perceived. I'm no MS hater. I know they've done a pretty big bunch of good things, and, as a Linux user I'm relishing (and, admittedly slightly worried by) the substantial increase in quality from them recently. IE and Office are two bits of MS software that have come on leaps and bounds in the past few years. But I still viewed everything they release with some suspicion because for so many years that has been the most appropriate thing to do. And for several years into the future, the MS I know is going to be the one that one should be suspicious of. Maybe they are changing, but they'll have to change dramatically and far to realistically win people over into thinking they're working for the good of anyone but themselves.
Re:Not contribution; use (Score:3, Insightful)
Like their previous driver offering, it's not a wholehearted contribution to making an open source project better, but instead just a thing to make microsoft's own services work better when people need to use open source.
But when IBM contributes code to Linux and other open source projects it's not because they just want their services to work better with open source and thus make more money for themselves?
Re:Not contribution; use (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:uh, the driver release is an ANTI-Linux move (Score:3, Insightful)
of course, the host operating system has to stay current, and with Micro$oft already pressuring vendors to stop making XP drivers, its the host operating system that becomes important.
Read toby's comment and follow the link:
Not everyone was fooled. Apenwarr [alumnit.ca]wrote about it, for one.
This is still Microsoft, folks. It's always a trap.
--------------
Yeah, so don't buy anything off the the icecream truck that Microsoft is driving past us. Every treat has a razor blade and every snack is poisoned.
Woe, I sound really bitter, and I consider myself fairly apathetic where Windows is concerned.
Re:Not contribution; use (Score:3, Insightful)
They're reaching out to the open-source world by Embracing open standards, they'll Extend the abilities of certain products and services but in a way that those benefits can only be reaped by people using their hardware/software to use them, and then they'll Extinguish their competitors because Microsoft is in control of the extensions to those services that people depend upon.
How does one "control" the extensions if they are also required to be licensed under the GPL as well? Aren't FOSS people always talking about how no one can have control over GPLed code since anyone and everyone can always grab the source and fork it?
Maybe Part of A Larger Strategy ("The Cloud") (Score:3, Insightful)
I think this is part of a larger strategy to point people to thier Azure "Cloud" platform.
Microsoft will probably "open source" more of thier software if it serves the purpose of exposing Microsoft to more people.
If you expect them to one day open source any of thier major technologies (e.g. DirectX, Windows or SQL Server) you will be waiting a loooonnnng time before this will happen.
They will probably open source enough of the "connectivity" type of software to provide a "path of least resistance" to interoperate *into* the Azure platform.
Of course the Azure platform is *not* open source which means you will be *locked-into* thier technology. So sure, you may have open source client code at your disposal but it eventually will lead into a locked platform.
As a company they want to grow beyond "PC on every desk, Windows on every PC, on every phone, console, toaster, gerbil" - that's too limiting now, they want to be the central hub of the Internet and fully exploit "the cloud".
As a bonus everyone moves to a rental model (like the mainframes of years ago) - you don't own anything, you are bound by *thier* "terms and conditions" and you perpetually keep paying for stuff.
This is a corporation's wet dream.
In this case "It's a Trap" may be justified.
Or I am just paranoid and drink waaaayyy too much coffee.
Re:Not contribution; use (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft is a victim of their reputation, a reputation honestly earned by their past actions. When everyone who ever gets in bed with you turns up dead or with a story of barely escaping alive the next day, sometimes it's appropriate for others to label you a black widow and liken you to a praying mantis.
No one claims that anyone in the group you listed are contributing to open source purely because they are altruistic and without any self interest. But that's the point, everyone on your list 'plays nice' with open source because they have an interest in seeing it succeed. Microsoft, however, has never acted as if open source was anything but a despicable wretch deserving a slow painful death. Their own self interest, therefore, leads people to suspect that perhaps the apples they are offering are poisoned.
It's also important to note that in both of the cases where they've done this, the contribution wasn't a general "here's some improvements" code, it was "here is some code which would allow you to work better with our proprietary services, so more people would be willing to use those." Anyone who thinks that Microsoft would continue to maintain such interoperability code should it prove a disadvantage to MS should avoid real estate brokers with deals concerning bridges.
Re:Not contribution; use (Score:3, Insightful)
First, they introduce nice features that are confusing enough to use but simple enough that nobody feels like taking the time to improve upon them.
Have you even looked at their code to make such a statement? Doubtful.
Then, they release proprietary, closed-source "extensions" for their own tools to access the services and utilise those features with incredibly useful, simplified methodologies. Their tools then become the tools du jour and they make like bandits.
Which then begs the question of why even release anything under the GPL? They could have just gone straight to what you claim their ultimate goal is without having to release anything open source code. You're really grasping at straws here.
Re:Not contribution; use (Score:4, Insightful)
This is not about a willingness to do anything. Microsoft's goal, like that of all corporations is to make profit for its shareholders. It's not about good or bad intentions, so please stop trying to interpret it in that context. The general public should be pretty pissed if corporations like Microsoft decided to have a "change of heart" and focused on making things open instead of making money, because each member of the general public could very well be partial owners of those corporations.
The thing we actually should want to see is a situation where it makes more sense for Microsoft to promote open source. An example of such a situation is if the rate and state of development for Linux demonstrate how well open source models can work. It would be unreasonable and unrealistic to expect to see Microsoft promote open source out of a sense of nobility.
Re:So that's their plan.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not contribution; use (Score:3, Insightful)
Too bad open source has nothing to do with any of that.
Re:So that's their plan.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft would be glad to spend a hundred million dollars to make GPL'ed software a "NO-NO" in big business.
But the only GPL'ed software that would become a "NO NO" in this case would be their own. Moodle wouldn't be effected in the least bit by Microsoft disallowing anyone to use their Live plugin.
If they can give away their source for free... not sue any of their users... but sue anyone who uses their open sourced software for patent violations (and actually win the case) then that will make anyone in the business world pretty much immediately remove any and all GPL software from their systems.
I'm pretty sure that such a tactic wouldn't hold up in any court. Secondly, if what you claim was true any and all GPLed software would have already been removed from the business world after the successful TomTom suit over the FAT support in the Linux kernel, but amazingly it hasn't been.
Re:So that's their plan.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sue for what? They can't sue you for anything if they themselves release it under a license that says you can freely use, modify and distribute the source code. This imagined case would be thrown out of court.
Cheers to Microsoft... (Score:2, Insightful)
for doing it right and not using GPLv3 just because it's newer! It is useless to have open source software available for your use if its license is fundamentally incompatible with your business. Of course, it would be even nicer if they released software under an even freer license i.e. BSD or similar, but I think the only thing preventing that is those licenses not having the buzzwordiness of GPL.
Re:Bravo (Score:5, Insightful)
Moodle is a preexisting OSS project, this is just a plugin for making Windows Live web services work with it. This does suggest that MS doesn't think that they can kill moodle; but it isn't their offering.
Actually, it might lead to courses that use Moodle (my university does) to require Windows Live Messenger for each student. That means that Linux users, who otherwise could use the Moodle coursework, will now not be able to interoperate fully with the rest of their coursemates. This seems to me to be adding an option for a _dependency_ on Windows to Moodle. I am afraid that many courses will exercise that option.
Re:Bravo (Score:3, Insightful)
The bits of WLM you would need can be used for Linux, can't they? Kopete and what's-it's-name-now Gaim lets you use that service just fine.
Re:Not contribution; use (Score:3, Insightful)
But now they are admitting, in a business sense, that the open source market exists
I'm with you so far
and is worth working with
Ahhh... I'm gonna have to disagree with you there, sport. Microsoft sees open source as existing, and wants to co-opt it, just like the co-opted the browser market, they're trying to do it with the search market, the office software market, they tried to do with Java... they're only playing nicely with open source in order to lock it into their proprietary identification servers. Trying to leverage their LiveID inertia to gain access to another market, and hopefully end up with de facto control, if not actual control. I don't trust Microsoft, they have never given me a reason to do so... why should I give them a chance now?