Will Microsoft Ban Commercial Open Source from Its App Store? (sfconservancy.org) 54
Microsoft has "delayed enforcement" of what could be a controversial policy change, according to the Software Freedom Conservancy:
A few weeks ago, Microsoft quietly updated its Microsoft [app] Store Policies, adding new policies (which go into effect next week), that include this text:
all pricing ... must ... [n]ot attempt to profit from open-source or other software that is otherwise generally available for free [meaning, in price, not freedom].
Wednesday, a number of Microsoft Store users discovered this and started asking questions. Quickly, those of us (including our own organization) that provide Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) via the Microsoft Store started asking our own questions too.... Since all (legitimate) FOSS is already available (at least in source code form) somewhere "for free" (as in "free beer"), this term (when enacted) will apply to all FOSS...
Sadly, these days, companies like Microsoft have set up these app stores as gatekeepers of the software industry. The primary way that commercial software distributors reach their customers (or non-profit software distributors reach their donors) is via app stores. Microsoft has closed its iron grasp on the distribution chain of software (again) — to squeeze FOSS from the marketplace. If successful, even app store users will come to believe that the only legitimate FOSS is non-commercial FOSS. This is first and foremost an affront to all efforts to make a living writing open source software. This is not a merely hypothetical consideration. Already many developers support their FOSS development (legitimately so, at least under the FOSS licenses themselves) through app store deployments that Microsoft recently forbid in their Store....
Microsoft counter-argues that this is about curating content for customers and/or limiting FOSS selling to the (mythical) "One True Developer". But, even a redrafted policy (that Giorgio Sardo [General Manager of Apps at Microsoft] hinted at publicly early Thursday) will mandate only toxic business models for FOSS (such as demo-ware, less-featureful versions available as FOSS, while the full-featured proprietary version is available for a charge).
The Conservancy argues that FOSS "was designed specifically to allow both the original developers and downstream redistributors to profit fairly from the act of convenient redistribution (such as on app stores)." But it also speculates about the sincerity of Microsoft's intentions. "We're cognizant that Microsoft probably planned all this, anyway — including the community outrage followed by their usual political theater of feigned magnanimity."
The Conservancy's post Thursday received an update Friday about Microsoft's coming policy update: After we and others pointed out this problem, a Microsoft employee claimed via Twitter that they would "delay enforcement" of their new anti-FOSS regulation [giving as their reason that "it could be perceived differently than intended."]
We do hope Microsoft will ultimately rectify the matter, and look forward to the change they intend to enact later. Twitter is a reasonable place to promote such a change once it's made, but an indication of non-enforcement by one executive on their personal account is a suboptimal approach. This is a precarious situation for FOSS projects who currently raise funds on the Microsoft Store; they deserve a definitive answer.
Given the tight timetable (just five days!) until the problematic policy actually does go into effect, we call on Microsoft to officially publish a corrected policy now that addresses this point and move the roll-out date at least two months into the future. (We suggest September 16, 2022.) This will allow FOSS projects to digest the new policy with a reasonable amount of time, and give Microsoft time to receive feedback from the impacted projects and FOSS experts.
all pricing ... must ... [n]ot attempt to profit from open-source or other software that is otherwise generally available for free [meaning, in price, not freedom].
Wednesday, a number of Microsoft Store users discovered this and started asking questions. Quickly, those of us (including our own organization) that provide Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) via the Microsoft Store started asking our own questions too.... Since all (legitimate) FOSS is already available (at least in source code form) somewhere "for free" (as in "free beer"), this term (when enacted) will apply to all FOSS...
Sadly, these days, companies like Microsoft have set up these app stores as gatekeepers of the software industry. The primary way that commercial software distributors reach their customers (or non-profit software distributors reach their donors) is via app stores. Microsoft has closed its iron grasp on the distribution chain of software (again) — to squeeze FOSS from the marketplace. If successful, even app store users will come to believe that the only legitimate FOSS is non-commercial FOSS. This is first and foremost an affront to all efforts to make a living writing open source software. This is not a merely hypothetical consideration. Already many developers support their FOSS development (legitimately so, at least under the FOSS licenses themselves) through app store deployments that Microsoft recently forbid in their Store....
Microsoft counter-argues that this is about curating content for customers and/or limiting FOSS selling to the (mythical) "One True Developer". But, even a redrafted policy (that Giorgio Sardo [General Manager of Apps at Microsoft] hinted at publicly early Thursday) will mandate only toxic business models for FOSS (such as demo-ware, less-featureful versions available as FOSS, while the full-featured proprietary version is available for a charge).
The Conservancy argues that FOSS "was designed specifically to allow both the original developers and downstream redistributors to profit fairly from the act of convenient redistribution (such as on app stores)." But it also speculates about the sincerity of Microsoft's intentions. "We're cognizant that Microsoft probably planned all this, anyway — including the community outrage followed by their usual political theater of feigned magnanimity."
The Conservancy's post Thursday received an update Friday about Microsoft's coming policy update: After we and others pointed out this problem, a Microsoft employee claimed via Twitter that they would "delay enforcement" of their new anti-FOSS regulation [giving as their reason that "it could be perceived differently than intended."]
We do hope Microsoft will ultimately rectify the matter, and look forward to the change they intend to enact later. Twitter is a reasonable place to promote such a change once it's made, but an indication of non-enforcement by one executive on their personal account is a suboptimal approach. This is a precarious situation for FOSS projects who currently raise funds on the Microsoft Store; they deserve a definitive answer.
Given the tight timetable (just five days!) until the problematic policy actually does go into effect, we call on Microsoft to officially publish a corrected policy now that addresses this point and move the roll-out date at least two months into the future. (We suggest September 16, 2022.) This will allow FOSS projects to digest the new policy with a reasonable amount of time, and give Microsoft time to receive feedback from the impacted projects and FOSS experts.
They do need to do something (Score:5, Insightful)
It's reasonable to have a policy that prevents sleazy repackagers from profiting from unchanged OSS software which can be had for free. If they don't do anything then they will just be harangued for permitting that. But this clearly wasn't the right thing to do either...
Re:They do need to do something (Score:4, Insightful)
It's reasonable to have a policy that prevents sleazy repackagers from profiting from unchanged OSS software which can be had for free. If they don't do anything then they will just be harangued for permitting that. But this clearly wasn't the right thing to do either...
On one side, yes. But there is serious problem: FOSS often has no real or reliable quality-gate. The only way to get one is to have a "proxy" in between that does that for you. All commercial Linux-distros do exactly that. (The non-commercial ones as well, but they are not in scope of this discussion.) Hence if somebody wants to package FOSS, make sure it is timely patched and maybe even applies some fixes proactively, that _is_ a valuable service and the people doing it should be able to get some compensation for this. In some context a sponsoring or donation model works (see, for example, GnuPG), but others will need some more direct compensation to be able to keep doing it.
I think what MS does here does is sabotaging this possibility. I have zero problem with requiring, say, a link to the sources and a clear description what the added value is, but prohibiting such a service being monetized seems stupid or potentially anti-competitive to me.
Re: (Score:2)
One reasonable way to handle it might be to treat project names like they would treat any trademark. No one should be using projects' names without permission. If there's any question, Microsoft can go to whatever the official contact system is for the project for clarification. This would seem to be a viable solution whether or not the software is FOSS.
Re: (Score:2)
One reasonable way to handle it might be to treat project names like they would treat any trademark. No one should be using projects' names without permission. If there's any question, Microsoft can go to whatever the official contact system is for the project for clarification. This would seem to be a viable solution whether or not the software is FOSS.
Yes, that too.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
gov't/corp/party/whatever
So when a private corporation does something involving their own product like in this case it's not the free market now?
That's the problem with your typical deregulator, their positions are often incoherent and contradictory.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, your immediate and desperate ad-hom attack is all the confirmation I need that I hit the mark.
Re: (Score:2)
I suggest to google what an "add-hom" is.
He did not make/do such a thing :P
Re: (Score:1)
Thanks for you input sock puppet Karen.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the problem with your typical Demonicrat. They're always thinking "the gov't/corp/party/whatever needs to DO something!"
Wank wank wank whine whine whine. Nobody came in here and said "something must be done", my point was that they realistically have to do something to manage this issue because that's part of running a viable store. Microsoft has a long and garbage history when it comes to FOSS, and if they are going to get people to use their store (which they clearly want to accomplish for reasons which I hope are obvious to all, nefarious and/or not) they are going to have to manage both the store, and expectations.
I for
Re: (Score:2)
It's Microsoft's store, they get to pick and choose what's in it.
If you're against centralized control, then support legislation requiring that people be able to load their own software on their general purpose computers. I'll be right there with you. Also that it should not be any more onerous than using the official store.
For example, Google has made it so that a user can install any app store they want on Android 12, and register it such that it's able to perform updates silently in the background just l
Re: (Score:2)
Nor, indeed, must the user do anything special on Windows in order to install software from arbitrary sources. Even if the user has a restricted version of Windows commonly delivered with a low-end laptop, the process for "converting" the install to one which will run software from anywhere is trivially located and performed. There are numerous Windows "package managers", and you can install as many of them simultaneously as you want. The presence of a Microsoft store is itself not a threat.
I can't imagine the kind of naivete that goes into having to explain that there's *already* a Windows version where you're not allowed to install non-store apps and not see the expansion of that coming. The store is too lucrative, and Microsoft too greedy and control-obsessed. They're just waiting for the right time to expand the percentage of computers that receive the store-locked versions... installing any app will eventually become a 'Pro' feature, then an 'Enterprise' feature you can't even buy unless
Re: (Score:2)
All that is needed is a system to grant exceptions to the official maintainers of a project.
Don't charge for publishing apps (Score:3)
It's reasonable to have a policy that prevents sleazy repackagers
Repackagers yes, but this policy covers original developers as well. It would be a reasonable policy were it not for the fact that Microsoft charges a fee for publishing in the Microsoft Store.
Which means they are literally asking OSS developers to take on a non-recoverable expense.
Re: (Score:2)
You are using the word "repackager" differently to everyone else in this conversation. We cannot communicate with each other until you try and understand what we're talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
Correct. I believe this is targeted at the repackaging arbitrage, and not the actual software itself.
The bigger problem is "who" in FOSS gets to put things on the store for free, at Microsoft's expense.
Re: (Score:2)
Not everyone is proficient to hunt a particular software, download it, or its sources and build and install it.
An AppStore is a convenient way to even find the software which might be useful for one, in the first place.
A noob user does not know that GiMP (I hope it RIPs soon) exists. But if it is suggested in an AppStore as: you might like that image manipulating program, you in fact might like it. Even if it surprisingly costs $10.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm ignorant of this issue in the Microsoft store, but I've seen hundreds of OSS apps forked, ad-ified, and listed in the google play store. E.g. 2048 for at least 100 examples of this.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
They’ve always been conspiracy nuts. It’s called Main Character Syndrome.
nice (Score:1)
Assuming repeat abuser will commit abuse is overrated
Mod this one down too, fascist bootlickers. I can afford the karma more than you can afford the modpoints.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm surprised that got modded down to be honest. Everything you typed is known to be true and is old news. It doesn't change the fact that's it's horrible but it's something that should be well known at this point in time.
They must like authoritarianism, one party rule and central planning and want to still pretend it does not happen or they want to mislead people so they forget about reality.
Re: (Score:3)
Itâ(TM)s called Main Character Syndrome.
It's called, "Learning From The Past." Do not trust Microsoft. Ever. They are not your friend, and they never have been.
Oh, it's a Mickeysoft shill (Score:1)
I was wondering who was modding me down in a bullshit fashion and why, I still don't know who but the common thread is criticizing Microsoft.
Those of us familiar with their history know well why it is warranted. Enough said.
Re: (Score:3)
But why is it that the open source community comes across as so paranoid and conspiratorial? It's not just a mistake by Microsoft, it's a sneaky villainous plan to subtly sabotage open source!
In the first place, you're coming across like a Microsoft shill - you might want to stop that. In the second place, “Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you.” After all, the motto "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" [wikipedia.org] was literally created by Microsoft.
Open Source software has been stolen, commercialized without payment or attribution, and used to deliver malware so many times that its amazing so many people still write it and contribute to it. If I was among them I'd be looking
Re: (Score:2)
When I heard about this policy it sounded great and made sense.
What makes sense about this? Microsoft charge fees for publishing in the Microsoft Store. That means they are literally forcing OSS developers to take on a non-recoverable loss.
You say paranoia and conspiracy. But 99% of the posts here (and in the previous article about this change) simply addressed the fact that it made no f-ing sense.
Totally agree (Score:1)
Obviously the intent here is to prevent garbage apps that are just quick repacks of free software, not companies that dot quality job packing open source software for Windows.
meh (Score:2)
Show me this was their intended use. This post seems more like FUD against MS than anything else.
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft engaged in a massive and deliberate FUD campaign against FOSS [wikipedia.org], under the slogan "Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish [wikipedia.org]".
Those of us who remember computing history remain leery of Microsoft, which was never held accountable for its anticompetitive practices by the USDoJ.
Re: (Score:1)
Honestly, as someone who has used Linux /professionally/ since 1994 at a local ISP when it replaced our Netware systems, this is understandable but not wholly a logical point of view.
MS has lost the platform wars. Desktops are on the decline. Right and left they keep shooting themselves in the foot for user experience.
The one real thing they *can* do is help themselves by making sure they have a solid footing with their store. Until now it's been a joke. Most Windows will still just download and install sof
Re: (Score:2)
Instead of being presumtuous, just wait and see what happens?
In fact, just waiting is not logical. You need to plan ahead.
That's my point. It's "FUD" because it's the same game MS played themselves.
For Microsoft, whether or not to use FUD is just a business consideration. For the rest of us, whether or not we experience any of the elements thereof is due to our experiences and reason. I am not engaging in a FUD campaign against Microsoft. I am remembering my experiences, and behaving in a cautionary fashion.
It doesn't mean it didn't happen, it just means where's the founding in the information *first* before we presume. Let's see how such a clause is used.
If the clause is poorly written, and it is, then it is likely to be misused even if attempts to use it are in good faith. Part of the co
Re: (Score:2)
Instead of being presumtuous, just wait and see what happens?
When a serial murderer/rapist company (yes they are, metaphorically speaking) shows itself to be incorrigible, you stop giving it the benefit of the doubt. There's only so much abuse a company can dish out before you must accept that it is incapable of changing, and you stop turning your back in its direction.
Those of us who lived through the Microsoft of the 1990's and 2010's learned this very thing, and we will never forgive or forget. Microsoft wholly adopted the, "embrace them with the left hand while s
My thoughts... (Score:1)
I would, however, fully expect/anticipate them to put lots of legalese ala "eight-by-ten color glossy pictures with ci
Re: (Score:3)
Now that Microsoft is in the Open Source realm, I think they should remember what their purpose is (aside from making money): to solve problems and make tools so other people can solve problems.
That stuff is just a means to an end, so Microsoft only has to do enough of it to convince people to continue using their software. If they apply pressure by other means to make up for any shortfall in value, function, competence etc. then their software can remain viable even while it is technically inferior, or indeed, often inadequate. I've often made a living by patching the holes in Windows networks with other operating systems. These days they have simply incorporated Linux into their product in order
Cash grab by M/S (Score:2, Informative)
This is a cash grab by Microsoft. They do not want anyone to profit and I suspect this will get into legal issues like what is happening to Apple.
For the people who do not understand GNU, read thus:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html
A quote:
Actually, we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can.
Re: (Score:1)
TBH the Microsoft Store is rife with repackaged software. For years that was about the only thing you could get. 9 parts scam and 1 part possibly useful.
IMO it's best to see how this is used, not to suppose this is what they mean. It seems MS has hitched it's cart to FOSS software to some degree. At least enough to drive Windows usage. That could be good or bad for both.
There's not at this point preventing 3rd party installation on a Windows system though. Unlike Macs, there are dozen methods of sane softwa
confused (Score:1)
Meet the new Microsoft, (Score:2)
same as the old Microsoft. Is it Halloween yet?
Not a Windows user but... (Score:2)
Can you install more then one App store on your Windows computer? If so, people that want open source software could just get it from the "FOSS" app store. Sounds like a great idea to me.
This kind of behavior is just one of the reasons you should do your best to not being stuck on Microsoft products. They are not nice people and they have not reformed from the early days. Extend Embrace Extinguish
Re: (Score:2)
You say that now but just wait until MS only allows software from their store to be installed.
Whom does this really affect? (Score:2)
It's a long time - probably Windows 8 times - since I looked at the MS app store. At the time, it was a wasteland of spam apps from unknown publishers - basically, think of all the copycat apps that are on the Google Play store, and now think of an app store that _only_ has the copycats and not the originals. So when I read this headline I went and checked again ... and I don't see that much has changed. There are a few more first-party apps, but mostly it's still just tumbleweeds of dubious looking apps I'
Probably just awkwardly worded, not malicious (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is exactly what I heard as well. The problem here is that we all here (and Microsoft) "know it when I see it". Microsoft doesn't want somebody copying VLC, renaming it, and selling it on their store to make a quick buck. The language they used is overly broad and could stop something like Streamlabs OBS or VLC with proprietary paid codecs added or something.
Incentives (Score:1)
If Windows no longer allows monetization of these efforts, it will make less free software generally available on Windows.
That will drive away more users to freer OSes.