Microsoft Changes Policy Against the Sale of Open Source Software in the Microsoft Store (betanews.com) 34
Having previously upset software developers by implementing a ban on the sale of open source software in its app store, Microsoft has reversed its decision. From a report: The company says that it has listened to feedback -- which was vocal and negative -- and has updated the Microsoft Stores Policies, removing references to open source pricing. Microsoft has also clarified just why it put the ban in place. The policy changes that effectively banned the sale of open source came into force last month, but Microsoft has already been forced to backtrack in the face of mounting criticism. In a series of tweets announcing the latest policy changes that remove this ban, Microsoft's Giorgio Sardo says that the previous policy was intended to "help protect customers from misleading product listings."
Transparency! (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't ban anything, just require transparent listings...
If the software is open source, require that this be stated up front and a link to the original repository be provided.
This would stop the people who gouge by selling a lightly rebranded compile of open source code for a high price, but it would still allow those who are providing reasonable value-add (eg easy installation, support etc) to open code.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't ban anything, just require transparent listings...
It's not sufficient.. does nothing to stop those who would use the OSS project name to try and shovel AdWare.
What they should be doing is be prohibiting the use of an Open Source or Free Software project's published names such as "The Gimp" in the Name of any App without Proof that the developer is authorized by the respective project. And any use of project name in Description/etc must be for nominative or comparison purposes only and
Re: (Score:3)
It's probably simpler to have an official verification process and not even try to actively fight the tides of crapware, only take examples down by complaint (and ban accounts of repeat/vicious offenders.) As long as you can search for only verified apps this does what's needed. But I agree that to whatever degree it's enforced, misuse of trademarks should be prohibited.
Re: (Score:3)
does nothing to stop those who would use the OSS project name to try and shovel AdWare.
That's a trademark issue and probably wouldn't have been affected by this policy.
What's really a problem is having a recompiled VLC Media Player sold as ABC Video player in the app store by a third party. It's misleading to try to convince people they need to pay $10.99 for a video player with no way to know it's merely VLC with no code changes. And no link to the free VLC player in the same app store.
Re: (Score:2)
VLC isn't even legal to sell, as it comes with codecs that require patent licenses to legally use. Would need to pay off all the patent holders before you could legally sell it.
Re: (Score:2)
VLC is an example in this case, so that's not really germane. At any rate, the bad faith actors really only need to sell the software once, typically to users who wouldn't be able to tell that it isn't "complete" or doesn't include any encumbered codecs. Nor do these types of grey market publishers typically offer an avenue for a refund or at least put up enough friction not to make it worth while at a "low" price point. So even in light of your observation, I don't think it really gets in the way of an eff
Re: (Score:3)
VLC, official/published by VideoLAN, is in the Microsoft store and has been for quite some time.
I have no idea how they got around the codec funny business, but I <3 them for doing it.
Re: (Score:1)
VLC is licensed under GPL, so it's entirely legal for a 3-rd party to sell a packaged binary and illegal to not provide the source code. ABC should be banned, but for license violation, not for asking money.
Re: (Score:2)
It wasn't a question of legality. From the app store point of view, it's a poor user experience to even allow it. And the source could be modified to include spyware or data mining. Releasing those changes free under the GPL wouldn't really help.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you know the original project doesn't contain spyware or data mining? And you can sell FLOSS apps as long as you follow the license and in case of GPL offer service to send the source on CD or something similar.
Re: (Score:2)
Though it is totally in the spirit of opensource to fork projects and sell them for profits and it shoudn't be banned. As long as the license is followed as written.
Re: (Score:3)
But that's all copyright (or copyleft), your example of the use of "The Gimp" is more of a trademark issue, a
Re: (Score:2)
"It's free as in speech, not as in beer. "
30 years and it's still the worst possible simile.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it shouldn't be allowed to be listed as Gimp, but you should be allowed to recompile and bundle it under different name/brand/logo and include all adware that the Microsoft Store allows for any app.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not sufficient.. does nothing to stop those who would use the OSS project name to try and shovel AdWare.
Neither does the other ban. In any case the removal process is manual and relies on MS policing the app store. Honestly they could just put generic wording in about misrepresenting, and then do their job.
Re: (Score:3)
Well using the name is a trademark issue, and if the name is already known then people are more likely to be aware of the existence of the original project and aware that it's available for free. If people aren't aware of the original project, then using its name achieves nothing but trademark infringement headaches.
What i've seen online is lots of shovelware like "FreeOffice 2022" which is just a recompiled LibreOffice with the name/logos changed etc. It does what it claims to, is compliant with the licens
Could just ban crapware (Score:2)
Altering the name ALSO doesn't solve the problem of crapware
It's just crapware with a new name at that point.
Banning same/similar software with a new name doesn't solve anything either - it just bans LibreOffice, MariaDB, Ice weasel, etc.
If you're going to ban stuff in an attempt to get rid of crapware, one could ban - crapware. Just ban crap that deceptively puts hair on your home screen and the other crappy behaviors.
Re: (Score:2)
And in particular, any affiliation with an official project, and more importantly if they are _not_ affiliated with the project.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Also require a clear statement what value is added. For example a developer may assure timely updates and security patches or offer custom changes for money.
But as usual, whatever MS does is badly thought out, badly implemented and fails to actually find out what developers, customers and users actually want and need before making the change. MS apparently has to drive against a wall again and again and then learns nothing from it.
Re: (Score:2)
If the software is open source, require that this be stated up front and a link to the original repository be provided.
Not gonna happen. Microsoft will never admit half their offering is open source.
There is a problem that needs solving. (Score:2)
Rebuilds with crapware and adware, possibly also for money, are bad for the OSS community. Perhaps a way of clearing legitimate projects is what is needed. But a**holes are always going to try to abuse OSS and the store no matter what you do.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As long as the rebuilds change their name to not be confused with the original project, there is absolutely nothing wrong with rebuilds/forks. GIMP could be forked with a different name ("Fully Abled", for example) and logos, and then resold with absolutely no ethics conflicts whatsoever regarding GIMP (assuming GPL compliance). That's the nature of FOSS.
The only thing Microsoft needs to address on the store is counterfeit software, such as GIMP rebuilds calling themselves GIMP, and, optionally, quality of
Re: (Score:2)
There's nothing wrong with someone providing a build of Gimp and charging for it, if that's what they're doing.
If they are bundling it with adware or malware then that's obviously detrimental and should attract negative reviews. Declaring up front if there is anything bundled with the software that's used as a source of further revenue should also be required, as should any expiry date (eg if the software depends on an online service to operate).
However what if they bundle it with something that actually ha
Re: (Score:2)
There could be trademark issues, so it probably should be called something like Bert64's build of Gimp.
Re: (Score:1)
For GPL compliance, the rebuild has to provide access to the crapware source code too.
What exactly is the problem? (Score:2)
Just because something is OSS doesn't mean that copyright laws and trademarks don't apply. Quite the opposite, that's exactly what keeps (most...) large companies from just cribbing and slapping their logo onto it, and if they do, they get sued [theguardian.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but all they have to do to comply with the copyright is provide the source on request, if that, and not remove any copyright notices of course. Cisco wasn't doing that (allegedly) but that's not the objection here. These days it's easy to provide sources because it's easy to find someone to host your files.
Re: (Score:2)
How is this an issue? It's not as if it's a lost sale. After all, people wouldn't have paid for it in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter, copyright infringement for personal gain is a crime, though it is only felonious if the value of the works distributed exceeds $2,500. I don't know if anyone has ever successfully argued that collecting that much or more in sales make the violation a felony or not, though.
Re: (Score:2)
I think if you manage to somehow rip off more than 2.5 grand from people, it would sufficiently show that the value of the works distributed exceeds it.
"help protect from misleading product listings" (Score:2)
Now I'm even more convinced that the reason for the change was someone compiled a lightly rebranded Visual Studio Code and submitted it to the store as their own thing but for money. Microsoft not making money on their own open source software probably led to the change. Then when people complained that it was too broad they backpedaled to re-review what they were aiming for. I'm sure we'll see a less onerous, more laser-focused version show up in the future.
Azure Marketplace has similar issues anyway (Score:2)
Oh here is a VHD with X part of Windows or some OSS software pre-installed, only $0.05/m extra. 90% of the Azure marketplace are garbage like this.