Microsoft Launches OSS Site, Submits License For Approval 261
prostoalex writes "Microsoft has launched a site dedicated to collaboration between Microsoft and open source community. The site helps developers, IT administrators, and IT buyers find out what Microsoft's product offerings are, and read articles about open source such as 'Open Source Provider Sees Sales Doubling After Moving Solutions to the Windows Platform.'" Relatedly, CNet has the news that the company has submitted its shared-sources license to the OSI for approval.
I think this should be submitted to Wikipedia.... (Score:4, Insightful)
I mean, really... (Score:5, Insightful)
Interesting site (Score:5, Insightful)
From the site (microsoft.com/opensource), they've linked to a PDF [microsoft.com] explaining how SharePoint (first link, 'share' and 'open') is the 'Road To Open' and the Sharepoint Learning Kit (SLK) has been released under Microsoft's own OSI-submitted open source license.
Could the idea be to confuse the average consumers (and buzz-word obsessed manager types) into thinking Microsoft when they hear 'Open Source'?
Either way, it's interesting to see them formally acknowledge their opponents - again!
Re:Talent Poaching. (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, at the end of the day, a large chunk of OSS developers also have regular day jobs coding proprietary software for money. The money in OSS is in support, not in the end product itself.
Secondly, OSS only works for products, and we all know how the product-service life-cycle goes. So, if Microsoft can't make money out of a product, they can make money out of a service.
And so, even MS can now say that they are doing that "Open Source thing" when a potential customer's (tech-ignorant) management asks them.
This is probably a first step to that end. News at 11.
Re:I mean, really... (Score:5, Insightful)
Expect the same tactics on different fronts. It's still Microsoft, and they are still run by the same inner circle of Gates and Ballmer cronies no matter what Hilf does from his little playpen.
Keep your friends close... (Score:2, Insightful)
Remind me why I give a shit? (Score:4, Insightful)
Windows is an pathetic excuse for a platform. It doesn't even properly implement the minimal syscalls required by the POSIX standard (open, close, read, write, fork, exec).
If they actually cared about getting more open source developers to port their applications to Windows, they'd harmonise their API with the other major operating systems (Linux, OS X, Solaris, *BSD). As it is, this just looks like (yet another) an attempt by Microsoft to paint over the gaping flaws in both their business model and their approach to software development.
Wake me up when that changes. Until then, I really couldn't give a shit about Microsoft's supposed "friendliness" to open source software or their non-free "open" license.
It's a trap. (Score:5, Insightful)
But I know Microsoft. It's a trap. Either short-term, or long-term. Somehow, this is designed to ultimately restrict our freedoms or slow down the replacement of non-free software with free software.
You may call be bigoted, or a troll. I see my view on this particular issue as just highly conditioned from decades of experience.
I see no harm in this at all... (unlike most) (Score:1, Insightful)
I happen to be a big fan of OSS on Windows (particularly Firefox, Apache/PHP/MySQL, Gimp, Cygwin, Perl, GCC, and a few others). Running those apps on Windows means you will continue funneling money to Microsoft by means of upgrades and support. It's actually rather frustrating to search for free apps for Windows only to discover most are trialware or castrateware. Sometimes you just want a really simple app and paying for it is not a desirable option for you.
I don't have any problem with anyone who opts to use or opts to write OSS for Windows. Windows may not provide value for you Linux or BSD elitists, but it does for those who want it.
OK. Now continue on your bitchfest, but know this. I'm not going to participate.
Re:RUN AWAY!! (Score:5, Insightful)
So, I'll take it as a given that no one reading this would ever consider contributing code to M$ "OSS" sites. So then the only other use for us would be to utilize their code in our products. I would recommend considering the following:
For me, it would be more trouble than it's worth to use M$ code in any of my projects.
Re:Remind me why I give a shit? (Score:3, Insightful)
Windows isn't Unix. NT did include a POSIX system but that bit-rotted from lack of use and was removed I believe.
Kind of like damming VMS or the AS400 for not supporting all the Win32 calls.
Re:I mean, really... (Score:3, Insightful)
Given the recent decision by the OSI to endorse badgeware [theregister.co.uk], the 'Open Source' community appear to be doing their work for them.
Re:Remind me why I give a shit? (Score:4, Insightful)
Windows is an pathetic excuse for a platform. It doesn't even properly implement the minimal syscalls required by the POSIX standard (open, close, read, write, fork, exec).
If they actually cared about getting more open source developers to port their applications to Windows, they'd harmonise their API with the other major operating systems (Linux, OS X, Solaris, *BSD). As it is, this just looks like (yet another) an attempt by Microsoft to paint over the gaping flaws in both their business model and their approach to software development.
Wake me up when that changes. Until then, I really couldn't give a shit about Microsoft's supposed "friendliness" to open source software or their non-free "open" license.
Their is OSS as a software development paradigm and their is Free software. Going Free is not going to help MS one bit, showing the world their code is.
Re:RUN AWAY!! (Score:2, Insightful)
Let me rephrase: Are we guaranteed that Microsoft won't claim that it has patented the code after we start using it?
Using GPLed code under an M$ would almost certainly be problematic. I was talking about the other way. It's a lot easier to make OSS code GPLed than GPLed code go to a different license (aka, impossible).
What does that mean? Most FLOSS software reinvents the wheel? True. But if you're looking to use someone else's code, why start at Microsoft?
It's possible to do so, but debugging something that's as buggy as I believe M$ code to be is probably a bigger undertaking than writing from scratch.
I think a better list of things to consider is whether you have freedom to (1) use, (2) share, and (3) change the software. If you can do all those then it's free software, no matter which company it came from. There's no reason to hold Microsoft-written code to a different standard to other code. If it's free it's free.
But there is reason to be more suspicious of M$ code for the reasons I mentioned. If I knew for a fact that ABC's OSS code had the flaws I refer to, I wouldn't use it either. I just don't trust Microsoft.
Guys, you're doing it wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
"Claims that Open Source Software would be legally troublesome or low quality are completely unfounded. Plenty of large organisations are deeply ivolved with open source development and recognise its potential. As an example, even Microsoft, a company traditionally commited to the closed source model and a long standing sceptic of many open source projects, has recently started to use it for its own codebase and has launched open source initiatives of its own: . Althou the project has had some problems, some of whic were related to the inability of the closed portion of the software to interoperate with the open bit, the work proceeds and recent developments has lead some analysts to predict the company may consider using the same model for other projects as well."
Lets see them try to argue with that one... If they claim the article is accurate they will be promoting OSS. If they claim the project has problems they are admitting that yet another of their projects is a complete failure. If they try to claim the proprietary bit is doing well but the open bit is doing bad, they will piss off anyone participating which could easily lead to a good chunk of bad press. Lets help them shoot themselves in the foot.
Re:PR, Confusion, Vista Launch, the usual. (Score:4, Insightful)
I really wouldn't mind a new computer.
Me neither, but we are not average users. The average user has been on the upgrade treadmill long enough to know they are working hard to stand still, but they don't see an escape yet. Many of them wish they never saw a computer and are ready to give up.
Re:PR, Confusion, Vista Launch, the usual. (Score:1, Insightful)
Hilarity ensues.
I'm a little fuzzy on this twitter. "M$" is making life hard on AV makers because Vista is much more secure out of the box, they are making life hard for Google because their search is much better [slashdot.org] out of the box [slashdot.org], and they are making life hard for Palm and Apple because Palm and Apple failed to test their software during the REALLY LENGTHY beta and RC process that Vista went through. Am I reading your outrage right, here?
And do share why they are making life difficult for Adobe and OpenOffice.
Why do you keep using the same bogus, lame tired arguments [slashdot.org]? That "feature" never even shipped with Windows 3.x. Funny how you never link to the Wikipedia entry [wikipedia.org] for DR-DOS, which explains the issue better than that fanboy link you use. You figure people who read Slashdot are stupid and won't bother to check your links?
You certainly have the pulse of the world's personal and corporate computer markets.
Well, given that in six months Vista has far out-matched every other non-Microsoft OS in terms of market share and Linux still has a lower share than Windows 98, I don't see how this is true at all. Wait, these must be the 40 million Vista licenses you said Microsoft "stuffed the channel" with! It seems there's a problem, because they seem to be connected to the internet at the moment =(
Re:RUN AWAY!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Really, they have Ballmer yelling extortion attempts at every Linux user and they have some maverick manager or programmer, that while in Asia, claiming that 2007 is the year of the death of OSS.
These people are not only distorted, they are crazy foolish.
Microsoft needs to just understand that OSS will sooner or later out develop them. They need to also understand that everyone is on guard like a farmer with a shotgun protecting their daughters from the Microsoft Bible salesmen.
Re:RUN AWAY!! (Score:2, Insightful)
So, don't go off claiming something that is absolutely untrue and that has never ever been proven in any court.
Re:RUN AWAY!! (Score:3, Insightful)
The chances are there is some code somewhere buried in a piece of OSS (I don't care if it's Linux or not, SourceForge alone has 153,954 OSS projects as I write this) which violates somebody's IP, somewhere in the world. Large companies like, say, Microsoft make mistakes in including IP they don't own and I'm damn sure that there is code under an open licence somewhere which does the same.
All you can state as a fact is that as far as you can recall there hasn't been a single OSS product taken to a US court which lost a case of IP infringement, meaning it wasn't proved that code infringing specific IP was in that product.
Don't go off claiming that OSS is pure and flawless, because it damn well isn't. The concept is great, don't get me wrong. I've seen fantastic pieces of software come out of open source, a fair amount of which I use daily. But don't claim that which you can't prove.
Re:Remind me why I give a shit? (Score:2, Insightful)
I also tire of the anti-MS slant on Slashdot. I'll be the first to admit that Windows has flaws, and I have from time to time been fairly vocal about some stupidities of its design. That said, I'm one of the seemingly rare CS people who actually likes Windows. (I'm sure a lot of this is familiarity and the fact that I know how to do stuff on Windows, but I'm no stranger to Linux either.) It gets tiresome for people to complain that MS is wrong for every single thing that they do. So the "that sounds like bait and switch" or whatever bugged me a bit.
The reply I made directly to you was the one you were supposed to read.
It is your destiny, Luke... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:RUN AWAY!! (Score:4, Insightful)
The fact is that if Microsoft could kill Linux with all these wonderful patents it would have already. Just because something violates a patent doesn't mean that the patent should even exist at all.
Re:RUN AWAY!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Given that MS is asking OSI to approve their license I'd guess that it's not like the olde open source libraries that used to be provided...where the library was distributed, perhaps, along with a compiler, but you weren't permitted to use it with any other compiler.
OTOH: This license was written by lawyers and proposed by MS. I'm not going to trust it until years have passed, and then only after a succession of lawyers have found it harmless. (IANAL, so I'm not going to trust my interpretation of something MS had a lawyer write for them, even though I'm allowed to read it, unlike their EULAs, where you must purchase the product to which they apply before you're allowed to read them. And then you've got to accept a new, possibly more restrictive, license with each bug fix.)
I accept that it is conceivable that MS seriously is trying to make a truce. Unfortunately, given their track record the only safe and sensible response is to, at minimum, turn a deaf ear. So I'm not going to even bother looking. It might be tempting, but being tempted and succumbing would likely be fatal (economically if not physically).
Re:RUN AWAY!! (Score:2, Insightful)
Sooner or later?
Look around a bit. It's already happened.
Hence the desperation, and all that.
No, I'm not kidding. I haven't used MS software in 8 years and I'm not missing out on anything other than viruses, security problems and headaches.
Sooner or later, indeed.... Sheesh.
Re:BS show me the code (Score:3, Insightful)
The other thing I can pretty much guarantee is that if Microsoft's licenses are rejected, they'll trumpet something along the lines of "OSI and FSF won't play nice with us because we're MS and they're commie bastards".