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.
RUN AWAY!! (Score:5, Funny)
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:RUN AWAY!! (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You are not guaranteed that with any other free software program. In fact, it's almost guaranteed that it does infringe software patents (both those existing now, and those that will be granted in the future).
Let me rephrase: Are we guaranteed that Microsoft won't claim that it has patented the code after we start using it?
The GPL doesn't allow easy mixing with code under any other licence, so this seems a little unfair - but yes, practically speaking it may be a problem. Mixing with MIT-style or new-style BSD code is usually unproblematic since you can just relicense that code to match the fussier licence.
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).
Almost all free software projects fail this test.
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?
The whole point is that you can read the code for yourself, so you don't have to trust anyone.
It's possible to do so, but debugging so
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing they do, ever, will lead me to believe they are moving away from the destroy competition game.
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: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (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 c
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: (Score:2)
>You are not guaranteed that with any other free software program.
But a submarine patent is not in the interest of a free software developer (severe loss of face) while M$ would benefit greatly from embracing and extinguishing FOSS.
Besides WTF are you accepting so passively? If a patent ends up implemented in OSS one should prove the implementation has been stolen or the patent should have expired/not h
A Microsoft OSS Site? I've said it before... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Seen it before (Score:2, Funny)
The real reason (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The real reason (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I think this should be submitted to Wikipedia.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Talent Poaching. (Score:3, Informative)
Any other ulterior motives?
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: (Score:2)
This is true even of closed source software. MS may make some money selling copies of Windows, Office, and a bunch of other applications. But they also make a lot of money on support contracts, training courses, certifications, and all the other stuff that goes inline with selling the software. There is a lot of money to be made helping people use software, because most of the people using it have no idea how it works.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Hey, we're contributing this code to the open source community."
"Oh, cool, this is pretty useful, nice interface. "my mom likes it!" "Hm
*wait, wait, wait* *most OSS projects now include the code from the MS contribution* "OMG!!!! That was actually copyrighted proprietary code!"
*wins enormous judgment against anyone using it*
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
This is the service you're looking for. http://www.openaccess.org/index.php?section=86 [openaccess.org]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Nah, I'm sure Microsoft uses their own source management tool...
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I really wouldn't mind a new computer.
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.
Buckling under pressure? (Score:2)
Re:Buckling under pressure? (Score:5, Informative)
FOSS != OSS
See the Wikipedia article on Alternative terms for free software [wikipedia.org] and RMS's Why "Free Software" is better than "Open Source" [gnu.org].
Hardly! (Score:2)
1. Say they are operating within the aforementioned framework
2. Work outside that framework
3. Sabotage that framework
4. Tell everyone it doesn't work ("See opensource failed!" / "Welfare creates a welfare state!")
5. ????
6. Profit!
Politicians have been doing this for years. "Sure, we'll go with my opponents plan"; wreck that plan; say it didn't work.
I mean, really... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (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.
Vista has already failed, claims Acer CEO. (Score:2)
I guess when your primary business model is going down in flames, you need to co-opt someone else's.
It would be great if M$ would GPL their work and become a normal software company instead of the freaky, paranoid monster it is. Fat chance. This site is pure PR to sell yet another SDK for non free crap [slashdot.org].
M$ needs to do something, because Vista is a marketplace flop and the vendor revolt is on [slashdot.org]. Without vendor support, what do they have? Nothing [bayimg.com].
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Where is the value here for the customer? This is an improvement,how? Great, customers get a developmen
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
and omits how useless it is without having already purchased a decidedly non-open and very expensive SharePoint product.
Ok, this is my second 'non-anti-MS' comment today, and my karma will almost certainly suffer for it, but here goes anyway.
The PDF linked to talks about Windows Sharepoint Services 3.0, which is actually zero cost and downloadable from http://www.microsoft.com/downloads [microsoft.com] - you seem to be making the assumption that its talking about Microsoft Office Sharepoint Server 2007. Its not.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But what good does "Windows Sharepoint Services 3.0" do you when you need proprietary software (namely, Sharepoint itself) to actually do anything with it?
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.
Re: (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: (Score:3, Informative)
The POSIX subsystem is no longer included in Windows distributions, but you can still get it as a free download as part of Services for UNIX (SFU) [microsoft.com]. (You'll also see mention of it as the Interix Subsystem and the Subsystem for UNIX-Based Applications (SUA).)
It is continually being maintained, and MS actually seems to have put an increased (albeit still small) push of it fairly recently. There is a fair suite of progr
Not bait and switch (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft Launches OSS Site, Submits License for Approval
Your comments:
Blah blah about Windows not supporting fork. "If they actually cared", "wake me up when", "until then, I couldn't give a shit", "gaping flaws in software development" and more cliches about how terrible MS is in principle, so anything they do sucks.
So I'm sitting here wondering. WTF has your post to do with the article at hand. Do you just copy and paste this on all Microsoft related news? Definitely wouldn't be noticeable, it's
Run! (Score:2)
For some reason looking at their OSS site (Score:5, Interesting)
Does this mean we actually crossed over the line as legitimate to them, or is this bait for something else?
Re: (Score:2)
I think it may have been the same feeling you get when watching Salem's Lot when the Glick kid is floating outside Mark Petrie's bedroom window, scratching at the glass and asking to be let in. Ironically, I suspect that Microsoft has based this business strategy on the plot of Salem's Lot i.e. moving into a new town and picking the reside
Explanation please (Score:3, Interesting)
3(B) If you bring a patent claim against any contributor over patents that you claim are infringed by the software, your patent license from such contributor to the software ends automatically.
I don't understand this - can someone explain? If you bring a patent claim against a contributor then how does that contributor have a "patent license" that then ends?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You patent something else. "A" does something that you think violates that patent. You sue "A".
Congratulations! Your license to use "A"'s patent has been yanked.
Re:Explanation please (Score:5, Informative)
It's a reciprocity clause. Suppose A holds some patents, and they've contributed them to software S and licensed them for use there. Now, B comes along and sues everybody using software S (including A) claiming that it infringes some other patents held by B. If B uses S themselves, the clause is intended to insure that B loses their license to A's patents, opening them to being counter-sued by A for patent infringement. The idea is to force a situation where a patent-holder can't block everyone else from benefiting from a piece of software while continuing to benefit from it themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
It means if you are using someone's software which contains patented code, and you then sue that someone for infringing on any patent you may hold, your right to use the code covered by that someone's patent automatically ends.
Ahh, the irony.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Curious question. How come Flash haters never demand to see or get a copy of the raw film footage after seeing their favorite movie in the theatre?
:D
Flash.fla is to Flash.swf as Film Reel is to Movie.
I mean really, if we're going to be consistent here, ya really oughta bitch about the movie industry.
(Oh, and just to cut anyone off at the pass with the expected reply of "We can buy
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I know. I was off topic on purpose. Ok. I'll be on topic this time.
If anyone really believes that opinion, then they should start demanding OSS sites release PSD, AI, XCF, CDR, or SVG files pertaining to any raster images featured on the OSS site, because those file
Re: (Score:2)
For example, I run http://www.gnu.org/ [gnu.org] - a lot of our graphics were created in the days before people did drawing on computers.
But yeah, all our modern stuff should be up there.
http://www.gnu.org/graphics/ [gnu.org] - go nuts.
Re: (Score:2)
How about other projects? Other sites? sourceforge.net, ubuntu.com, gimp.org, inkscape.org, etc. Nearly endless list and then throw on top of that the other for profit OSS businesses such as RedHat, Linspire, etc.
www.gnu.org/graphics does not negate my point. It only means YOU aren't hypocritical.
Re: (Score:2)
ubuntu are working on Gobuntu, which actually includes all the sources for all the videos, sounds, documents, etc included with it, but yeah, it's a point well made.
happy hacking.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, because the movie does not exist with only a script, but it does if the video and audio have been recorded. Movie editing is equivalent to source code compilation.
Let's say two producers have the same script and both create their version of the movie. Both movies will be completely different products. It would be impossible to recreate a movie exactly the same with only the script. But, if both producers use the same video and audio tape,
Their long term strategy... (Score:4, Interesting)
That's right - all your codebase belong to them.
Did anybody else's... (Score:2)
Wasn't it within the last year that Balmy Balmer was frothing at the mouth about how he was going to destroy Linux and feed Torvalds to frickin sharks with frickin laser beams attached to their heads?
I'd like to believe that the SCO experiment taught them OSS has a leg to stand on, but that would make me a starry eyed optimist and I'm just not.
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.
Re:It's a trap. (Score:5, Funny)
It wasn't meant to be. Things would have been a lot clearer to everyone, but the domain that Ballmer wanted [fuckyouverymuch.com] was already taken.
OSI Requirements Loophole (Score:2)
Obviously they found a loophole in the OSI requirements. The GPL loophole has been closed with GPL3, so they're moving on to the next target.
When they drop the source for Vista and Exchange on opensource.microsoft.com with an Open Source license, I'll eat my Redhat.
Step one in an anti-GPL 3 move? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
<RUMOR>
I've heard that the MS guys don't *KNOW* everything their network stack does, and use the Samba stuff as documentation.
</RUMOR>
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This would do nothing to stop the gplv3 from being adopted by Samba.
I dont think microsoft has any intention of using any version of the gpl. They are trying to get their shared source licenses approved as official open source licenses.
I think the point of this is that open source appl
Re: (Score:2)
disruptive technology (Score:2)
IMO, it appears that Linux and OSS is making enough of a den
I'll believe it when I see it (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Reality World (Score:2)
MS Open source website? ooookkk (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Okay, this is just to much (Score:2, Funny)
OSS Representative? (Score:2)
Neville Chamberlain [wikipedia.org]?
At least we know where the Pravda writers are (Score:2)
this bit made my night : (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
More like a conditioned reflex than a knee-jerk (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
MS knows it can't fight open source software (legally or marketwise) and attempting to do so is futile as we've seen with FUD, SCO, and hinting around with patents. Open source can't be squashed, so the next best thing is getting you to run it on Windows instead of Linux. You can debate about Microsoft's motives and intent all day long but you have to remember it's a corporation. Individual psychology does not apply when understanding a corporation's motives. A corporation will attack a problem (ahem Linux) on all fronts, which can and does result in Microsoft performing confusing or opposing actions.
The problem is that Microsoft has very little credibility when playing with others, when playing with Open Source it has virtually none.
I mean what interactions has Microsoft had with Open Source that haven't been some kind of trap? OOXML? An "open" standard that is anything but. Patent deals with Novel and Linspire? Ok, the trigger hasn't been fully pulled on those yet but MS is already throwing around patent FUD. Before that more patent FUD, other FUD, namecalling, and general hostility, honestly the onl
Re: (Score:2)
Besides.. I think it's been proven to death that OS portable code can exist on Windows, so it's not an automatic lock-in. And, the author always maintains control anyway. The only time I'd ever get worried is if MS started issuing mandates on the freedoms you have regarding code you developed.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)