
Microsoft: No GPLv3 Software for Windows Phone and Xbox Apps. - mikecane
http://jan.wildeboer.net/2011/02/microsoft-absolutely-no-free-software-for-windows-phone-and-xbox-apps/
======
SimonPStevens
They aren't prohibiting "Free Software", they are prohibiting software that is
under a license that requires the distributor to pass certain rights along to
the recipient.

Hence GPL like licenses that require distribution of source code, and that you
grant redistribution rights to everyone you distribute it to are being
explicitly prohibited. (And in fairness I can see why those licenses would
cause problems for Microsoft as distributors)

On the other hand BSD like licenses that allow you to repackage and distribute
without source and without passing rights forward are acceptable.

~~~
btipling
Exactly. Also GPL style licenses are a virus that while they promote freedom,
in reality they take it away. It assumes that people are naturally
untrustworthy and thus forces them to act in a way the creators of GPL see as
the right way. Because of how the GPL licenses are worded, especially insane
versions like the AGPL, everything they touch may be affected negatively. MIT
and BSD style licenses on the other hand assume the best in people, and gives
them the real freedom to do with code whatever they want.

~~~
skore
You're probably just trolling, but it needs to be said every time: The freedom
that the GPL takes away is the freedom to bring down the system. It keeps
people in check and prevents corruption. If you enjoy the freedoms of MIT and
BSD style licenses - why do you complain about the GPL? It seems that it only
takes "freedoms" away that you don't appear to be interested in anyways?

~~~
nolok
Because freedom also means freedom to use my code and keep it to yourself if
you want to. There isn't any corruption in that. Tons of software here are
using bsd/mit licensed code and not releasing their change, that has nothing
to do with corruption (or you don't understand what corruption is, go read a
definition).

Using the GPL means you're free to use my code ... As long as the result is
under gpl too. You lose your freedom to chose a license. You lose your freedom
to keep changes to yourself if you release the resulting binary (why ? because
you want to). You lose your freedom to use other piece of code that are not
gpl compatible.

I have nothing against the gpl and I use tons of software using it, but it is
a fact that it cuts down some of your freedoms compared to other licenses.

~~~
cscheid
The GPL does _NOT_ prevent redistribution, please don't spread more incorrect
information. It prevents _redistribution without redistribution of source_.
You're still free to get GPL code, change it yourself, and never release it
again.

Licenses like the AGPL were created in part because of this problem; some
folks think that, morally speaking, code running on a server behaves like
distributed code, and should be available. But for example: you're absolutely
allowed to take GPL code, change it yourself, keep the source private, and run
a web 2.0 business on top of that source code.

~~~
nolok
Where in my message did I say it prevented redistribution ? Can you quote the
sentence that made you understand that ? (this is a serious question)

It's not what I meant, and I don't thing it's what I've written either. If
anything, it actually forces redistribution in case some might not want to
(when you release a binary but want the sources to remain yours).

------
jonny_eh
They're only preventing GPLv3 (and its ilk). There's a reason they mention
GPLv3 and not GPLv2.

GPLv2 just requires the sharing of source code for a given binary. GPLv3 takes
it a lot farther and requires that a mechanism also be provided to use
derivative works. So if a car manufacturer uses GPLv3 code, they not only have
to distribute the source code (which may or not be an issue), they also have
to allow people to flash their own code onto the car's embedded computers.

This problem stemmed from TiVo, they used GPL code on their set-tops but
signed their binaries. People could make derivative works, but couldn't use
them.

In the embedded space, you can imagine that GPLv3 is very much hated. It's a
big reason why a lot of projects haven't switched to v3.

~~~
dubious_1
You are the first to actually hit that point, and I believe rightly so. I
don't see how you could actually comply with V3 and release your software on
any of these stores. The obtaining of a developer signing key is not free, and
there is no guarantee that the derived work would actually be accepted.

~~~
nl
I _think_ you could on the Android store. Android phones have a setting to
"allow installation from non-Market sources", which means there is no
restriction on distribution.

------
dagw
Looks like they're trying to preempt the whole "can you distribute GPLed
programs via the app store" problem that Apple's been facing.

~~~
rmc
So it's the same as Apple then. "Can you distribute GPL?" "No."

~~~
technomancy
Actually, it's better than Apple. Apple will let you distribute GPL'd
applications until a takedown notice is issued even though doing so is
illegal; Microsoft is clear about it up-front.

------
randint
It's a pragmatic choice by Microsoft, but I'm amazed by their ability to piss
off developers almost every time they make a decision.

~~~
flomo
Wouldn't this be more accurately described as the choice of the Free Software
Foundation, rather than Microsoft? The major feature of GPL3 was to prevent
use in these type of "tivoized" applications.

Seems that Microsoft is taking heat for respecting the wishes of the GPL. Talk
about a can't win situation.

~~~
mithaler
Well, one who thinks that the GPL's wishes are a good idea could certainly
feel that they deserve heat for being what the GPL was meant to prevent in the
first place. But, that's no comfort to less ideologically zealous developers
who want to use a [AL]GPL-licensed library they're used to using and can't.

------
forgotAgain
If they distribute GPL software aren't they also responsible for making the
source available. Why would they want to open themselves to that headache?

~~~
Herring
If the free linuxes can do it, im sure MS can handle it. It's not much of a
hassle to add an extra menu item.

I think the real problem is unlocking & GPLv3. MS was never GPL friendly
either.

------
winestock
The license in question forbids GPLv3 by name. It does not appear to forbid
the BSD, MIT, and similar permissive licenses.

~~~
praptak
Well, it is quite clear that the "share alike" clause is the bone of
contention here: _"“Excluded License” means any license requiring, as a
condition of use [...] that the software or other software combined and/or
distributed with it be (i) disclosed or distributed in source code form (ii)
licensed for the purpose of making derivative works; or (iii) redistributable
at no charge."_

~~~
tzs
So, BSD, MIT, Apache, and similar are OK.

------
wladimir
I don't want my platform to restrict what software I can run, especially not
based on license. Is there any mobile platform these days that doesn't try to
be your nanny as well?

~~~
bitwize
You haven't cracked root on your Android phone yet?

~~~
wladimir
I know it's possible to crack firmwares to get around any restrictions. But I
think it's silly to have to hack your own device to have control of it. I'd
prefer a platform in which that is the default...

~~~
bitwize
1) Google Nexus phones do come with this as the default.

2) For many Android devices (kit from MOT excepted), the hacks are pretty
trivial. I suspect the protections on HTC phones are more of a "Warranty void
if removed" sticker than something to really bar you from gaining root.

------
soofaloofa
There is no issue here, only fear-mongering. To me it seems like a pragmatic
choice.

I'm not sure if the perception of Microsoft will ever change in the eyes of
developers.

------
ww
Microsoft's strategy is to build/own the platform and then add value to the
platform by harvesting what is on top (buying software/copying ideas etc).
From a game-theoretic view point, GPL is a strategy that works well vs
harvesting and should be kept 'on the table'. For more on this and Microsoft
read: [http://www.amazon.com/Keystone-Advantage-Ecosystems-
Innovati...](http://www.amazon.com/Keystone-Advantage-Ecosystems-Innovation-
Sustainability/dp/1591393078/ref=sr_1_fkmr2_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1297874874&sr=1-1-fkmr2)

------
bowmande
I think they are trying to prevent people from redistributing others source.
Like what occurred with Lugaru HD.

------
wmf
AFAIK the Wii and PS3 have similar terms (although there's no uproar because
the terms themselves are secret). I get the impression that console APIs are
generally NDAd and so releasing the source of a console game would indirectly
expose the APIs.

------
chopsueyar
Where did my DB server go?

------
stuhacking
Does warranty come into this at all? There are terms in a lot of Free Software
licenses that remove the obligation to provide support, accept liability for
the product or even to guarantee its fitness for purpose.

It seems to me that these aspects introduce a gap in the level of support
Microsoft can offer for a product distributed on its platform since it doesn't
necessarily have a way to delegate responsibility back up the chain.

~~~
mkr-hn
I think that's standard for both EULAs and free software licenses.

~~~
stuhacking
Thanks, maybe I should read a EULA sometime. ;-)

~~~
mkr-hn
Read one, and you've read most of the rest. I've thought about reading one
carefully, making notes, and running a diff on new ones.

Saves time and avoids risk.

------
zem
as long as they don't require all software to come from the marketplace (a la
apple), i have no problem with that.

~~~
unfasten
As best as I can tell, they are requiring everything to come from Windows
Marketplace. Developers can side load up to 10 applications on their phone,
but it seems Microsoft even borrowed Apple's $99 yearly developer fee model.

Developer side loading: [http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-
us/library/ff769512(v=VS.92).as...](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-
us/library/ff769512\(v=VS.92\).aspx)

$99 Annual fee: <http://create.msdn.com/en-us/home/membership>

~~~
zem
that's sad. they might make some money in the short term, but i think they'll
bleed mindshare in the long term. of course, it might work out the other way,
where developers flock to them the way they did to the apple store, because
there's a chance they'll make more money that way.

------
motters
This is amusing in the light of Microsoft's attempts in recent years to cosy
up to open source and pretend that they're embracing it via Codeplex, Mono,
MPL, etc. I think this shows what their true values are.

~~~
evilduck
I think the Microsoft hydra is too large to have any single set of core values
anymore. Every project is pulling in a different direction.

------
kaze1
I can see a certain competitor rubbing their hands in glee that an entire
class of applications will be unavailable on Windows Phone 7.

~~~
unsigner
What "entire class of applications" has a hard dependency on GPLv3? Emacses?

------
aagnihot
It seems that the site is down

------
hasenj
Doesn't the Apple App Store have the same problem?

The only difference being that Microsoft actually mentions the GPL explicitly.

~~~
ryanelkins
This actually has been an issue for the App Store recently, primarily
concerning VLC. See [http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/no-gpl-apps-for-
apples...](http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/no-gpl-apps-for-apples-app-
store/8046)

------
fleitz
They don't want to put in place the infrastructure to distribute source code,
nor do they want the legal requirements to do so. Thus GPLv3 prevents
Microsoft from exercising its freedom to not put in place a source code
distribution system that will appeal to exactly none of its customers.

