

Windows Store and the GPL - jbk
http://www.jbkempf.com/blog/post/2012/Windows-Store-and-the-GPL

======
takluyver
"...your license terms may conflict with the limitations set forth in Section
3 of those Terms, but only to the extent required by the FOSS that you use."

That appears to mean that you can release a GPLed application if you use pre-
existing GPL code, but you can't just decide to release your application under
the GPL because you want to. In the latter case, there's no requirement "by
the FOSS that you use", so the anti-reverse-engineering clauses kick in.

But I guess that's purely academic, because if it's your own code, you can
release the binary on Microsoft's terms, and separately offer the source code
under GPL.

~~~
jbk
Fun. :)

Nitpick: it says the "FOSS that you use", not the "pre-existing FOSS that you
use". Your new code could be the one you use too ;)

Anyway, my opinion is that Microsoft did some work to not exclude FOSS, a
contrario from Apple.

~~~
Evbn
The relevant issue is sideloading and proprietary compilation. iOS falls down
because it is impossible for a user to build an app from source and install an
app on a vendor-approved machine.

~~~
ConstantineXVI
As far as I can make out, as long as you have the debug tools and a 'developer
license' (just need a MS ID, no fee), you can install arbitrary un-approved
Metro apps on WinRT/8. Compilation still has to happen on an x86 machine (no
MSVS on ARM; csc is actually on the WinRT image but missing DLLs); it's not
great but still somewhat better than the iOS situation.

------
bharyms
Nice article. It summarizes the whole license crap in some understand-able
English sentences.

~~~
jevinskie
Even the license crap is quite readable, at least compared to other
EULA/TOS/agreements.

------
kleiba
_Your usages are not limited; except you cannot use the application on more
than 5 devices, unless the license clearly says you can use it on more
devices. [...] Therefore, I think it is quite safe, now, to publish a FOSS
application on the Windows Store._

This surprises me a bit - doesn't the GNU GPL explicitly state that you cannot
impose any further usage restrictions other than the ones states in the GPL?

(That is the reason the GNU GPL is not compatible with the original BSD
license: <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#OrigBSD>)

Not being able to run the app on more than 5 devices is certainly a
restriction.

------
stcredzero
Is there any business reason why the Apple App Store couldn't have comparable
terms?

~~~
rodgerd
Richard Stallman tells a story (or did when I saw him give a lecture a decade
or so ago) about Steve Jobs approaching him to do a deal on allowing NeXT to
keep the GCC Objective C front end closed; rms explained that wasn't going to
happen, and NeXT would have to GPL it.

I wouldn't be surprised if Apple's enthusiasm for LLVM and distaste for GPL
code stems from that incident.

~~~
Someone
For the history buffs:

    
    
      - https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!searchin/gnu.gcc/NeXT$20and$20copyleft
    
      - https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!searchin/gnu.gcc/Objective-C$20front$20end$20for$20GCC$20from$20NeXT
    

I do not see Steve mentioned anywhere
(<http://ebb.org/bkuhn/talks/OSCON-2011/compliance.html> makes that link, but
IMO lacks argumentation).

It is hard to tell, but it seems that there were a few months where a pure
preprocessor was (getting?) integrated into gcc, where the idea was to ship
gcc sources with a NeXT licensed library to users, and have those users do the
linking step, thus preventing NeXT from breaking the GPL. One could argue that
this was one of the things that, eventually, led to the library exception to
the GPL
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Vers...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Version_2))

------
pionar
It's not really that surprising, Microsoft has been quite FOSS-friendly for
about five years now. A good chunk of their web stack (MVC, the ASP.NET
membership providers, Entity Framework, Web API, Web Pages) are all open-
source - <http://aspnetwebstack.codeplex.com/>

~~~
jiggy2011
Interesting that it suggests checking out via git on there.

Is git now MSs recommended way of doing source control rather than whatever
product they offer?

~~~
pionar
No, it's up to the project. You can use Team Foundation Server on Codeplex,
but not everyone has that, and although it's "supposed" to work with a
subversion client, the support there sucks.

------
batgaijin
Really? I would assume that the drm system they use would prevent the
distribution of GPL apps; I mean that's why you can't distribute them on the
Apple, Android or MS phone app stores.

~~~
jbk
No.

First, DRM are not necessarily against all FOSS licenses (see GPLv3
discussions). And then, there are a lot of FOSS applications on Android...

~~~
batgaijin
[http://stackoverflow.com/questions/13286803/gpl-and-
android-...](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/13286803/gpl-and-android-
digital-signature)

[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)

I was talking about GPL specifically. Signing a binary is a modification that
goes outside the realm of GPL.

