

Windows 8 Store will allow open source apps - mrsebastian
http://www.extremetech.com/computing/108551-windows-8-store-will-allow-open-source-apps-unlike-ios-and-mac

======
voidr
I stopped reading here:

> Microsoft has achieved platform unity across all their devices — something
> that Google and Apple are still a year or more away from reaching.

This alone makes it hard for me to take this article seriously, also it's
highly sensationalist.

~~~
freehunter
It is kind of odd considering iOS is a version of OSX, and with the new OSX,
they've backported a bunch of iOS stuff into it. There's never been more
platform unity. Microsoft won't reach that until next year when Windows 8 is
released.

~~~
dpark
iOS is a version of OSX in the same way that WP7 is a version of W7, or that
Android is a version of Linux. It's not a very meaningful statement from the
point of view of a user (or a developer, really), because iOS doesn't look or
act like OSX, WP7 doesn't look or act like W7, and Android doesn't look or act
like "Linux". Sharing parts of a Kernel just doesn't matter.

Also, what did Apple "backport" from iOS to OSX? They made a few more pieces
of OSX "iOS-like", such as Launchpad, but I'm not aware of any significant
pieces that were actually ported from iOS.

And to be clear, I work for Microsoft. I don't want it to look like I'm
bashing Apple here, because I'm not. Apple makes some very nice stuff. But I
don't see them as having platform unity in any meaningful way (nor does
Microsoft at this point).

------
beloch
The real reason why MS wants open-source applications on their app store is
pretty obvious.

Windows users are already almost all open-source users, and one major reason
for the app-store to exist is so that Windows users can get their software
from a trusted source.

If you're on a Windows machine, do a quick count of the open-source
applications you have installed. Open-source is a _juggernaut_ on the Windows
platform. MS knows this very well. They have problems getting users to use
their free software (e.g. Internet Explorer) that comes installed on every
copy of Windows instead of something that's open source! Of course, while free
software does greatly enhance the value users can get out of Windows, it is
also a big security problem. For every awesome open source application there
is a shady malware reflection, and users sometimes have problems telling the
difference. Malware is a big reason why Windows gets flak for not being
secure.

Enter the MS App store. The only way to sell users on the idea of getting all
their software from the app store is for the free software they use to be
there waiting for them. That means even the competition must be there. Yes,
you can expect Chrome and Firefox to be on the MS App store. Security isn't
the only benefit of locking users into an app store though. The platform
"unification" MS seems to be striving towards could also benefit from features
the app store could have. e.g. Centrally managed install-bases for all your
computers. Install VLC on your office computer and it winds up on your mobile
and home computer too. Get a new computer? One click (or less) and everything
you installed from the app store on your old machine could be waiting for you
on the new machine.

Of course, Apple has shown that managing an App store is not without its
difficulties. Slow review processes irk developers, and malicious software can
still slip through. Can MS do better? Only time will tell.

~~~
endersshadow
On top of that, Microsoft has spent years fostering an open source community
in CodePlex[1]. Many of their internal engineers have software on CodePlex, so
why would they destroy all that they've worked for there?

I'm just surprised that this is surprising.

[1]: <http://www.codeplex.com/>

------
MichaelGG
Well, why wouldn't they allow open source apps?

Anyways, this is missing the bigger point that Windows 8 is going to restrict
how you can deploy applications on your own PC. It's not just the app-store
approach, it's that you cannot use the new APIs and UI system unless you are
approved. Insane.

~~~
recoiledsnake
>It's not just the app-store approach, it's that you cannot use the new APIs
and UI system unless you are approved. Insane.

How is that worse than the app-store approach? If anything, it's a lot better
because you can still run/develop programs like Steam. Try doing that on the
app-store based iPad.

~~~
narkee
Because on the Mac, applications can be loaded directly, and do not require
App Store approval.

------
rbanffy
IIRC, it's not Apple who forbids GPL-licensed apps, but GPL that forbids
distributing apps under Apple's rules.

edit: Apparently, I was less than clear. The GPL has always forbidden
distributing GPL'ed apps under Apple's (and not only Apple's) rules, since
well before their app store existed.

~~~
parfe
Well, you certainly managed to bend your mind to make Apple the good guy.

GPL: You have the right to modify and redistribute the application.

Apple: No you don't.

rbanffy: The GPL forbids redistribution.

Apple restricts you to 5 devices, the GPL does not. Apple restricts you to
personal, non commercial use, the GPL does not.

~~~
runjake
When has Apple restricted the right to modify and redistribute a GPL
application?

Although Apple's app stores don't have provisions for distributing source,
they don't do anything to stop the source of a developer's app being posted
for modifications or redist.

I'd love to see some examples of your claims.

~~~
parfe
<http://www.apple.com/legal/itunes/us/terms.html>

_(i) If you are an individual acting in your personal capacity, you may
download and sync an App Store Product for personal, noncommercial use on any
iOS Device you own or control._ and it keeps going.

Fanboys coming out saying it isn't apple adding restrictions. What a joke. If
I acquire an application through the app store then Apple restricts my usage.

~~~
ugh
That’s some selective quoting right there. The terms for commercial use are
right under what you are quoting and virtually identical to the terms for non-
commercial use.

See also my other comment where I still assumed that you made a mistake and
were not selectively quoting: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3344535>

~~~
parfe
Not taking issue here with commercial vs personal, but with being restricted
from redistributing items you've purchased through the store.

~~~
ugh
You are right. I’m sorry, I put that comment in the wrong context.

But the App Stores allows you to install apps on as many Macs or iOS devices
you want (as long as you own or control them) and it also allows for
commercial use (also by companies and organizations).

~~~
parfe
Yeah, my bad for not being clear. You are right and I am right and I am wrong.
So everyone wins!

------
mrcharles
Would it be worth it for open source projects to try and distribute on the app
store? Given that there are already examples on Android of open source apps
being recompiled, name changed, and resubmitted to the store, wouldn't this
kind of thing be even more prevalent on a full computing platform?

I guess it's kind of a moot point if they are put on the store for free,
though.

~~~
cryptoz
Your post confuses me. If a developer builds an open source application, isn't
that developer implicitly inviting others to copy the code and do with it
whatever they like (depending on the license, of course)? Ignoring app stores,
isn't that the way open source has been all along? And including app stores,
what difference does it make?

I am the sole developer of an open source Android app (pressureNET), but
nobody has copied the code and re-uploaded - if they did, isn't that just
"forking"? I'd be thrilled if anyone found my project worthwhile enough for
that - it's never happened to me before.

I guess I'm confused why you think that forking is 'risk'. That's not only the
expected behavior, but the hoped-for behavior, isn't it?

~~~
dagw
Many (not all) open source licenses require attribution and limit to what
extent you can change the license. Many apps in the app store violate these
requirements. The problem is not forking, but taking open source code and
trying to pass it off as your own closed source creation.

~~~
cryptoz
> Many apps in the app store violate these requirements.

Ah. So the problem is that someone may act illegally? That's always been the
case, since the dawn of time. If you're going to develop some open source
software, of course there is a risk to you that someone may copy it and not
follow the license. But there's significantly greater risk to the person
copying, correct? If it's a crime (is it?) they risk having a criminal record
and all that.

So, there's nothing new here, no new risks that open source developers haven't
been facing since always, and nothing at all unique about this situation. In
fact, it's probably a lot better now since you have a single source to contact
(the app store owner) to let them know there is a TOS violation and illegal
content on their site. In previous times, there may have been no recourse
(say, the copier has hosted the content on a Russian domain; you've got
nowhere to turn).

All in all, it seems the situation for open source developers is significantly
better than it ever has been regarding illegal copying of their software.

------
sepent
Is this right?

"Microsoft welcomes OSI open source to Win8 store, GPL blocked at the door"

link:
[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/12/08/open_source_windows_...](http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/12/08/open_source_windows_8_windows_store/)

~~~
recoiledsnake
The GPL certainly is OSI approved.
<http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical>

The article does not make any sense, really. Especially this line:

>“If your app includes FOSS, it must not cause any non-FOSS Microsoft software
to become subject to the terms of any FOSS license.” Although Microsoft didn't
name it, it's talking about GPL.

Why would a GPL'ed app cause a non-FOSS software made by MS to become subject
to the GPL? Does the app using the WinRT API cause the API to go under GPL?

Distributing VLC(even if by MS) does not cause the Win32 API used heavily by
VLC to go under the GPL.

~~~
plorkyeran
_Distributing VLC(even if by MS) does not cause the Win32 API used heavily by
VLC to go under the GPL._

There's an explicit exclusion in the GPL to allow linking against non-GPL
"System Libraries", which does not include every closed-source library
Microsoft has ever released. Even without the clause in question I doubt you'd
ever be able to get a court to declare that Microsoft had to release the
source to one of their non-Windows products because you tricked them into
distributing a GPL application linked against it, but I can't really blame
lawyers for being cautious in an untested area.

------
click170
Well if you asked Apple I'm sure they would say they "will allow" open source
apps, but that doesn't mean everyone agrees that the legal terms of their app
store do in fact allow FOSS.

What are _other people_ saying about the Windows 8 Store TOS?

------
saturdaysaint
"As for Cupertino, Apple’s Mac App Store has not seen the adoption that it
would like, especially when compared to the iOS App Store."

Published the day that Apple announced the Mac App Store's 100 millionth
download...

~~~
mrsebastian
The iOS App Store did something like 200 million downloads in 3 months. Mac
App Store was 100 million in 12 months, I think.

