

Microsoft burning the Open Source bridge - boh
http://www.zdnet.co.uk/blogs/the-open-source-revolution-10014902/microsoft-burning-the-open-source-bridge-10021746/

======
bradleyland
There is a big difference between open source and the GPL. Open source is
loosely defined as allowing access to the source. GPL is a license designed to
force openness in a viral fashion. I'm not opposed to the GPL philosophy, but
anyone who is surprised that someone like Microsoft would want to avoid GPL'd
software on their platform is kidding themselves. This is especially true with
regard to the GPL v3. The goal of the GPL is to aggressively expand the
protection of "free" software. We're talking the RMS definition of free, which
is threatening to lots of companies; not just Microsoft.

~~~
tbrownaw
> anyone who is surprised that someone like Microsoft would want to avoid
> GPL'd software on their platform is kidding themselves

It probably isn't even that they particularly care about avoiding the GPL, so
much as that GPLv3 intentionally forbids distribution for use in locked-down
devices (which, contrary to all reason, apparently is _not_ considered to
count as discriminating against a field of endeavor...).

------
marshray
If you license your code under GPL, you're simply saying that you don't want
to be a product in this particular "app store" business model. GPLv3 in
particular seems to be hostile to this type of thing. If you're the author of
the code there's nothing wrong with that.

But people are getting upset with Microsoft basically for respecting the
intent of the license agreement.

Obviously MS doesn't want to fall into the trap of _distributing_ GPL code and
thus being _infected_ at some level of their codebase.

~~~
masklinn
> If you license your code under GPL, you're simply saying that you don't want
> to be a product in this particular "app store" business model. GPLv3 in
> particular seems to be hostile to this type of thing.

Indeed. And even more so, GPLv3 is hostile to that kind of schemes _on
purpose_.

------
brudgers
> _"Microsoft has a deep history of trying to undermine open source software,
> and companies that use open source software"_

Some examples would make for a better argument.

> _"I would only have to assume that Microsoft extends these same feelings to
> their Windows operating systems on PC hardware as well."_

Why would the author have to assume that?

~~~
pohl
_Some examples would make for a better argument._

Funding an $86M proxy war through SCO is the only example one needs, really.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_Documents>

~~~
brudgers
Vinod Valloppillil was not exactly a senior manager at Microsoft (and has been
gone for over a decade as best I can tell) so it's hard to tie him to the
alleged funding of SCO's lawsuit...which was debunked in 2006.

[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/11/sco_microsoft_black_...](http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/11/sco_microsoft_black_helicopters/)

~~~
pohl
Thank you for that link, I hadn't seen that. It sounds kind of funny to read
it, though. Essentially, they admit to wanting to support the suit, and they
admit to not wanting to appear to be attacking the defendants, and the admit
to large sums of money changing hands to "ensure IT interoperability for UNIX
migration technology".

Sounds legit. :-)

~~~
brudgers
If one follows the history of the relationship between Microsoft and SCO in
all it's previous incarnations it's a tangle of licensing agreements going all
the way back to DR-DOS. On the Unix side, it involves ATT providing Microsoft
with a license which was then provided to SCO and then licensed back after
their improvements - and one should not forget that the one-time powerhouse
that was Novell was wrapped up in the mess along with IBM.

To characterize all of that as Microsoft trying to kill off Linux might be
deemed a bit of oversimplification.

~~~
pohl
Of course, that's why I lauged: it's so perfectly banal with respect to their
history. The key concept behind plausible deniability is plausibility, after
all.

So the most one can say is that this tells us nothing.

Well, no, actually there is enough in that article to demonstrate that
plausible deniability is exactly what they needed to bridge their admitted
desire to help with their admitted reluctance to be perceived as helping.

But no more than that.

~~~
brudgers
People point to Microsoft's $16 million license fee as evidence that they were
trying to kill open source software but ignore the $9 million paid to SCO for
a similar license by Sun. Why? Because saying "Sun tried to kill open source
software," just makes a person look ignorant.

~~~
pohl
See, you are no stranger to the concept of plausible deniability: using the
third person plural "people point to" (and the hypothetical about Sun) allows
you to plausibly deny the ad hominem. It's beautiful how that works, isn't it.
Well played, sir.

For the record, I agree there is an absence of evidence (in light of your
link). I won't take this as evidence of absence, however.

------
diego_moita
Actually, the most interesting part of this post is in the first comment, that
leads to this post: [http://www.arktronic.com/cms/blog-
entries/2011-02-17/relax-m...](http://www.arktronic.com/cms/blog-
entries/2011-02-17/relax-microsoft-has-not-banned-open-source-from-
marketplace)

TL;DR: Microsoft excludes only GPLv3 software because it forces them to open
all their source code in Windows Phones. All other Open Source licenses are
still valid.

~~~
tbrownaw
> TL;DR: Microsoft excludes only GPLv3 software because it forces them to open
> all their source code in Windows Phones.

Um, _no_. That is entirely incorrect and is not at all what your link says.

------
sukuriant
The FreeBSD and CC licenses are still very well available. Personally, for
most things, I would open source via the FreeBSD license, anyway. The GPL may
be the most well known, but there are plenty others.

