
Microsoft admits being 'on the wrong side of history' with regard to open source - FlyMoreRockets
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/05/15/microsoft_brad_smith_open_source/
======
esotericn
The idea that this is "history" is PR, and not even particularly good PR at
that.

Right now, today, they're shipping literal malware on mainstream desktop
computers around the world. Oh, and it's not open source either, lol!

The bloody operating system has targeted advertisements, intentionally
unremovable (or at least very difficult to remove) components, telemetry, a
keylogger-esque search function, the list goes on.

It pains me to see people shill Microsoft as if they've "turned a corner". All
they're doing is the minimum possible in order to be taken seriously by some
particularly easily swayed subset of developers whilst simultaneously
ratcheting up the pain on the main product that they're known globally for.

~~~
soared
> shipping literal malware on mainstream desktop computers

Source? None of the things you listed below are /literal malware/.

~~~
thomaskcr
This is a picture from a Windows 10 Enterprise domain joined machine with a
whole set of GPOs we try to keep up with this type of stuff:
[https://imgur.com/a/M5d9MVt](https://imgur.com/a/M5d9MVt)

That's a lot of space devoted to just old versions of games. I understand
malware has a specific definition, but I don't know what's in these folders
and we obviously didn't want them on user machines.

Deleting them required a whole dance around SYSTEM access, it was insane.

Enterprise.

~~~
soared
Yeah that sounds like a big headache and pretty bad behavior by ms.

Strictly not malware though.

------
humanistbot
No, in the 1990s when the "free software" part of the movement was far
stronger and trying to build an entire alternative computing stack on strongly
copyleft principles, it was certainly not in Microsoft's interest. From a
corporate shareholder perspective, it was a massive threat and risk. The GPL
was originally intentionally written to be the kind of "cancer" that Balmer
feared, spreading to anything that used components of it.

In the past few decades, the part of the movement that has become far more
popular is the very corporate-friendly, weakly-licensed side. Especially in an
era of cloud computing, you can take whatever volunteers from an MIT-licensed
open source product make, build whatever you want to with it, and not release
the modifications or give back to the project's developers in any way. From a
corporate shareholder perspective, what's not to love?

~~~
iforgotpassword
Can't you even do this with GPL code really? Unfortunately they didn't predict
the cloud specifically. The GPL seems to only enforce that you cannot
distribute modified versions of some software without also publishing the
modified source code. If your modified GPL software only ever runs on your
cloud infra and you don't share the binary, did you break the GPL?

~~~
Gollapalli
Yeah, fixing that issue is what's good about the SSPL.

~~~
pritambaral
You misspelled AGPL, which is an actual open source license, not a legally-
unenforceable minefield.

~~~
Gollapalli
The SSPL is probably the strongest copyleft license in existence. The GPL was
viewed much the same way the SSPL is now. I think the common consensus on the
SSPL is utterly incorrect, and MongoDB was right to use it.

~~~
pritambaral
> ... the strongest copyleft license ...

So what? That simply means rights are passed down. The problem with the SSPL
was never that; it's that the rights that _were_ passed down are _legally
impossible_ to fulfill, rendering the whole point of copyleft moot.

> The GPL was viewed much the same way the SSPL is now.

The criticisms against the GPL-ed works were about collaboration, not use. The
problem with the SSPL is that I cannot legally use SSPL-ed works, in any way.

In simpler, analogical, terms: the GPL was designed to be "viral", but the
SSPL was designed to be a minefield. Viruses can be harmless; minefields deny
combatants, civilians, and peaceful inhabitants alike, forever.

Any GPL-ed software could be used without any restrictions on _how_ you use
it. Whereas the only legally safe way to use MongoDB is to pay MongoDB Inc. to
host it. So much for copyleft.

\----

[http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-
review_lists.o...](http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-
review_lists.opensource.org/2018-October/003742.html)

[https://www.processmechanics.com/2018/10/18/the-server-
side-...](https://www.processmechanics.com/2018/10/18/the-server-side-public-
license-is-flawed/)

[https://www.processmechanics.com/2018/10/25/further-
comments...](https://www.processmechanics.com/2018/10/25/further-comments-on-
the-sspl/)

~~~
Gollapalli
> Whereas the only legally safe way to use MongoDB is to pay MongoDB Inc. to
> host it.

This is clearly not the case. Given a) the text of the license itself, and b)
the fact that people still use MongoDB.

I think what you meant to say was “I cannot provide MongoDB as a service
without open sourcing the rest of what I use directly to provide that
service”. In other words, if I want to sell the usage of software which I
don’t have the copyright to(remember, open source software may be free, but
it’s still owned by somebody), then I have to give my source away as well. It
doesn’t say “Thou shalt not compete,” the way the commons clause does. You can
still provide Mongo as a service. You can still do anything you want with the
software, but you might have to open source the rest of your stack.

Honestly, it’s not like Mongo didn’t have a lawyer look at the license (ie
write the thing). If it was as horrrible and perilous as you say, they
couldn’t use it because all the lawyers of all the other companies who use
Mongo would get up in arms.

The only “safety” you lose is that of owning the copyright to closed source
software, which if you really care about that, then why do you care how
“closed source” Mongo chose to be?

~~~
pritambaral
> ... the text of the license itself ...

I'd like to refer you again to the three links I cited in my parent post.

> ... the fact that people still use MongoDB

That is no basis for legality. If we're to use popularity as a measure, I'd
refer to my classic argument about the popularity of competing religions that
each denounce the other.

> I think what you meant to say was ...

No. As I've been saying all along in this thread, the license is legally-
unenforceable. But you seem to be insistent on this other point, so I'll take
the bait, for now, and hopefully I'll do a good enough job of illustrating my
point this time.

> "I cannot provide MongoDB as a service without open sourcing the rest of
> what I use directly to provide that service"

1\. "open sourcing" != releasing under the SSPL, which is what's demanded by
the SSPL. The SSPL is not an open source license.

2\. "... use directly to provide that service": this falls under contract law,
not copyright law. Licenses fall under copyright law, not contract law.
Licenses dictating terms beyond the scope of the copyrighted work, which is
what the SSPL does, is copyright abuse and legally invalid. Copyleft licenses,
including the GPL family, work strictly within copyright law; the terms they
dictate apply only to the copyrighted work. Yes, derivatives of copyrighted
work fall under the same copyright. No, "... use directly to provide that
service" does not qualify as derivative work and thus does not fall under the
copyright of the original work.

> ... didn’t have a lawyer look at the license (ie write the thing).

Lawyers across the world write legal briefs, notices, claims, affidavits,
contracts etc. and lose all the time. Simply being written by a lawyer does
not make something valid or correct.

> If it was as horrrible and perilous as you say, they couldn’t use it because
> all the lawyers of all the other companies who use Mongo would get up in
> arms.

Most users of MongoDB do not do carry out due diligence before using it
anyway, or, historically, MongoDB wouldn't have had as many users in the first
place. For a neutral example: companies and institutions across the world use
pirated works all the time, and not because they actively want to tempt legal
trouble.

> The only “safety” you lose is that of owning the copyright to closed source
> software ...

This is not how open source licenses work — open source licenses do not confer
ownership of copyright by mere usage — so I don't know what your point is.
Perhaps you were confused by how MongoDB has in the past demanded (and
probably still does) copyright transfer before accepting contributions from
outside, but, I assure you, that has nothing to do with open source licensing.

~~~
Gollapalli
>"... use directly to provide that service": this falls under contract law,
not copyright law. Licenses fall under copyright law, not contract law.
Licenses dictating terms beyond the scope of the copyrighted work, which is
what the SSPL does, is copyright abuse and legally invalid. Copyleft licenses,
including the GPL family, work strictly within copyright law; the terms they
dictate apply only to the copyrighted work. Yes, derivatives of copyrighted
work fall under the same copyright. No, "... use directly to provide that
service" does not qualify as derivative work and thus does not fall under the
copyright of the original work.

I think that there's some room here.

The links that you gave had two examples, the Lasercomb case and the Sandisk
case. The SSPL isn't like either of those.

From your first link: > For example, in Lasercomb, the license agreement
required the licensee to > agree not to develop a competitive computer-aided
design program for 99 > years. Lasercomb America v. Reynolds. 911 F.2d 970, 15
USPQ2d 1846 (4th > Cir. 1990). In Practice Management Information Corp. v.
American Medical > Ass'n 121 F.3d 516 (9th Cir. 1997) the AMA licensed “CPT”
health care > codes (in which the AMA claimed a copyright) on a condition that
the > licensee not use any other such competing codes. In Assessment >
Technologies v. WIREdata. 350 F.3d 640 (7th Cir. 2003), the copyright > holder
tried to limit the licensee’s access to the licensee’s own data > stored using
the software. This defense is almost always applied to > prevent a copyright
holder from leveraging its copyright to impose > anti-competitive practices.

In other words, what we're looking at here is, "Now that you have accepted our
license terms, you can't build a competing software, with no out" What the
SSPL says (paraphrasing) is "If you can't offer our product as SaSS on an SSPL
stack, then you can't offer it (see 12. No Surrender of Others Freedom)." It
doesn't say, "by using our software, you are not allowed to build a competing
product."

Let's look at SanDisk:

>SanDisk had a patent licensing program that required any licensee to provide
a grant-back license to any subsequently-developed patents in the same field
of use. Two courts examined SanDisk's program under both the antitrust and
patent misuse angles.

In other words, SanDisk said, "if you use our license, we can use anything
else in this space that you license." MongoDB is not saying, "now that you
have licensed Mongo, you MUST SSPL regardless of whether you are currently
using Mongo." Again, point 12 comes into play here. You are allowed to simply
/not/ use Mongo. You have an out. The requirement of having a stack under SSPL
or compatible license is a precondition for being allowed to provide Mongo as
a service, not a limitation of what you can do after the fact. In other words,
if the company sued over SSPL can't or won't release their stack, then they
just can't provide Mongo as a service. That is, I think an enforceable outcome
within the bounds of copyright: "if you do X, you can't use our copyrighted
material." Thus I think your point of the SSPL being unenforceable is
incorrect. Of course, this is interpretation, IANAL, and we won't truly know
the result of this until it hits a court.

>This is not how open source licenses work — open source licenses do not
confer ownership of copyright by mere usage — so I don't know what your point
is.

You've misunderstood me. I mean that providers lose the ability to use closed
source code in the providing of the service. The statement you were quoting
was said with the presumption that "you" (in the general sense) were the
provider of the service, who also owned the copyright to said closed source
code used to provide said service, and that the thing lost was the ability to
keep that software closed-source.

>SSPL is not an open-source license

What, because some committee says it isn't? Very well, open-source in the
colloquial sense, as in "I can read the source code, modify it, and run it if
I wish."

~~~
pritambaral
You seem to be misinterpreting legal terms again:

> Now that you have accepted our license terms ...

> "now that you have licensed ...

That is not how licenses work. Licenses cannot be forced on either party, nor
can they force terms after being granted; that'd be extortion. Neither
Lasercomb nor SanDisk forced their licenses or subsequent terms on their
licensees, nor am I alleging (as you seem to paraphrase) that Mongo does.

The misunderstanding you seem to have is that a license term such as "If you
agree to this license, you MUST ..." can be interpreted as "Now that you have
accepted this license, you MUST ...". It can't. All three of Lasercomb,
SanDisk, and MongoDB's SSPL use the former and not the latter.

> You are allowed to simply /not/ use Mongo. You have an out.

As did the licensees of Lasercomb and SanDisk to simply not use the respective
licensed works. That did not stop those two licensors from being in legal
jeopardy, and from their licenses being invalid. And when a license is
invalid, _any and all_ use of the copyrighted work under that license becomes
copyright infringement.

> then they just can't provide Mongo as a service.

And here you introduce another kernel of the problem with the SSPL. It does
not define what a "Service" is, leaving it vague and so open to
interpretation, that MongoDB Inc. can change their mind later and sue even
users not providing MongoDB-as-a-service. This inability (or omission) of the
license to answer the question "What is a service" leaves me as a potential
user in a very gray area. This has all been discussed many times over [0].

The only safe play is to not use the copyrighted work at all. Which leaves, as
I say above, "the only legally safe way to use MongoDB is to pay MongoDB Inc.
to host it."

> You've misunderstood me. I mean that providers lose the ability to use
> closed source code in the providing of the service. The statement you were
> quoting was said with the presumption that "you" (in the general sense) were
> the provider of the service, who also owned the copyright to said closed
> source code used to provide said service, and that the thing lost was the
> ability to keep that software closed-source.

You said, "The only “safety” you lose is that of owning the copyright to
closed source software". One (owning the copyright) has nothing to do with the
other (keeping the software closed-source), so I don't know why you would
include the former if all you wanted to say was the latter.

> What, because some committee says it isn't?

No, because it does not meet the industry-accepted definition.

> open-source in the colloquial sense, as in "I can read the source code,
> modify it, and run it if I wish."

1\. You can't just "run it if I wish" as you please; and

2\. That is NOT the definition of open-source; that is the definition of
shared-source, or source-available. If MongoDB wanted to make their source
available under those terms, they should have, instead of trying to abuse the
term 'open source'. If you want to use a piece of software under shared-source
terms, feel free, but please don't try to jam it to others as if that's open
source, because such twisting of terms harms the industry.

\----

0:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18301116](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18301116)

~~~
Gollapalli
>12\. No Surrender of Others' Freedom.

>If conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse
you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot use, propagate or
convey a covered work so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under
this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you
may not use, propagate or convey it at all. For example, if you agree to terms
that obligate you to collect a royalty for further conveying from those to
whom you convey the Program, the only way you could satisfy both those terms
and this License would be to refrain entirely from conveying the Program.

The important bit here is:

>If you cannot use, propagate or convey a covered work so as to satisfy
simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent
obligations, then as a consequence you may not use, propagate or convey it at
all.

That is what I mean to say when I say you have an out. As in, rather than
SSPL'ing your whole stack, you can simply STOP using MongoDB, or any other
SSPL'd software. Once you stop using MongoDB, then you are free not to SSPL
the rest of your stack under clause 12. Under the SanDisk and Lasercomb cases,
you couldn't simply un-agree to the license, because it was a software
purchase, or a patent license respectively, but the SSPL is a license that is
validated and invalidated and renewed automatically (see clause 8:
Termination), and for which the acceptable, enforceable outcome of any
litigation is always "stop providing the copyrighted work as a service".

>You can't just "run it if I wish" as you please

Name one thing I can't do with it. No, providing it as a service does not
count, as I can do that, provided I manage the service with other SSPL'd code.

~~~
pritambaral
> Under the SanDisk and Lasercomb cases, you couldn't simply un-agree to the
> license, because it was a software purchase, or a patent license
> respectively, but the SSPL is a license that is validated and invalidated
> and renewed automatically (see clause 8: Termination), and for which the
> acceptable, enforceable outcome of any litigation is always "stop providing
> the copyrighted work as a service".

So what? The automatic termination of a license doesn't make it valid, nor
does it stop it from being invalid. Even in the presence of the termination
clause, the SSPL asserts rights over works it does not cover. _That_ is
copyright abuse, exactly like in the Lasercomb and SanDisk cases. The fact
that those licenses differed in other areas does not affect this fact.

But yeah, thank you for bringing up the termination clause, as it further
strengthens my point that using an SSPL-licensed work is like entering a legal
minefield. As I say in my parent comment, if tomorrow MongoDB Inc. decides to
interpret "Service" differently than today, invoking the termination clause,
suddenly I would be forced to stop using the software. This mere possibility
makes it unsafe for me to use the software now.

>> 1\. You can't just "run it if I wish" as you please; and

>> 2\. That is NOT the definition of open-source; that is the definition of
shared-source, or source-available.

> Name one thing I can't do with it. No, providing it as a service does not
> count, as I can do that, provided I manage the service with other SSPL'd
> code.

At this point, I'm beginning to suspect you're being pedantic and willfully
ignoring practical realities. You're also being selective and ignoring the
rest of my argument: merely being able to run your modifications under certain
conditions does NOT make something 'Open Source'. And, please, read the rest
of my argument, which I reproduce here for your convenience: "If MongoDB
wanted to make their source available under those terms, they should have,
instead of trying to abuse the term 'open source'. If you want to use a piece
of software under shared-source terms, feel free, but please don't try to jam
it to others as if that's open source, because such twisting of terms harms
the industry"

------
Gollapalli
Okay, I'll believe it when they open source windows.

It's not like they've open sourced their core business, they're open sourcing
things to make Windows more attractive, so that people won't leave for other
environments. So this is really pandering.

And Microsoft shouldn't HAVE to open source their software, though it's good
that they're open sourcing some of it, and I certainly appreciate it. Why
shouldn't they have to? Because software costs money to develop. And until we
have some sort of legal construction or open source business model that
obviates the need for closed source (at least in the limited sense of source
available, rather than commonplace definition), then Microsoft is not wrong
for keeping their source closed, and I'm not sure that they believe
differently.

Part of copyright is the right NOT to free software that you've written, just
as it's my right not to run it. I'll appreciate their open source offerings,
but I don't believe that they believe much of anything about "the right side
of history".

------
ajross
This remains to me the most weirdly improbable heel/face turn in tech industry
history. Kids today, whose worst bad guys are Facebook and Uber, probably
won't ever really understand how utterly loathed Microsoft was in the open
source community. Every action they took seemed deliberately designed to
impede the way we worked, the software we wanted to run (and write) and the
hardware we wanted to buy.

I spent decades trying to find way to avoid buying windows licenses.

And now... they're just a harmless, if slightly stodgy, tech giant hawking
their OS and office suite, throwing a few good tools over the fence, and
generally being pleasant to work with. Post-pandemic, in fact, I've been
working full time on a desktop that's running windows (with a bunch of X11
terminals from the linux development box, of course). And not only do I not
hate it, I don't even feel shame.

~~~
bayindirh
For me, Microsoft will always be remembered with three things:

\- Trying to Jerry-rig ACPI standard so nothing other than Windows can run on
PC platform (Bill Gates memo).

\- Trying to Embrace-Enhance-Extinguish Java with their fork.

\- Using obscure, undocumented extensions on everything (i.e. Frontpage was
using IE specific extensions to make HTML files render nicer on IE but not on
Netscape).

I think that their current plan is a long/slow game to death-hug the Linux
ecosystem if they can however, Google, IBM and other players probably won't
allow them to do that.

P.S.: Oh and of course, SecureBoot.

~~~
eldelshell
And don't forget the stupid formats used by Office when an open standard
already existed.

~~~
colejohnson66
Office Open XML[0] was created in 2006. In Office 2007, the default save
format was changed to the new open format. If they wanted to keep it
proprietary, they wouldn’t’ve created Office Open XML, and they wouldn’t’ve
made it the default format.

It’s my understanding that the reason for their “proprietary” format was
because, at the time, there wasn’t really a format that could contain
everything Word could do. Also, their proprietary format wasn’t very
proprietary; it was reverse engineered, and they did nothing to stop that.

[0]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_Open_XML](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_Open_XML)

~~~
pritambaral
> Office Open XML[0] was created in 2006.

In response to the OpenDocument Format, which was released in 2005.

> If they wanted to keep it proprietary, they wouldn’t’ve created Office Open
> XML ...

OOXML, when first released, was still pretty proprietary: it was exceedingly
complex, far more than the already-existing ODF, at points even requiring
reverse engineering of binary blobs and other, not-covered-under-OOXML,
Microsoft-proprietary libraries.

For example: "OpenXML on the other hand, is a high-level specification which
describes the high level envelopes used to embed binary objects which are
included in the content. The content itself contains the binary code which can
call any function in any Microsoft library and has all permissions of the
person opening the document." [0]

It felt a lot like a hurried piece of work rushed through under short notice
and short schedules. In fact, Microsoft even tried to rush through an ISO
standardisation for OOXML, a process during which it did not hesitate from
maligning and harassing national bodies [1] and academics [2] who reviewed
OOXML poorly against the ODF. The very link you cited covers a few of the
issues with the standardisation process: [3].

> Also, their proprietary format wasn’t very proprietary; it was reverse
> engineered, and they did nothing to stop that.

That is NOT the definition of 'proprietary'. Reverse engineering is legally
protected irrespective of copyright and licensing.

\----

0:
[https://slated.org/ooxml_dissecting_the_binary_blob_problem](https://slated.org/ooxml_dissecting_the_binary_blob_problem)

1: [https://www.infoworld.com/article/2654142/iso-publishes-
offi...](https://www.infoworld.com/article/2654142/iso-publishes-office-open-
xml-specification.html)

2: [http://deepakphatak.blogspot.com/2008/05/this-
is.html](http://deepakphatak.blogspot.com/2008/05/this-is.html)

3:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_Open_XML#Standardizatio...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_Open_XML#Standardization_process)

------
anq10
Currently OSS is being destroyed by corporations flooding it with money. You
can see people in projects becoming more corporate and political, doing very
little and trying to protect and extend their power.

You can see largely useless features going in just because some corporation
wants them.

I wonder what will happen if the destruction is complete. Will things revert
to closed source entirely or are the corporations happy with being the puppet
masters of OSS?

~~~
canada_dry
> OSS is being destroyed by corporations^^ flooding it with money

^^ _with competing interests_

Microsoft's interest in _all things linux_ is a tad worrisome IMHO.

How 'bout instead of the "keep your enemies closer" strategy, MS start
releasing their products as open source and leave Linux be.

------
jacquesm
They're not on the wrong side of history at all, they were simply criminals,
and I'm not quite sure about the past tense there.

------
znpy
Unless Microsoft releases at least one of its products (ms-sql, visual studio,
windows, office) under an open source license i'm calling bullshit.

~~~
elcomet
Visual studio code is open source. So is the new windows terminal.

~~~
tsar9x
If visual studio code is open source, please show me code of Remote Dev
extension.

~~~
colejohnson66
[https://github.com/microsoft/vscode-remote-
release](https://github.com/microsoft/vscode-remote-release) ?

~~~
mambru
[https://github.com/microsoft/vscode-remote-
release/issues/39...](https://github.com/microsoft/vscode-remote-
release/issues/391)

------
colejohnson66
So much resentment in this thread. Do people seriously think Microsoft is
going the EEE route again? Companies are not monolithic entities that never
change; They’re made of people. It’s been almost 25 years since the lawsuit,
and I can guarantee you that practically _no one_ from the 90s is still
working at Microsoft.

~~~
craftinator
Why do you think they bought GitHub? They're are doing EEE on git...

~~~
bdcravens
So they are planning to extinguish git? Acquiring a dominant company and
becoming the go-to solution isn't full EEE.

~~~
craftinator
Correct. They found a company that had already both Embraced and Extended,
which takes out two-thirds of the work for them. Of course, they've also been
running the "We're actually all about open source now" marketing campaign for
the last few years; there's seldom a single motive in a company that large.

------
dzonga
this is the power of the web. made the underlying OS irrelevant. folks in the
industry let's invest in good skills i.e making performant web apps i.e Figma
quality. using wasm + all. & then gradually people will be free to build | use
new OS's.

------
stunt
It sounds sarcastic and probably is. But, most enterprises that don't have
open-source in their blood do what ever it takes to pleases investors and
their revenue stream. It was aligned to their interest to stay close, and now
there is more gain to support open source.

Microsoft is doing a lot of positive contributions, but I don't think they
will ever become an open-source company. And we shouldn't expect every company
to become open-source either. Any company that benefits from open-source
should support, invest, and contribute to open-source.

------
0x006A
So will they pay reparations for there atrocities? I.e. pay back the "Windows
tax" they forced on OEM for all those years now.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundling_of_Microsoft_Windows](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundling_of_Microsoft_Windows)

~~~
jacquesm
Let's start with interest-on-interest payback of all the expense the SCO
trials incurred, and getting the 'Microsoft Tax' refunded for the last 20
years or so would be nice as well.

------
amelius
At least they were not selling spyware like some other big companies do right
now.

~~~
DangitBobby
I suspect they would if they were positioned to and thought they would profit
from it. Some people (in this very thread) consider Windows 10 to have a
significant amount of spyware.

------
tsjq
by saying sorry and trying to befriend the ardent supporters of FOSS , this
sounds like one just a step in Microsoft's Embrace-Extend-Extinguish strategy.

------
badsectoracula
Then where can i download the Windows source code and build my own version of
it? I'd like to get rid of the compositor and bring back the classic theme.

Microsoft was on the "wrong side of the history" wrt. open source only because
others figured out how to take advantage of the shared labor programmers put
towards open source and work around the markets where Microsoft had near
absolute dominance - so Microsoft was forced to play ball. In markets where
Microsoft still dominates (e.g. desktop) their open source efforts are of the
"let's opensource the Windows Calculator, we love Open Source, teehee"
variety.

~~~
colejohnson66
It’s actually possible to get the source code to Microsoft. Seriously. You
just have to be big enough and have a good enough reason.

[https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/sharedsource/](https://www.microsoft.com/en-
us/sharedsource/)

~~~
fsflover
The source code is not the point. The point is the freedoms of FOSS.

~~~
colejohnson66
Microsoft _can’t_ open source windows. Not that they don’t want to; they
can’t. There’s too much of other companies proprietary stuff in it. Microsoft
didn’t write all of Windows; they’ve licensed some stuff from other companies,
and they almost certainly don’t have a right to release the source code for it
all.

Basically, Windows wasn’t written to be open source, so the effort involved to
do so is insurmountable.

~~~
jka
Would the atomic structure of the universe begin to unbind if someone at
Microsoft started tagging and removing proprietary elements of the codebase
and gained approval to push the remainder of it to GitHub?

(my point is that "can't", "too much", and "insurmountable" are rarely words
that make sense in the realm of software, especially given sufficient time --
and any missing interfaces can be removed and re-implemented; in fact it's
likely that existing open source alternatives already exist for most of them)

