To Microsoft, Open Source means "Windows Encumbered"

http://opensource.org/Microsoft-Open-Source

by bensummers • 16 years ago

20 17 16 years ago

jimfl• 16 years ago

The term "open" is starting to suffer the same fate as the term "organic." Soon, your local well-intentioned hacker won't be able to call their software open, because they can't afford to do the federal filing or get the USDS inspection.

anujseth3• 16 years ago

A sincere question, why is the onus on microsoft to make sure its .net stuff runs on "one of Google's new fangled hand-held devices"?

Also, how is "They continue to attack, with legal action or threats, any open source that competes with any of their core products." any different from what other companies do ? How do you think google would react if some one was to brand and name a search engine similar to theirs ? What about Red-Hat ? If I was to take their distro and start selling it as Red-Hat Enhanced Pro Super Cool version what you think their response would be.

The way I see it, its easy for companies like google to beat the open drum because it does not hurt their core business, microsoft however sees direct impact on revenue.

bensummers• 16 years ago

The objection of the article is to people claiming something is "open" when it's not. Open implies working with products from more than one vendor.

So there's nothing wrong with Microsoft's behaviour, apart from how they're describing what they're doing. A lovely example is their Office Open XML formats, which only work with Microsoft products because the specification includes things like "Behaves like Microsoft Word 97".

ubernostrum• 16 years ago

Open implies working with products from more than one vendor.

But "open source" does not imply that -- it implies that you will have access to the source code, and the rights to redistribute and to make/distribute derivative works.

Or, to maybe drive the point home in a different way: if, say, a game is released under an OSI-approved license, but for sake of speed contains some inline assembly, would you then claim it's not really "open" since it only runs on a single CPU architecture?

DrSprout• 16 years ago

>A sincere question, why is the onus on microsoft to make sure its .net stuff runs on "one of Google's new fangled hand-held devices"?

Adobe is doing it with Flash. Sun/Oracle does it with Java. FOSS projects do it even with C/C++ code. Javascript, HTML, AJAX, PDF, .doc.

Microsoft claims that they have developed a "standard" called .net, so it's their responsibility to maintain the ecosystem in a manner that makes .net code portable.

>If I was to take their distro and start selling it as Red-Hat Enhanced Pro Super Cool version what you think their response would be.

Now you're just trolling. Trademarks are entirely separate from copyright and patents. Both Red Hat and Google in fact encourage companies to take their code and build on top of it. Of course, Google keeps some things, like Gmail and Maps closed source, but they don't pretend that they are standards or available for anyone to use as they please.

ErrantX• 16 years ago

> Microsoft claims that they have developed a "standard" called .net, so it's their responsibility to maintain the ecosystem in a manner that makes .net code portable.

I think it's fair to add if they want to. It's surely up to them whether they wish to support .Net on other platforms or not.

In fact that matches typical FOSS project workings; where a piece of software is usually put together for a particular platform and then a third party (or sub project) takes on the porting/cross compiling.

anujseth3• 16 years ago

> Adobe is doing it with Flash. Sun/Oracle does it with Java. FOSS projects do it even with C/C++ code. Javascript, HTML, AJAX, PDF, .doc.

Adobe is doing it because its in their direct interest to port to as many platforms as possible.

> Microsoft claims that they have developed a "standard" called .net, so it's their responsibility to maintain the ecosystem in a manner that makes .net code portable.

When google started Android shouldn't they have used the already existing open standard J2ME for their stuff? But since they're google they can ignore any standard and fragment any space.

You cannot actually expect microsoft to invest millions of dollars into platforms where there is guaranteed to be no return. It is a standard, if you want to use go ahead and implement it yourself. Mono does this, they even get help from microsoft, including the testing suites to silverlight etc.

> Now you're just trolling.

No I'm not trolling. My point is its alright when google keeps its core revenue maker, its search engines, code and algos top secret. If however microsoft does the same for their core revenue streams they get called evil.

Also, even microsoft encourages people to use their stuff to build on top off, its just a different view point where a lot of it isn't open source.

zppx2• 16 years ago

Have you even heard of CentOS?

Elepsis• 16 years ago

Which, um, isn't sold? Isn't that the whole crux of the argument?

anujseth3• 16 years ago

Yes I have. Thats not what I meant, my point was if you use any company's work to build a product that eats into their own core revenue, they will go after you no matter how open they claim to be.

TallGuyShort• 16 years ago

It's not that it's their responsibility to DO it, it's that it's their responsibility to stop going out of their way to stop other people from doing creative, innovative things.

kogir• 16 years ago

Actually, open source just means open source. The source is available, can be modified, and can be redistributed. Opensource.org even lists the MS-PL ans MS-RL licenses as open source.

Free software (as in beer), is a whole different matter entirely. Microsoft has only claimed to be releasing free software when that is indeed the case.

As a developer for the Windows platform, I've never been mislead or under any illusions that anything is free. In fact, understanding the licensing and pricing was critical before making the decision to develop on the platform.

Do I still appreciate that the source for ASP.Net MVC is available? Definitely. I even ran a fork of it for a time.

cubicle67• 16 years ago

Forget the opensource argument. I have no problem at all with people developing for a single OS, nor paying for software, nor not having access to the source. What I do have a problem with, however, is data lock-in.

I don't mind paying you to use your software/wesite, but I object very much to you then acting as if that's your data. It's not.

Bring on Open Data, and make sure it applies to web apps as well

emehrkay• 16 years ago

I agree with you, but I want to add that even data lock in is fine if you let your users know beforehand (if they're not forward thinking enough to not use the product, it is on them). What isn't fine is when you try to make your format the "open" standard.

roc• 16 years ago

I disagree. Data lock-in is flat-out evil. Proprietary formats and stores are fine, but everything needs to let data back out in open formats.

Every app should have some sort of "I'd like to take my ball and go home" bulk-export.

Because no matter what you tell users up front, they won't read it. Most people simply assume reasonableness.

Pretending otherwise is just seeking to take advantage of human nature.

zppx2• 16 years ago

I do not think MS has any responsability to port their applications to any operating system, it's possible to develop open source software for just one operating system, such as the various good applications that only runs on linux (Valgrind comes to mind) but not on other free unix-like systems.

zokier• 16 years ago

Sounds a lot like what RMS called Java Trap

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html

To Microsoft, Open Source means "Windows Encumbered"

Related Stories