Microsoft: No GPLv3 Software for Windows Phone and Xbox Apps.

http://jan.wildeboer.net/2011/02/microsoft-absolutely-no-free-software-for-windows-phone-and-xbox-apps/

by mikecane • 15 years ago

131 131 15 years ago

jan.wildeboer.net

winestock• 15 years ago

The license in question forbids GPLv3 by name. It does not appear to forbid the BSD, MIT, and similar permissive licenses.

praptak• 15 years ago

Well, it is quite clear that the "share alike" clause is the bone of contention here: "“Excluded License” means any license requiring, as a condition of use [...] that the software or other software combined and/or distributed with it be (i) disclosed or distributed in source code form (ii) licensed for the purpose of making derivative works; or (iii) redistributable at no charge."

tzs3• 15 years ago

So, BSD, MIT, Apache, and similar are OK.

dagw3• 15 years ago

Looks like they're trying to preempt the whole "can you distribute GPLed programs via the app store" problem that Apple's been facing.

cosgroveb5• 15 years ago

Agreed. I kind of doubt this is an ideological decision. Just like the app store, there is no mechanism for someone who has downloaded an app to redistribute it to others.

rmc3• 15 years ago

So it's the same as Apple then. "Can you distribute GPL?" "No."

technomancy• 15 years ago

Actually, it's better than Apple. Apple will let you distribute GPL'd applications until a takedown notice is issued even though doing so is illegal; Microsoft is clear about it up-front.

dagw3• 15 years ago

Where has Apple said "No"? I seem to recall a whole bunch of speculation and uncertainty surrounding Apple not making a clear statement one way or the other.

originalgeek• 15 years ago

Cite a source, please. Apple has said nothing about GPL software. They did however respond to a takedown request by a copyright holder.

randint• 15 years ago

It's a pragmatic choice by Microsoft, but I'm amazed by their ability to piss off developers almost every time they make a decision.

statictype• 15 years ago

shrug

It sometimes feels like almost every new policy introduced by Apple for their AppStore was specially crafted to piss off and offend developers. Yet, they can get away with it because end-users are satisfied.

I guess same applies here. Microsoft has just gone out and explicitly said what Apple has not (yet) .

stcredzero• 15 years ago

I'm amazed by their ability to piss off developers almost every time they make a decision.

Yes, but you can't even publish an API without pissing off a developer somewhere. Folks like Guido Van Rossum even say things to the effect: if someone somewhere isn't pissed off, you're probably not doing it right.

flomo• 15 years ago

Wouldn't this be more accurately described as the choice of the Free Software Foundation, rather than Microsoft? The major feature of GPL3 was to prevent use in these type of "tivoized" applications.

Seems that Microsoft is taking heat for respecting the wishes of the GPL. Talk about a can't win situation.

mithaler• 15 years ago

Well, one who thinks that the GPL's wishes are a good idea could certainly feel that they deserve heat for being what the GPL was meant to prevent in the first place. But, that's no comfort to less ideologically zealous developers who want to use a [AL]GPL-licensed library they're used to using and can't.

bowmande• 15 years ago

I think they are trying to prevent people from redistributing others source. Like what occurred with Lugaru HD.

forgotAgain• 15 years ago

If they distribute GPL software aren't they also responsible for making the source available. Why would they want to open themselves to that headache?

Herring• 15 years ago

If the free linuxes can do it, im sure MS can handle it. It's not much of a hassle to add an extra menu item.

I think the real problem is unlocking & GPLv3. MS was never GPL friendly either.

rmc3• 15 years ago

No, Section2 (of the GPLv2) allows you to either distribute the source code along with it, or written offer to where to get the source code.

hasenj• 15 years ago

Doesn't the Apple App Store have the same problem?

The only difference being that Microsoft actually mentions the GPL explicitly.

ryanelkins• 15 years ago

This actually has been an issue for the App Store recently, primarily concerning VLC. See http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/no-gpl-apps-for-apples...

SimonPStevens• 15 years ago

They aren't prohibiting "Free Software", they are prohibiting software that is under a license that requires the distributor to pass certain rights along to the recipient.

Hence GPL like licenses that require distribution of source code, and that you grant redistribution rights to everyone you distribute it to are being explicitly prohibited. (And in fairness I can see why those licenses would cause problems for Microsoft as distributors)

On the other hand BSD like licenses that allow you to repackage and distribute without source and without passing rights forward are acceptable.

btipling2• 15 years ago

Exactly. Also GPL style licenses are a virus that while they promote freedom, in reality they take it away. It assumes that people are naturally untrustworthy and thus forces them to act in a way the creators of GPL see as the right way. Because of how the GPL licenses are worded, especially insane versions like the AGPL, everything they touch may be affected negatively. MIT and BSD style licenses on the other hand assume the best in people, and gives them the real freedom to do with code whatever they want.

skore• 15 years ago

You're probably just trolling, but it needs to be said every time: The freedom that the GPL takes away is the freedom to bring down the system. It keeps people in check and prevents corruption. If you enjoy the freedoms of MIT and BSD style licenses - why do you complain about the GPL? It seems that it only takes "freedoms" away that you don't appear to be interested in anyways?

Fice• 15 years ago

GPL ensures freedom. Also there is a great article by Bruce Perens about why Microsoft is hostile to GPL and why they sponsor non-copyleft open source: http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3762786/Br...

cosgroveb5• 15 years ago

I'm not going to comment on whether GPL style licenses actually have the effect of promoting freedom like they say, but I don't see at all how they take it away. An author is free to write code and distribute it under the GPL. Likewise anyone else is free to fork it, or use it in their own codebase so long as they honor the terms of the license.

How does that take away anyone's freedom? Don't like the terms of an author's library? Go write your own then.

_delirium• 15 years ago

Does your post have anything to do with the subject of the article or the comment you're replying to (Microsoft banning GPL'd apps on its platforms), or was this just a convenient opportunity for a generic anti-GPL rant?

It seems unlikely that Microsoft's decision has anything to do with objecting to restrictive licenses, anyway, since proprietary apps are not being banned, not even proprietary apps with restrictive EULAs.

jcromartie• 15 years ago

MIT and BSD warm my heart. GPL makes me paranoid and brings to mind images of seedy paranoid people. Maybe that's all the GPL FUD implanted in my mind by big corporations talking... but maybe not?

I don't know but I have never been inclined to license anything under GPL.

timwiseman• 15 years ago

"Also GPL style licenses are a virus that while they promote freedom, in reality they take it away. "

The only freedom the GPL takes away, or even could take away, is freedom that you never had. Remember, you have no right to view code, modify, or distribute software unless you get that right by either being given it or buying it from the creator.

BSD-style software simply gives these things to you as a gift, and is in a sense more free than the GPL. Closed source software on the other hand can make it difficult or impossible to do any of those things and the licensing terms if you get any of those rights are often very stringent and exacting. The GPL strikes a middle grand, it offers you these rights, but in exchange you must agree to share any changes you do make to it. I, for one, find this a very good trade off indeed if that is all the author will charge me.

cabalamat• 15 years ago

> Also GPL style licenses are a virus that while they promote freedom, in reality they take it away

The only freedom the GPL takes away is the freedom to take away other people's freedom to use modified versions of the software.

rbanffy5• 15 years ago

Let me put it in simple words.

GPL is not about freedom for developers. It's about freedom for users. MIT and BSD-like languages don't care about user rights. They don't even care that much about the rights of programmers. All they demand is some form of recognition.

GPL, on the other hand, allows you to build upon the work of others, provided you respect their wishes as to how you should use their work - that you don't disrespect your users and provide them with the same rights you received.

As was pointed out elsewhere, nobody is forcing you to stand on the shoulders of giants. You may as well stand on the ground and reinvent your wheels.

metageek2• 15 years ago

GPL and BSD are both mechanisms to promote freedom. One is the freedom of a bill of rights, the other is the freedom of anarchy.

jedsmith10• 15 years ago

> One is the freedom of a bill of rights, the other is the freedom of anarchy.

How is that even remotely a good analogy? Both of them are licenses that let you read the source, redistribute it, and modify it. They differ in what you have to do when you redistribute.

motters• 15 years ago

This is amusing in the light of Microsoft's attempts in recent years to cosy up to open source and pretend that they're embracing it via Codeplex, Mono, MPL, etc. I think this shows what their true values are.

evilduck• 15 years ago

I think the Microsoft hydra is too large to have any single set of core values anymore. Every project is pulling in a different direction.

silversmith• 15 years ago

What it shows is they do not wish to run a code distribution network (that would be required in case of GPLv3 licensed applications) alongside their app store. Perfectly reasonable, in my opinion.

wladimir2• 15 years ago

I don't want my platform to restrict what software I can run, especially not based on license. Is there any mobile platform these days that doesn't try to be your nanny as well?

elehack• 15 years ago

Maemo/MeeGo, but its future is, err, uncertain.

WebOS might be good in that regard, but its supported development model is limited to web apps so far as I know.

dagw3• 15 years ago

Depends on what you mean by web apps. Yes, you write your apps in javascript, and build your UI in HTML5 and css, but the apps are installed and run natively on the device and there is no 'web' involved. You can also write your own plug-ins in C/C++ which you can call from javascript.

bitwize3• 15 years ago

You haven't cracked root on your Android phone yet?

wladimir2• 15 years ago

I know it's possible to crack firmwares to get around any restrictions. But I think it's silly to have to hack your own device to have control of it. I'd prefer a platform in which that is the default...

jancona2• 15 years ago

There's no need to root most Android phones to install any software you want. Just go to Settings/Applications and check "Unknown sources Allow installation of non-Market applications"

AT&T (and perhaps other carriers) disable that option, but even in that case, there's a workaround that doesn't require rooting. (Google "android non-market adb".)

theBobMcCormick• 15 years ago

You don't need to root your Android phone unless you want to re-flash a different version of the OS. If you're just looking to download apps from outside the market (direct from SourceForge or GoogleCode for example) all it takes is to check one little checkbox in the setting screen.

rmc3• 15 years ago

Mobile targetted websites?

jonny_eh• 15 years ago

They're only preventing GPLv3 (and its ilk). There's a reason they mention GPLv3 and not GPLv2.

GPLv2 just requires the sharing of source code for a given binary. GPLv3 takes it a lot farther and requires that a mechanism also be provided to use derivative works. So if a car manufacturer uses GPLv3 code, they not only have to distribute the source code (which may or not be an issue), they also have to allow people to flash their own code onto the car's embedded computers.

This problem stemmed from TiVo, they used GPL code on their set-tops but signed their binaries. People could make derivative works, but couldn't use them.

In the embedded space, you can imagine that GPLv3 is very much hated. It's a big reason why a lot of projects haven't switched to v3.

dubious_1• 15 years ago

You are the first to actually hit that point, and I believe rightly so. I don't see how you could actually comply with V3 and release your software on any of these stores. The obtaining of a developer signing key is not free, and there is no guarantee that the derived work would actually be accepted.

nl• 15 years ago

I think you could on the Android store. Android phones have a setting to "allow installation from non-Market sources", which means there is no restriction on distribution.

sedachv5• 15 years ago

This is why everyone should be switching to GPLv3. Software isn't just there to be looked at.

zem2• 15 years ago

as long as they don't require all software to come from the marketplace (a la apple), i have no problem with that.

unfasten• 15 years ago

As best as I can tell, they are requiring everything to come from Windows Marketplace. Developers can side load up to 10 applications on their phone, but it seems Microsoft even borrowed Apple's $99 yearly developer fee model.

Developer side loading: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff769512(v=VS.92).as...

$99 Annual fee: http://create.msdn.com/en-us/home/membership

zem2• 15 years ago

that's sad. they might make some money in the short term, but i think they'll bleed mindshare in the long term. of course, it might work out the other way, where developers flock to them the way they did to the apple store, because there's a chance they'll make more money that way.

kaze1• 15 years ago

I can see a certain competitor rubbing their hands in glee that an entire class of applications will be unavailable on Windows Phone 7.

unsigner• 15 years ago

What "entire class of applications" has a hard dependency on GPLv3? Emacses?

soofaloofa• 15 years ago

There is no issue here, only fear-mongering. To me it seems like a pragmatic choice.

I'm not sure if the perception of Microsoft will ever change in the eyes of developers.

stuhacking2• 15 years ago

Does warranty come into this at all? There are terms in a lot of Free Software licenses that remove the obligation to provide support, accept liability for the product or even to guarantee its fitness for purpose.

It seems to me that these aspects introduce a gap in the level of support Microsoft can offer for a product distributed on its platform since it doesn't necessarily have a way to delegate responsibility back up the chain.

mkr-hn2• 15 years ago

I think that's standard for both EULAs and free software licenses.

stuhacking2• 15 years ago

Thanks, maybe I should read a EULA sometime. ;-)

ww• 15 years ago

Microsoft's strategy is to build/own the platform and then add value to the platform by harvesting what is on top (buying software/copying ideas etc). From a game-theoretic view point, GPL is a strategy that works well vs harvesting and should be kept 'on the table'. For more on this and Microsoft read: http://www.amazon.com/Keystone-Advantage-Ecosystems-Innovati...

wmf• 15 years ago

AFAIK the Wii and PS3 have similar terms (although there's no uproar because the terms themselves are secret). I get the impression that console APIs are generally NDAd and so releasing the source of a console game would indirectly expose the APIs.

chopsueyar• 15 years ago

Where did my DB server go?

aagnihot• 15 years ago

It seems that the site is down

fleitz• 15 years ago

They don't want to put in place the infrastructure to distribute source code, nor do they want the legal requirements to do so. Thus GPLv3 prevents Microsoft from exercising its freedom to not put in place a source code distribution system that will appeal to exactly none of its customers.

Microsoft: No GPLv3 Software for Windows Phone and Xbox Apps.

Related Stories