Tempted to send a phlegm? Join Ramboholics Anonymous
|
|
|
Microsoft bans open source on Windows Phone 7 Marketplace
CLOSED SOURCE SOFTWARE DEVELOPER Microsoft has prohibited open source software running on Windows Phone 7 (WP7) from being sold at its apps store.
Buried in Microsoft's Windows Phone Marketplace Application Provider Agreement, the document that all developers for WP7 have to follow, is article 5 clause 6 which states, "The Application must not include software, documentation, or other materials that, in whole or in part, are governed by or subject to an Excluded License, or that would otherwise cause the Application to be subject to the terms of an Excluded License." That sounds fair enough, until you go back up the document and read the definition of an Excluded License.
Microsoft's Excluded License for Windows Phone Marketplace is defined as "any license requiring, as a condition of use, modification and/or distribution of the software subject to the license, 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. Excluded Licenses include, but are not limited to the GPLv3 Licenses." It continues, "For the purpose of this definition, 'GPLv3 Licenses' means the GNU General Public License version 3, the GNU Affero General Public License version 3, the GNU Lesser General Public License version 3, and any equivalents to the foregoing."
So Microsoft will not allow developers to either publish source code of their Windows Phone applications or release them under GPL or GNU Affero licences. And it's not immediately clear why. After all, Microsoft doesn't stop users from running open source software on its Windows PC operating system, and has in fact had a policy of encouraging open source software developers to code applications that run under Windows.
Perhaps the firm still believes that by keeping all source code under wraps it will somehow improve security. If this is indeed the case then it's the usual error of trying to get away with 'security by obscurity' that closed source software outfits tend to fall into.
And while Microsoft does allow software that is distributed under GPL licences to run in Windows, with the Windows Phone Marketplace it's the first time the company has complete control over the delivery of applications to one of its operating systems. Given that the security through obscurity model has been widely discredited, the question is, what is Microsoft gaining from shunning developers who want to release applications under GPL and related licenses?
We tried to ask Microsoft these questions but the firm was unable to get back to us by press time.
It's likely that some developers will be put off by Microsoft's overly restrictive developer agreement and simply head off to develop for other mobile operating systems.
If that does happen, Microsoft and its new best friend, Nokia, can only sit back and watch as both companies fall off the mobile communications and computing industry radar completely. µ
Tags: Microsoft
Share this:
Share
Seems to me like people are complaining for no reason other than to complain. There are plenty of other licenses out there.
If its a problem for you, pick another platform. Dont sit moaning about it.
I'm a massive fan of WP7 and the development experience, I have never once had a problem with lisencing.
What do they care how I am going to license my code? We should not support they platform by writting code. Let them fail.
Microsoft can change these rules as they see fit (on a whim), as did Apple with suddenly banning all apps produced by Adobe Creative Suite 5 "for users' own good".
How many developers will be rushing to develop for the proprietary WP7 platform? Developers are not going to be willing to risk time and effort for a potential complete loss when they can develop for Android (and Meego, and perhaps WebOS) and not be restricted to the "random rulebooks" of proprietary platforms locked down by Microsoft and Apple.
Let's get correct here. the apache, BSD, MIT license are some that are allowed. Frankly I'm not a fan of the GPL. The GPL tells you what you can do with your code..you must do this and you must do that. The BSD allows you to do what you want with the code. I think the BSD is a more open license than GPL. GPL is simply a mirror of proprietary software wrapped in an open source cloak.
Nice.
But what about....
The Stunning .... (you figured out....)
:-)
Not long before android-ing the hardware .
what he said, his spot on.
This makes absolute perfect sense when you remember that Microsoft has is distributing these works through its marketplace. Microsoft does not wish to be bound by the terms of the GPLv3/LGPLv3, particularly as they affect activation technologies (known as 'Tivoization').
I think the people who are baffled by this are missing the fact that if Microsoft distributes works covered by the GPLv3 in its marketplace, Microsoft itself would have to comply with the terms of the GPLv3.
Or, to put it more simply, you can't give Microsoft the rights it needs to distribute a work in the marketplace unless you wrote it. If you took elements covered by the GPL, you don't have sufficient rights to authorize Microsoft to distribute them with encumbrance.
This is not necessarily an attack on open source, but rather barring certain overly restrictive and problematic licenses. The GPL licenses are parasitic, and many of the newer versions of it are designed to make it even harder to "interoperate" with other licenses.
Personally, I find GPL v3 steps too far into idealism than pragmatism, and it may harm the spirit of such ideas when it is too hard to work with.
Could also be an issue with keeping the API's and developer information private.
Do we really care? If I read the license right, you can still open-source apps via BSD licenses, which in terms of getting code out there is a better option anyway.
Perhaps the resolution to this issue is an app (which is not GPL) which is a community managed cross-platform repository allowing access exclusively to FLOSS products.
http://thenextweb.com/microsoft/2011/02/17/no-microsoft-has-not-banned-open-source-from-the-wp7-marketplace/
This article seems to ignore the rather obvious point that the GPLv3 and LGPLv3 themselves forbid using covered software in app stores that apply anti-circumvention measures, such as the Windows 7 mobile app store or the Apple App Store.
that MS have seen the problems that Apple have had with apps that use open source code licensed under these terms (VLC springs to mind) and have decided to ban it preemptively?
They're not banning developers from publishing their source, they're just making sure that the terms that it is published under won't interfere with the terms that it is provded via their store.
That's OK, I'm trying an HTC 7 at the moment and I can say that Windows Phone 7 is the "Vista" of the smartphone world.
It's a poor work in progress and sucks mightily so I think it will be a moot point in a year or so.
@Len: "Velvet Prison?" Oh, dear! Certainly, there's an app for that.
Step inside, and you'll never get out!
Microsoft's Windows Phone 7 is a trap, to ensnare you and make you do as Microsoft says.
Inside, you'll find yourself surrounded by a walled garden of proprietary software. Forbidden in this walled garden is free and open-source (GPL) software.
This is Microsoft's dream garden, where all profits flow to Redmond. Remember when Ballmer once described Linux and open-source software as "a cancer".
Windows Phone 7 is Ballmer's garden of eden, a land where free and open-source software does not exist.