Microsoft admits being 'on the wrong side of history' with regard to open source(theregister.co.uk)
theregister.co.uk
Microsoft admits being 'on the wrong side of history' with regard to open source
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/05/15/microsoft_brad_smith_open_source/
120 comments
> shipping literal malware on mainstream desktop computers
Source? None of the things you listed below are /literal malware/.
Source? None of the things you listed below are /literal malware/.
It’s arguably adware, since users paid for the OS and then advertisements have appeared in new places since Windows 10’s initial release. E.g. some ads appeared for many people in the file explorer a few years ago.
Adware is considered a form of malware. Not the worst type of malware by any means but still “literal”.
GNU hosts a list as well; though I believe many items on it to be a stretch, I feel at least a few are justifiable. https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-microsoft.html
Adware is considered a form of malware. Not the worst type of malware by any means but still “literal”.
GNU hosts a list as well; though I believe many items on it to be a stretch, I feel at least a few are justifiable. https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-microsoft.html
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
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.
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.
Yeah that sounds like a big headache and pretty bad behavior by ms.
Strictly not malware though.
Strictly not malware though.
[deleted]
ddevault(1)
esotericn(1)
I see you haven't turned the corner either.
RMS once said "proprietary software subjugates users". At the time I thought the statement was a little over-the-top.
Now with every bit of windows software hooked into the network, I see it a little differently. (same with basically all phone software)
Now with every bit of windows software hooked into the network, I see it a little differently. (same with basically all phone software)
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?
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?
Microsoft is only open source friendly right now because Satya Nadella thinks the future is the cloud, and I would guess that the majority of software running in Azure is open-source. You have to look no further than .Net Core. Microsoft's attempt at allowing their developers to write code that runs on something other than a Windows server/PC.
I would guess they still don't like open-source; they are just doing whatever they can to support their cloud business.
I would guess they still don't like open-source; they are just doing whatever they can to support their cloud business.
It's simpler than that: the desktop OS has become irrelevant, Google is a big threat to Office (assuming they will finally get their heads down, iron out the kinks and invest heavily into Sheets). The bulk of the home users out there now run their OS with one goal: to start up their browser. Desktop software is a thing that still exists in the business realm but there too cloud based services are making huge inroads.
So the future is the cloud, but not Azure, that's just a hosting facility which MS can't complete concede to Google and AWS from a paranoia perspective. But Docs hits them where it hurts, and if it gets any better then outlook->gmail and office->gsuite becomes a real threat.
So the future is the cloud, but not Azure, that's just a hosting facility which MS can't complete concede to Google and AWS from a paranoia perspective. But Docs hits them where it hurts, and if it gets any better then outlook->gmail and office->gsuite becomes a real threat.
Office is still making MS billions. Even home users are buying O365. Besides that, Azure has three times the market share of GCP and most major enterprises don’t trust Google’s competence enough to trust their infrastructure to GCP.
Actually it's not as simple as that. Office is still making billions because of inertia in some cases.
I have 5 Office 2019 licenses at home because my family is used to it, they're using it and happy; however I work in a big, continent-wide project and everything is done (spreadsheets to reports to slide decks to coffee) on Google Docs & Google Drive. No one is using Microsoft Office or any other desktop office software and, it works.
Lines are not that clear cut anymore.
I have 5 Office 2019 licenses at home because my family is used to it, they're using it and happy; however I work in a big, continent-wide project and everything is done (spreadsheets to reports to slide decks to coffee) on Google Docs & Google Drive. No one is using Microsoft Office or any other desktop office software and, it works.
Lines are not that clear cut anymore.
We have statistics that show otherwise.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-alphabet-gsuite-idUSKBN1F...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-alphabet-gsuite-idUSKBN1F...
Many companies may need the features and integration of Microsoft's suite with other Microsoft and third party tools for various reasons or just because they like the colors. I personally have no problem with that, and I didn't mean to contradict with this.
My comments are just for my point of view and my experience. I'm in no position to talk for the whole landscape TBH.
My comments are just for my point of view and my experience. I'm in no position to talk for the whole landscape TBH.
> continent-wide project and everything is done (spreadsheets to reports to slide decks to coffee) on Google Docs & Google Drive
Are you happy with the responsiveness of Google Docs? For me once the spreadsheet exceeds a certain level of complexity, it feels really sluggish, and I feel like I'm constantly wasting microseconds while in the desktop counterpart I could have it done already. Sure, the sharing function is great, but as someone accustomed to working quickly, I'm sorry to say GD still doesn't offer a smooth experience on more complex sheets.
Are you happy with the responsiveness of Google Docs? For me once the spreadsheet exceeds a certain level of complexity, it feels really sluggish, and I feel like I'm constantly wasting microseconds while in the desktop counterpart I could have it done already. Sure, the sharing function is great, but as someone accustomed to working quickly, I'm sorry to say GD still doesn't offer a smooth experience on more complex sheets.
I'm generally working with docs and in some meetings the time difference is 8 hours we (from nearly every country from US to Greece) connect to the same doc as 10+ people and change small details continuously and it works.
I also use some sheets designed as multi-page input forms and it works well though, we don't collaborate on them real time.
I'm using Firefox with a 16M/1M ADSL connection BTW.
I also use some sheets designed as multi-page input forms and it works well though, we don't collaborate on them real time.
I'm using Firefox with a 16M/1M ADSL connection BTW.
No for profit “likes” open source. They just open source the parts that don’t put them at a competitive disadvantage. You don’t see sang major corporation open sourcing their core software.
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?
You're correct, this scenario is why the AGPL was written. A lot of companies allow the use of GPL software but forbid the use of AGPL software.
[deleted]
Yeah, fixing that issue is what's good about the SSPL.
You misspelled AGPL, which is an actual open source license, not a legally-unenforceable minefield.
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.
> ... 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...
https://www.processmechanics.com/2018/10/18/the-server-side-...
https://www.processmechanics.com/2018/10/25/further-comments...
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...
https://www.processmechanics.com/2018/10/18/the-server-side-...
https://www.processmechanics.com/2018/10/25/further-comments...
> 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?
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?
Minor nitpick:
> b) the fact that people still use MongoDB.
Just because people are using something doesn’t mean they’re doing so legally.
> b) the fact that people still use MongoDB.
Just because people are using something doesn’t mean they’re doing so legally.
> ... 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.
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.
>"... 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."
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."
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
> 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
>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.
>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.
> 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"
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"
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".
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".
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.
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.
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.
- 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.
And don't forget the stupid formats used by Office when an open standard already existed.
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
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
> 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
1: https://www.infoworld.com/article/2654142/iso-publishes-offi...
2: http://deepakphatak.blogspot.com/2008/05/this-is.html
3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_Open_XML#Standardizatio...
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
1: https://www.infoworld.com/article/2654142/iso-publishes-offi...
2: http://deepakphatak.blogspot.com/2008/05/this-is.html
3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_Open_XML#Standardizatio...
A couple of years ago I had a Skype with someone from MS for beta testing a product. We got a bit friendly and I ended up mentioning that it was awesome that MS was investing into open source because it was MS after all, you know, the big evil corp. That person had no idea what I was talking about. Then I realized it was probably a generational thing. People in their 20s and early 30s were too young to understand or remember what MS was like in 90s and 00s.
They're far from harmless, with Github in their arsenal now they can make or break open source projects the world over. All it takes is a policy change and we're back to square #1.
True, but at least git repositories are distributed, so moving to a competitor mostly means losing your issue tracking, having to redo your actions, and having to rebuild some hooks. It's not awesome, but at least your crown jewels will be okay (and never won't).
I remember this exact conversation, 20 years ago, though:
The lesson to me has not been "Microsoft's now the good guys", but "infotech builds monsters". In a commercial, property-based world, the leading firms will be monopolies behaving atrociously, for extremely entrenched systemic reasons.
As for tech's leaders: the industry not only attracts monsters, but selects monsters for success, and turns those who have (or appear to) good intentions into monsters.
The good it spits out, destroys, or drives to madness.
s/Microsoft/IBM/g
s/Facebook and Uber/Microsoft/g
The lesson to me has not been "Microsoft's now the good guys", but "infotech builds monsters". In a commercial, property-based world, the leading firms will be monopolies behaving atrociously, for extremely entrenched systemic reasons.
As for tech's leaders: the industry not only attracts monsters, but selects monsters for success, and turns those who have (or appear to) good intentions into monsters.
The good it spits out, destroys, or drives to madness.
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?
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?
Well, what is the other way we have to get OSS funding outside of the corporations that use it?
Not saying that it can't exist, but it doesn't exist, and that is why.
Not saying that it can't exist, but it doesn't exist, and that is why.
> 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.
^^ 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.
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.
Unless Microsoft releases at least one of its products (ms-sql, visual studio, windows, office) under an open source license i'm calling bullshit.
They have a couple of open source products.
However they are not one of the big 4 as you have listed.
I have heard MS employees talk about open sourcing some of their bigger products and the conversation always comes down to the issue of the third party code (libraries, etc) they use that cannot be open sourced along with the main product.
I'm not defending Microsoft in any way just giving an explanation I have heard over the last few years. I believe Mark Russinovich has talked about open sourcing things a number of times if you want to look into it further.
However they are not one of the big 4 as you have listed.
I have heard MS employees talk about open sourcing some of their bigger products and the conversation always comes down to the issue of the third party code (libraries, etc) they use that cannot be open sourced along with the main product.
I'm not defending Microsoft in any way just giving an explanation I have heard over the last few years. I believe Mark Russinovich has talked about open sourcing things a number of times if you want to look into it further.
Visual studio code is open source. So is the new windows terminal.
Yes. And not the “eh” open source MS-PL, but actual MIT.
I was talking about "visual studio", not "visual studio code".
If visual studio code is open source, please show me code of Remote Dev extension.
Goalpost moving.
Wait, what kind of logic is that?
Why does an extension need to be open source for a program to be called open source?
If someone writes a closed source plugin for LibreOffice or GIMP, does that mean they aren't open source?
Why does an extension need to be open source for a program to be called open source?
If someone writes a closed source plugin for LibreOffice or GIMP, does that mean they aren't open source?
[deleted]
What (large) companies have open-sourced their core product? I don't think anyone is accusing Shopify, Facebook, Google, etc of being anti-open source.
Gitlab
Gitlab core offering is gitlab enterprise that is not fully open source.
They do have gitlab ce that has just a subset of the functionalities from Gitlab Enterprise that is open sourced.
They do have gitlab ce that has just a subset of the functionalities from Gitlab Enterprise that is open sourced.
that page is PR lingo telling exactly the same thing i said..
the first line even say: in doubt use gitlab ee
the point here is that core has two distinct meaning in the op question in gitlab pr..
Gitlab ee is their core product, core here meaning their main product..
the fact that the core of that product, here meaning the base the product is built upon, was released as open source does not make the whole product open source..
So, gitlab core\main product is not open source.. But the core\base of that product is..
the first line even say: in doubt use gitlab ee
the point here is that core has two distinct meaning in the op question in gitlab pr..
Gitlab ee is their core product, core here meaning their main product..
the fact that the core of that product, here meaning the base the product is built upon, was released as open source does not make the whole product open source..
So, gitlab core\main product is not open source.. But the core\base of that product is..
IBM, sun microsystems.
Likewise for Google. Until that search engine is open source, it's like they've done nothing for open source. /s
Not a Googler, but an OSS dev. Google is different in that a) the Googlers inside OSS projects generally behave and are not power hungry and b) Google has started and open sourced large projects like Chromium or Go.
Microsoft tries to aggressively buy its way into existing mature projects.
Microsoft tries to aggressively buy its way into existing mature projects.
So where can I download the code for Google’s search engine? The backend code for Docs/Sheets? Google Play Services?
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.
> Do people seriously think Microsoft is going the EEE route again?
Frankly: yes. MS has changed it's colors but the nature of the beast is still exactly the same, don't forget that the current CEO was right there when all that stuff was going down. Browser wars, SCO trial, MS tax and on and on.
Frankly: yes. MS has changed it's colors but the nature of the beast is still exactly the same, don't forget that the current CEO was right there when all that stuff was going down. Browser wars, SCO trial, MS tax and on and on.
> MS has changed it's colors but the nature of the beast is still exactly the same
And your evidence is?
> don't forget that the current CEO was right there when all that stuff was going down.
And? Just because he was there doesn’t mean he agreed with it all.
Microsoft has provided much evidence that they actually support open source, and you all are sticking your heads in the ground and ignoring it all, while also providing no evidence to show the contrary.
And your evidence is?
> don't forget that the current CEO was right there when all that stuff was going down.
And? Just because he was there doesn’t mean he agreed with it all.
Microsoft has provided much evidence that they actually support open source, and you all are sticking your heads in the ground and ignoring it all, while also providing no evidence to show the contrary.
Why do you think they bought GitHub? They're are doing EEE on git...
> They're are doing EEE on git
No, I don't think that git has anything to do with why they bought GitHub and I don't think any single GitHub technology was the motivation, but if there were, I would say it is Electron and not git.
Microsoft still wants their phone and a phone needs apps. I bet somewhere inside MS a team is working hard on a version of Electron that comes with the OS and that does not have all these memory issues that the current version have and that behaves like a native app (multiple windows etc.). When a large % of apps are using that MS going to release a new phone.
Microsoft still wants their phone and a phone needs apps. I bet somewhere inside MS a team is working hard on a version of Electron that comes with the OS and that does not have all these memory issues that the current version have and that behaves like a native app (multiple windows etc.). When a large % of apps are using that MS going to release a new phone.
So they are planning to extinguish git? Acquiring a dominant company and becoming the go-to solution isn't full EEE.
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.
And like my other comment, I ask: where’s your evidence?
Aside from magically happening upon internal memos, what evidence could I possibly have? I am using simple reasoning, extrapolating about the future using data observed in the past. It seems a bit underhanded to demand evidence of the intent of a corporation.
Microsoft is, quite literally, famous for their EEE strategy. And, as a major corporation, their decisions are based on forecasted returns to shareholder value. Those two facts support the idea that Microsoft purchased GitHub as part of an EEE strategy on git. What we should be arguing about is how strongly they indicate that is what Microsoft is playing at; history has already shown that it is a definite possibility.
Microsoft is, quite literally, famous for their EEE strategy. And, as a major corporation, their decisions are based on forecasted returns to shareholder value. Those two facts support the idea that Microsoft purchased GitHub as part of an EEE strategy on git. What we should be arguing about is how strongly they indicate that is what Microsoft is playing at; history has already shown that it is a definite possibility.
I think there's a new business model that's taken over.
EEE -> Embrace Extend Exfiltrate
or maybe:
III -> Install Identify, ...Income!
(google makes billions just by identifying individuals)
EEE -> Embrace Extend Exfiltrate
or maybe:
III -> Install Identify, ...Income!
(google makes billions just by identifying individuals)
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.
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.
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.
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
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundling_of_Microsoft_Windows
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.
Yet somehow, after all that horribly deliberate and knowingly law breaking behavior, Bill Gates got resurrected recently, on a legendarily huge pile of PR bucks, as the next great savior of humanity.
At least they were not selling spyware like some other big companies do right now.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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/
The source code is not the point. The point is the freedoms of FOSS.
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.
Basically, Windows wasn’t written to be open source, so the effort involved to do so is insurmountable.
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)
(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)
Then it isn't open source. Nor any useful to me or most people, really.
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.