EditorsAbout the SiteComes vs. MicrosoftUsing This Web SiteSite ArchivesCredibility IndexOOXMLOpenDocumentPatentsNovellNews DigestSite NewsRSS

10.03.08

Here Come the Anti-GNU/Linux (Yet ‘Open’) Software Licences from Microsoft

Posted in Free/Libre Software, GNU/Linux, Microsoft, Mono, Novell, OSI, Windows at 8:25 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

“Open source is an intellectual-property destroyer [...] I can’t imagine something that could be worse than this for the software business and the intellectual-property business. I’m an American; I believe in the American way, I worry if the government encourages open source, and I don’t think we’ve done enough education of policymakers to understand the threat.”

Jim Allchin, Microsoft executive

LIKE SO MANY others, we were beyond "skeptical" when Microsoft tried to join OSI and hop on the “open source” bandwagon. Some external articles of interest include:

According to The Register, CodePlex’ morph into GNU/Linux-hostile territories is just routine. It comes ‘from above’ — from Microsoft’s own licences.

Microsoft is posting code to its much-trumpeted CodePlex open-source projects site using licenses and conditions that go against the principles of open source.

The company has been posting projects under Microsoft licenses that stop you from running CodePlex projects on non-Windows platforms or restrict access to code.

And this is the host SourceForge plays ball with?

Miguel de Icaza has complained about such things, but yesterday he ran back to Microsoft, giving them credit and thanking them. And in other related news, it turns out that even self-appointed experts fail to understand Moonlight. Here is a portion from a new article:

Microsoft announced Silverlight in May of 2007 at their MIX conference held in Las Vegas. The first Community Technology Preview (CTP) was released a few months after that. The design goal behind Silverlight was to make it possible to build applications for the Web that used essentially the same code as you would use for a desktop application. From an implementation perspective that translates to a version of Microsoft’s Common Language Runtime (CLR) running inside the browser.

Linux is obviously missing in the list of supported platforms–at least it was in the beginning. That’s where Moonlight comes in.

When asked why Siiverlight itself was not ported to GNU/Linux, Microsoft’s response was that Novell’s second-rare copycat [1, 2, 3] should do (or something along those lines). Since regulators would drag Microsoft’s feet until it supports GNU/Linux, Novell did a double favour here to Microsoft:

  1. It made it seem like Microsoft collaborates with GNU/Linux
  2. It ensured that all GNU/Linux ever gets is an inferior and incompatible thing called Moonlight, which is not SIlverlight

Worth adding are the legal barriers associated with Moonlight. It serves Novell, which spreads Mono like it’s mononucleosis. Novell has its reasons.

Bad Silverlight

Share this post: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • co.mments
  • DZone
  • email
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine
  • Print
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Facebook

If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

Pages that cross-reference this one

29 Comments

  1. Joshua K said,

    October 3, 2008 at 11:57 pm

    Gravatar

    I wrote an small entry on my blog discussing two of Microsoft’s “Open Source” licenses. Give it a read.

    http://tinyurl.com/4x2m2r

  2. Bob said,

    October 4, 2008 at 12:02 am

    Gravatar

    > Novell did a double favour here to Microsoft:

    > 1. It made it seem like Microsoft collaborates with GNU/Linux
    > 2. It ensured that all GNU/Linux ever gets is an inferior and incompatible thing called Moonlight, which is not SIlverlight

    You make it sound like the GNU/Linux communities are a single entity that is of one mind. The GNU/Linux communities are communities of people that cooperate (with themselves and with other communities) in order to help each other to do their computing with GNU/Linux based systems.

    Microsoft may not be collaborating with the other communities but that doesn’t make the facts any less true: it accurate to say that Microsoft is collaborating with a community (maybe more?) that focuses on GNU/Linux. However, it is not accurate to say the “Microsoft is collaborating with GNU/Linux” as this implies that Microsoft is cooperating the whole collection of communites (they are not doing this).

    Secondly, the quality of the free Silverlight implementation depends upon the effort invested into it. If there was a great effort into implementing and developing Moonlight, I would have little doubt that Moonlight be inferior. Instead, people are relying on other people to do some work. People should invest their own resources and cooperate with like minded groups in order to make a good free software implementation a reality.

  3. David Masover said,

    October 4, 2008 at 1:28 am

    Gravatar

    It’s not clear Silverlight can do too much — it’s making progress, but it’s being seen as basically another Flash, and you can’t beat that market penetration.

    Speaking of which: Does anyone else find it disturbing that a proprietary browser plugin has more market share than any one browser? Or that there is a huge amount of content (videos, especially) which cannot be viewed any other way?

    I’m not saying Silverlight is good. I’m saying that it might be better to target the more immediate danger — the one that’s already here.

    I have selfish motivations, too — Moonlight seems a lot more likely to succeed, and a lot faster, than Gnash. Sure, I’d love to have everything be based on HTML5 Video, SVG, and Javascript, but if it’s got to be nonstandard, at least something nonstandard which has a reasonably open source, decent implementation on Linux.

    Similarly: It’d probably be better to have Ogg Theora or Dirac for video, and Vorbis or FLAC for audio, in an OGM or Matroska container. But I’ll take h.264/AAC in a MOV, or even Microsoft formats in WMV, over a proprietary player — especially a proprietary browser plugin that performs worse on my platform of choice than it did on other platforms three years ago.

  4. Roy Schestowitz said,

    October 4, 2008 at 2:49 am

    Gravatar

    @Joshua K: thanks, that’s excellent.

    @Bob: Silverlight serves Microsoft because it’s its attempt at media domination. Why would free labourers help that happen?

  5. Dan O'Brian said,

    October 4, 2008 at 8:46 am

    Gravatar

    Miguel de Icaza has complained about such things, but yesterday he ran back to Microsoft, giving them credit and thanking them.

    Had you read the blog post by Miguel, you would have seen that the reason he thanked them was because they fixed the license. Originally, MEF was under the MS-LPL which Miguel had pointed out was not Free Software friendly, and apparently after some talks, Miguel convinced them to reconsider their licensing choice and they relicensed under the MS-PL, which is Free Software friendly.

  6. Roy Schestowitz said,

    October 4, 2008 at 9:09 am

    Gravatar

    Yes, I know the story. I mentioned it before.

  7. AlexH said,

    October 4, 2008 at 12:09 pm

    Gravatar

    So when Miguel complained loudly and got them to fix their license, how is that him “running back to Microsoft”?

    At worst, it’s Microsoft running back to Miguel :D

    If he can convince them to re-license stuff as free software, that’s something that we should encourage.

  8. Roy Schestowitz said,

    October 4, 2008 at 2:36 pm

    Gravatar

    Over at Slashdot, Asay has just posted (or maybe it was the editors) a blast from 2007.

    Microsoft once again offering pseudo-open source on CodePlex

    Microsoft has been criticized in the past for how it manages CodePlex, Microsoft’s “open source project hosting site” (emphasis mine). This time, as The Register reports, Microsoft is hosting code that can only be run on the Windows platform.

    http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10058421-16.html

    Microsoft Treating “Windows-Only” As Open Source

    “The Register is reporting that Microsoft is hosting Windows-only projects on its ‘open source project hosting site,’ CodePlex. Miguel de Icaza caught and criticized Microsoft for doing this with its Microsoft Extensibility Framework (MEF), licensing it under the Microsoft Limited Permissive License (Ms-LPL), which restricts use of the code to Windows. Microsoft has changed the license for MEF to an OSI-approved license, the Microsoft Public License, but it continues to host a range of other projects under the Ms-LPL. If CodePlex wasn’t an ‘open source project hosting site,’ this wouldn’t be a problem. But when Microsoft invokes the ‘open source’ label, it has a duty to live up to associated expectations and ensure that the code it releases on CodePlex is actually open source. If it doesn’t want to do this — if it doesn’t want to abide by this most basic principle of open source — then call CodePlex something else and we’ll all move on.”

    http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/10/04/1515244&from=rss

  9. AlexH said,

    October 4, 2008 at 4:59 pm

    Gravatar

    That’s irrelevant in this case, as this is a recognised free software license.

    Whatever you think of Miguel, he wouldn’t be thanking Microsoft for Windows-only software.

  10. Roy Schestowitz said,

    October 4, 2008 at 5:23 pm

    Gravatar

    I know this. Miguel is not the bad guy. He just refuses to believe or understand how he’s being used for others to be used and sued.

  11. Dan O'Brian said,

    October 4, 2008 at 5:44 pm

    Gravatar

    Miguel has been in this industry for a long long time. He’s not new to the game. I don’t understand how you think you could possibly know better than Miguel when you’ve never even so much as left academia to experience the real world. And you’ve certainly never worked in the industry and so can’t even pretend to understand it.

    He’s not being used by Microsoft, he’s forcing their hand. He’s the one calling them out (re MS-LPL) and convincing them to play nice. He may not always be successful, but he’s accomplished a lot more than this site has toward reaching the goals of “Free Software Everywhere” than you could ever hope to accomplish.

  12. AlexH said,

    October 4, 2008 at 5:45 pm

    Gravatar

    Or, simply, he just has a different point of view.

    By saying he went “running back to Microsoft” makes it sounds like MS didn’t meet his demands, which they did. It’s a shame you didn’t point that out more clearly.

  13. Roy Schestowitz said,

    October 4, 2008 at 5:52 pm

    Gravatar

    I’ll write more about it shortly. .NET clones are off the FSF’s priority list this year.

  14. Dan O'Brian said,

    October 4, 2008 at 5:55 pm

    Gravatar

    Well, that’s nice for the FSF – but no one can argue that the FSF’s priority list is the be-all/end-all.

    There are clearly a lot of people interested in .NET on Linux.

  15. Roy Schestowitz said,

    October 4, 2008 at 6:15 pm

    Gravatar

    What matters is that dotgnu was there last year, but it’s no longer a priority.

  16. Dan O'Brian said,

    October 4, 2008 at 6:26 pm

    Gravatar

    Probably because they feel that Mono has filled that gap.

  17. Roy Schestowitz said,

    October 4, 2008 at 6:45 pm

    Gravatar

    That’s one possibility that I was going to mention. Boycott Novell is in Slashdot’s front page today, so it’ll wait until tomorrow. :-)

  18. Joshua K said,

    October 5, 2008 at 3:26 pm

    Gravatar

    The simple fact and truth is that those ‘revised’ licenses are not and will never be considered ‘free’ licenses. I am referring to the MS-PL and the MS-RL. Both are lies by specific clause:

    “””If you bring a patent claim against any contributor over patents that you claim are infringed by the software, your patent license from such contributor to the software ends automatically.”””

    I wrote about the implications, but apparently the link was mangled.

    http://stable-entropy.blogspot.com/2008/08/extents-of-open-source-microsoft.html

  19. Roy Schestowitz said,

    October 5, 2008 at 3:36 pm

    Gravatar

    Joshua K,

    I included your perspective in this followup post.

  20. AlexH said,

    October 5, 2008 at 3:56 pm

    Gravatar

    @Joshua_K: that’s completely untrue.

    Both GPL and Apache V2 have a similar clause, and the FSF consider the MS-PL to be a free license.

    There’s no reason to extend patent licenses to those who attack you first, that’s not a “freedom” that needs protecting.

  21. Joshua K said,

    October 5, 2008 at 8:07 pm

    Gravatar

    @AlexH
    Just because a large body declares the license to be “compatible” doesn’t actually make it so in the philosophical sense. Perhaps you missed my quotation of clauses 3B of the Microsoft Public License, and 3C of the Microsoft Reciprocal License. The difference between the General Public License Section 11 and Microsoft’s licenses is that the GPL does not self-destruct upon patent infringement claims, while the Microsoft licenses do. Although they look similar, the interpretation is vastly different.

  22. Dan O'Brian said,

    October 5, 2008 at 8:56 pm

    Gravatar

    The FSF has declared the MS-PL to be a Free Software license, therefor it is compatible in the philosophical sense.

  23. AlexH said,

    October 6, 2008 at 1:24 am

    Gravatar

    @Joshua_K:

    Except, the license doesn’t self-destruct automatically. That would be non-free.

    What happens is that you lose any patent license from that contributor. Which is the reasonably well-known “self defence” clause.

  24. Roy Schestowitz said,

    October 6, 2008 at 1:36 am

    Gravatar

    Do you have a link for that, Dan?

  25. AlexH said,

    October 6, 2008 at 1:52 am

    Gravatar

    @Roy: I gave the link several comments ago.

  26. Roy Schestowitz said,

    October 6, 2008 at 2:00 am

    Gravatar

    You posted no link/s here. I just want to see, explicitly, the FSF’s statement on this issue. Genuine curiously, not that I necessarily doubt it.

  27. AlexH said,

    October 6, 2008 at 2:45 am

    Gravatar

    @Roy: Er, I did!

    The FSF stance is no different to many other licenses: it’s a free license, but it does the same as Apache and therefore you shouldn’t use it for new software.

  28. Roy Schestowitz said,

    October 6, 2008 at 2:50 am

    Gravatar

    Oops. My bad, I missed it.

    Just spotted this post in Groklaw’s News Picks:

    Microsoft bad cop is up against the wall

    “This time they are offering Windows-only code on their “open source” CodePlex site. It’s not that this is technically impossible. It’s just prohibited by license.

    [...]

    “Last time they played this game they were pushing OOXML as an ISO standard. Before that they were promising to bury open source in patent suits.

    “Now they’re trying to sneak semi-proprietary code on their own site.

    “It’s like a crime boss getting arrested for pickpocketing. Lex Luthor gets a parking ticket, and pays it. Godzilla has become Reptar.

    “So instead of taking deep umbrage, I’m just sad. You want a super villain to be, well, super. Not silly.”

  29. AlexH said,

    October 6, 2008 at 2:54 am

    Gravatar

    I don’t think anyone is arguing that Microsoft have some particularly poor licenses in their “shared source” stink.

    However, I think Miguel did a very good thing convincing them to release something that was proprietary as free software. Microsoft are using free software themselves – witness the recent news about jQuery – and it’s good to see them give back, even if limited.

    Remember, you can take their stuff and turn it into Java or something even if you don’t like the original.

What Else is New


  1. Links 24/2/2018: Npm Bug, Mycroft AI on Plasma

    Links for the day



  2. Unified Patents, With Help From PTAB, Succeeds at Disarming Patent Trolls; InterDigital and RPX See a Massive Decline in Income

    Positive news about the rapid demise of small patent trolls, large (even publicly-traded) trolls, and entities like RPX which profit from troll activity



  3. Chinese Firms Dominate the Chinese Mobile Market Where Patents Are Used for Nationalist Protectionism

    China's patent offensive, which is far from a charm offensive, may mean that foreign companies won't survive in the Chinese market, which is itself dominated by companies that are closely connected to the Chinese Communist Party, also known as the Communist Party of China (CPC)



  4. Not Just EPO: USPTO Too Will See Patent Filings Declining

    The retreat from patent maximalism, as well as the lowered perceived value of patents, may mean that fewer people/companies now pursue patents or bother with litigation (they work on technology instead)



  5. Automated Tracking Solutions, Aatrix and Berkheimer Don't Change Anything; They're Exploited by Patent Extremists to Pressure/Mislead/Insult Judges

    The intentional lies, in addition to insults directed at judges who push back against patent maximalism, represent a new low for the US patent 'industry'; like a pack of wild hyenas they just gang up against those who do the rational thing and what makes economic sense for their country



  6. The Unified Patent Court (UPC) is Dead, But Spin From Team UPC is Now Abundant

    As we predicted, Team UPC is now denying the very facts about a German court agreeing to hear a major UPC complaint, exploiting blogs with a larger audience to spread falsehoods



  7. EPO Roundup: Low Profile, Employment Changes, Patent Trolls, Refusal to Obey Courts, and Animal Breeding Patents

    A few recent developments and observations regarding the European Patent Office (EPO), which is in a volatile state and is making no public statement about the future of staff ('canteen talk' now revolves around alleged deep cuts to staffing)



  8. Links 22/2/2018: Qt Roadmap for 2018, Calculate Linux 17.12.2

    Links for the day



  9. As Expected, Bristows and Others Already Lying About UPC Status in Germany, But Doing This Anonymously (to Dodge Accountability for Lies)

    In their characteristic fashion, firms that created the UPC for their self-enrichment purposes, along with publishers/writers who deem it their role to promote the UPC and set up lobbying events for the UPC, look for ways to downplay if not intentionally distort what happened in Germany yesterday



  10. Further Attacks on EPO Staff and the Appeal Boards; Former EPO Boards of Appeal Member Speaks About EPO Scandals

    In the process of devaluing EPO workers and perhaps preparing them for a large round of layoffs information is also revealed about further repressions against the independence of the Boards of Appeal



  11. End of the UPC Lobby and Withdrawal of UPCA May Seem Imminent

    The Unitary Patent fantasy (of mass litigation firms) is coming to an end; in fact, the German government and courts (Bundesverfassungsgericht to be specific) now deem the complaint to be admissible and thus likely legitimate in spite of many attempts to shoot it down



  12. EPO's Board 28 Spikes Article 53 in CA/3/18, Apparently After Battistelli Withdrew It

    The latest plot twist, as odd as that may seem, is that the attack on the rights of thousands of workers (many of whom are rumoured to be on their way out) is curtailed somewhat, at least for the time being



  13. Links 21/2/2018: Apper 1.0, New Fedora ISOs

    Links for the day



  14. Rumour: European Patent Office to Lay Off a Significant Proportion of Its Workforce

    While the Administrative Council of the EPO praises Battistelli for his financial accomplishments (as laughable as it may seem) a lot of families stuck in a foreign country may soon see their breadwinner unemployed, according to rumours



  15. The Patent Trolls' Lobby, Bristows and IAM Among Others, Downplays Darts-IP/IP2Innovate Report About Rising If Not Soaring Troll Activity in Europe

    Exactly like last year, as soon as IP2Innovate opens its mouth Bristows and IAM go into "attack dog" mode and promote the UPC, deny the existence or seriousness of patent trolls, and promote their nefarious, trolls-funded agenda



  16. Links 20/2/2018: Mesa 17.3.5, Qt 5.11 Alpha, Absolute 15.0 Beta 4, Sailfish OS 2.1.4 E.A., SuiteCRM 7.10

    Links for the day



  17. Replacing Patent Sharks/Trolls and the Patent Mafia With 'Icons' Like Thomas Edison

    The popular perceptions of patents and the sobering reality of what patents (more so nowadays) mean to actual inventors who aren't associated with global behemoths such as IBM or Siemens



  18. The Patent Trolls' Lobby is Distorting the Record of CAFC on PTAB

    The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), which deals with appeals from PTAB, has been issuing many decisions in favour of § 101, but those aren't being talked about or emphasised by the patent 'industry'



  19. Japan Demonstrates Sanity on SEP Policy While US Patent Policy is Influenced by Lobbyists

    Japan's commendable response to a classic pattern of patent misuse; US patent policy is still being subjected to never-ending intervention and there is now a lobbyist in charge of antitrust matters and a lawyer in charge of the US patent office (both Trump appointees)



  20. The Patent Microcosm's Embrace of Buzzwords and False Marketing Strives to Make Patent Examiners Redundant and Patent Quality Extremely Low

    Patent maximalists, who are profiting from abundance of low-quality patents (and frivolous lawsuits/legal threats these can entail), are riding the hype wave and participating in the rush to put patent systems at the hands of machines



  21. Today, at 12:30 CET, Bavarian State Parliament Will Speak About EPO Abuses (Updated)

    The politicians of Bavaria are prepared to wrestle with some serious questions about the illegality of the EPO's actions and what that may mean to constitutional aspects of German law



  22. Another Loud Warning From EPO Workers About the Decline of Patent Quality

    Yet more patent quality warnings are being issued by EPO insiders (examiners) who are seeing their senior colleagues vanishing and wonder what will be left of their employer



  23. Links 19/2/2018: Linux 4.16 RC2, Nintendo Switch Now Full-fledged GNU/Linux

    Links for the day



  24. PTAB Continues to Invalidate a Lot of Software Patents and to Stop Patent Examiners From Issuing Them

    Erasure of software patents by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) carries on unabated in spite of attempts to cause controversy and disdain towards PTAB



  25. The Patent 'Industry' Likes to Mention Berkheimer and Aatrix to Give the Mere Impression of Section 101/Alice Weakness

    Contrary to what patent maximalists keep saying about Berkheimer and Aatrix (two decisions of the Federal Circuit from earlier this month, both dealing with Alice-type challenges), neither actually changed anything in any substantial way



  26. Makan Delrahim is Wrong; Patents Are a Major Antitrust Problem, Sometimes Disguised Using Trolls Somewhere Like the Eastern District of Texas

    Debates and open disagreements over the stance of the lobbyist who is the current United States Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division



  27. Patent Trolls Watch: Microsoft-Connected Intellectual Ventures, Finjan, and Rumour of Technicolor-InterDigital Buyout

    Connections between various patent trolls and some patent troll statistics which have been circulated lately



  28. Software Patents Trickle in After § 101/Alice, But Courts Would Not Honour Them Anyway

    The dawn of § 101/Alice, which in principle eliminates almost every software patent, means that applicants find themselves having to utilise loopholes to fool examiners, but that's unlikely to impress judges (if they ever come to assessing these patents)



  29. In Aatrix v Green Shades the Court is Not Tolerating Software Patents But Merely Inquires/Wonders Whether the Patents at Hand Are Abstract

    Aatrix alleges patent infringement by Green Shades, but whether the patents at hand are abstract or not remains to be seen; this is not what patent maximalists claim it to be ("A Valentine for Software Patent Owners" or "valentine for patentee")



  30. An Indoctrinated Minority is Maintaining the Illusion That Patent Policy is to Blame for All or Most Problems of the United States

    The zealots who want to patent everything under the Sun and sue everyone under the Sun blame nations in the east (where the Sun rises) for all their misfortunes; this has reached somewhat ludicrous levels


CoPilotCo

RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channel: Come and chat with us in real time

CoPilotCo

Recent Posts