11.12.09
Microsoft’s Pseudo-Open Source CMS Fails, GPL Violations Noted Everywhere
Is Orchard just Ox **ite?
Summary: Orchard/Oxite rejected by developers; Microsoft violations of copyright law reported more widely
EARLIER THIS week we shared some notes about Microsoft's attempt to replace LAMP-based content management systems with something that uses the entire Microsoft stack, which is proprietary, expensive, virus-prone, inferior when it comes to performance, and basically just a trap for Microsoft dependency. We wrote about Orchard and Oxite (which are nothing new) only because Mary Jo Foley keeps mentioning them. At least someone set the record straight:
Update: As one reader (thanks, @karlseguin) noted, Oxite was anything but a big hit with developers, including many of those in Microsoft’s own .Net community. There have been many complaints about Oxite, from the development process, to the scope of the project, to the quality of the code and the way Microsoft explained the concept/product. Perhaps that’s one reason why Microsoft is starting over with a new codename and claiming this is not a Microsoft project…
Oxite was apparently a failure (it has hardly been mentioned for the past year), so Microsoft does the switcheroo, probably avoiding jokes about it being an “Ox **ite”, just like a lot of Microsoft software in general. It just doesn’t smell right.
“…Microsoft is a repeat offender when it comes to GPL violations.”To Microsoft, this is yet another miserable attempt to sell the illusion that the company does “open source” (no matter the prerequisites, all of which are proprietary).
Microsoft’s record when it comes to “open source” is rather abysmal and to make matters worse, Microsoft is a repeat offender when it comes to GPL violations. We have mentioned this 3 times so far this week [1, 2, 3] and the news eventually made it into some notable Web sites. To give just a sample:
• Did Microsoft violate the GPL?
What’s quite sad about this is that the tool in question wasn’t being sold for money, and was just there to help people upgrade to a new Microsoft operating system. Were Microsoft to release the source code of the tool under the GPL, it wouldn’t lose any money, since it’s not asking for any. It might even gain some new Windows 7 users, as people hack the code to make it support a wider range of hardware. Dogma is preventing everyone from gaining in this situation.
• Microsoft yanks Windows 7 tool over open-source code swipe
Microsoft has yanked a tool it touted as a way for netbook owners to install Windows 7 without a DVD drive after a prominent blogger accused the company of using open-source code without acknowledging where it originated.
• Microsoft yanks Windows 7 tool over open-source code swipe
• Microsoft Yanks Windows 7 Download Tool
• Microsoft pulls download tool over GPL violation accusation
• Microsoft pulls Windows 7 tool after GPL violation claims
• Free Windows 7 RTM USB/DVD Download Tool Pulled Down
Microsoft seems to be causing trouble when it tries to handle “open source”; maybe time for another strategy? █
