AfterDawn: Tech news

Open source software blocked from Microsoft WP7 Marketplace

Written by Andre Yoskowitz (Google+) @ 18 Feb 2011 2:22 User comments (20)

Open source software blocked from Microsoft WP7 Marketplace Jan Wildeboer, a Red Hat employee and big advocate of open source software, has posted today that Microsoft's Windows Phone 7 Marketplace blocks open source software from being distributed.
Says Wildeboer: "One thing is extremely obvious. Microsoft wants to keep its platform clear of Free Software. Period."

Article 5 of the Application Requirements section in the Marketplace Application Provider Agreement specifically states (via Thinq):

The Application must not include software, documentation, or other materials that, in whole or in part, are governed by or subject to an Excluded License, or that would otherwise cause the Application to be subject to the terms of an Excluded License.


In the "Excluded License" section earlier, the GNU General Public License is named, along with any "equivalents."

Furthermore, it appears that even closed-source apps will be banned if they use open source libraries, which many developers do.

Previous Next  

20 user comments

118.2.2011 4:22

take gun , aim ,shoot foot

218.2.2011 5:02

i don't know why... but this reminds me of a certain company which did something like this... only to find that the very core of their products were hacked so as to override that... i imagine in the future they will also take piracy as a pretext....
X_x


X_x

318.2.2011 6:36

Begins with A and ends with fail??




IMPORTANT: If you hate Sony for being so corrupt, copy this image into your signature too!

418.2.2011 8:43

well with apple you have to jailbreak the phone to get to other marketplaces like cydia. i don't think that's the case with a w7 phone right? i do believe you can sideload applications if necessary (which you couldn't do with the iphone). don't get me wrong i don't have a w7 device so i'm not certain.

518.2.2011 11:00

Says Wildeboer: "One thing is extremely obvious. Microsoft wants to keep its platform clear of Free Software. Period."

Extremely obvious? Clear of Free Software? Period? the agreement says "Excluded" licenses, it doesn't say freeware or open source. Wileboer is so far from the truth it's ridiculous.

Hey the King has no clothes, oh my!!

618.2.2011 11:44

Originally posted by justsayin':
Says Wildeboer: "One thing is extremely obvious. Microsoft wants to keep its platform clear of Free Software. Period."

Extremely obvious? Clear of Free Software? Period? the agreement says "Excluded" licenses, it doesn't say freeware or open source. Wileboer is so far from the truth it's ridiculous.

Hey the King has no clothes, oh my!!
Do you even know what "Excluded licenses" means?

Quote:
C. Distribution Restrictions. You may not

· alter any copyright, trademark or patent notice in the Distributable Code;

· use Microsoft’s trademarks in your programs’ names or in a way that suggests your programs come from or are endorsed by Microsoft;

· distribute Distributable Code to run on a platform other than the Windows platform;

· include Distributable Code in malicious, deceptive or unlawful programs; or
· modify or distribute the source code of any Distributable Code so that any part of it becomes subject to an Excluded License. An Excluded License is one that requires, as a condition of use, modification or distribution, that
the code be disclosed or distributed in source code form; or others have the right to modify it.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 18 Feb 2011 @ 11:50

718.2.2011 13:20

Wow, talk about putting themselves in hot water. Must think they're sick now that they've got Nokia to "cover" their back !!

818.2.2011 13:30

I thought the Nazis gave up in 45'

918.2.2011 14:05

Do you even know what "Excluded licenses" means?

Actually, I didn't at the time of my post. Thanks for clarifying.

I'm just saying Wildeboer's statement "One thing is extremely obvious. Microsoft wants to keep its platform clear of Free Software. Period." is over reaching. There are tons of open source licenses (and I'm talking about OSI approved license) that don't require you to disclose or distribute in source code form; or provide others the right to modify it.

1018.2.2011 14:21

Quote:
i imagine in the future they will also take piracy as a pretext....
Piracy has always been a pretext in PC software since the dawn of the 5 1/4 floppy drives. I swear it goes through periods in time of uproar to *damn can't do anything about it now* periods, then back to more uproar.

1118.2.2011 16:45

Ha i don't know who in Microsoft made this decision and it only can stand to archive 3 things:

1. Will stifle Development, take android for example where a developer can use part of public library code to complete parts of his or her project they either dont have time to code them selfs or the skills to do so, never the less the developer makes something that unique and has value. How in this no gnu or public library agreement does it allow for developers to work in such a way.

2. How does it allow them to compete with platforms that allow public library code, well the closed loop approach financially just doesn't make sense. Make a platform, an os if you will, your goal in order to make it the most profitable is to make its the most widely used and accepted, in a race where they are already starting from the back of the pack. Making such a president now can only be a fatal blow and if i was working for nokia i would be seeeeriously worried by this news.

3. Creating such a closed loop system makes it harder and less attractive for developers, so no only have you already made it hard for them to write the code and probably more expensive to do so, its also going to stifle the rate of innovation and fresh thinking and as a result will stifle your profits. However most importantly to you creating such an environment will only cause to further a situation where manufactures wont build around your platform and ultimately no amount of manipulation will make a product that's not got enough focus or/and dominance to win the race if there's not or not enough products at market.

Come on MS that's like saying I cant run VLC on windows any more..... guess the ms apps store wont have vlc on w7p then either lol....


Really.... this is this is like just getting started and then deciding its far more fun to get drunk and piss it up the wall instead. Then one day waking up feeling really ill wondering where it all went wrong....

1218.2.2011 20:04

Originally posted by elbald90:
take gun , aim ,shoot foot
LOL

Its a lot easier being righteous than right.


DSE VZ300-
Zilog Z80 CPU, 32KB RAM (16K+16K cartridge), video processor 6847, 2KB video RAM, 16 colours (text mode), 5.25" FDD

1318.2.2011 21:16

Apple allows open source projects on the app store. You can find some of these projects in normal places like SourceForge and Google Code.

The market has proven open source is a useful and nearly a necessity. At Microsoft, 99% of everything they do is coded from scratch (for example, a PNG file reader for IE; they WILL NOT use libpng).

For small-time developers, this is a huge waste of time. It's impossible to do on a small budget.

And Apple likes open source at least a tiny bit. They have Mach from BSD-licensed source code, and they have Webkit from GPL-licensed source code. Tons of libraries (or 'frameworks') within Mac OS X and iOS are licensed under free licenses (but not necessarily requiring code to be distributed).

1418.2.2011 22:53

it just says Open Apps wont be available on the MS Marketplace, doesn't say apps cant be obtained and loaded from other sources.


Powered By

1519.2.2011 6:04

Originally posted by justsayin:
...There are tons of open source licenses (and I'm talking about OSI approved license) that don't require you to disclose or distribute in source code form; or provide others the right to modify it.
Wow, you really made me doubt any understanding i had about "open source"... i thought that was the whole point of it... so i went and checked it out...

Originally posted by "http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd":

Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria:
1. Free Redistribution

The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.
2. Source Code

The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form. Where some form of a product is not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost preferably, downloading via the Internet without charge. The source code must be the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program. Deliberately obfuscated source code is not allowed. Intermediate forms such as the output of a preprocessor or translator are not allowed.
3. Derived Works

The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.
4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code

The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified form only if the license allows the distribution of "patch files" with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time. The license must explicitly permit distribution of software built from modified source code. The license may require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original software.
5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups

The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.
6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor

The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
7. Distribution of License

The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those parties.
8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product

The rights attached to the program must not depend on the program's being part of a particular software distribution. If the program is extracted from that distribution and used or distributed within the terms of the program's license, all parties to whom the program is redistributed should have the same rights as those that are granted in conjunction with the original software distribution.
9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software

The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software.
10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral

No provision of the license may be predicated on any individual technology or style of interface.


X_x

1619.2.2011 10:55

The Apple store has the exact same restriction on open-source licenses. The real nitty-gritty is that, by many open-source licenses' provisions (as seen above), MS & Apple canNOT directly make any money, ever, on the open-source contentand *gasp* users could make their own software after examining the included code. Even the GNU General Public License, which allows sale of modified code and/or incorporation into other commercial projects - with certain provisions - unlike the "open source" version, would force the big guys to admit they were using someone else's code, and THAT really pains 'em too.

Oh noes!

In what way is this attitude from these behemoths surprising..?

1719.2.2011 12:08

wait VLC and other free quassi open source stuff on Itunes 0-o

GOod lord if apple is more open than MS ><


Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Lets renegotiate them.

---
Check out my crappy creations
http://zippydsmlee.deviantart.com/

1819.2.2011 12:27

Originally posted by Bozobub:
The Apple store has the exact same restriction on open-source licenses. The real nitty-gritty is that, by many open-source licenses' provisions (as seen above), MS & Apple canNOT directly make any money, ever, on the open-source contentand *gasp* users could make their own software after examining the included code. Even the GNU General Public License, which allows sale of modified code and/or incorporation into other commercial projects - with certain provisions - unlike the "open source" version, would force the big guys to admit they were using someone else's code, and THAT really pains 'em too.

Oh noes!

In what way is this attitude from these behemoths surprising..?
That can be fixed by forcing free apps to pay them 1 cent per download, sounds fair to distribute an app on a closed network.

Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Lets renegotiate them.

---
Check out my crappy creations
http://zippydsmlee.deviantart.com/

1919.2.2011 12:34

Originally posted by DougAdams:
free is the evil, to all corporations that care only for profits not their customers.
Yup, pretty much sums it up. I mean, when we actually get to see companies that have decent products and a give a damn about customer quality, then I will be impressed. This is one of the many reasons why I'm not getting a WP7. Interestingly, a have a 2 year old 6.1 Windows Mobile Phone that I can modify and use as I see fit.

Chance prepares the favored mind. Look up once in a while and you might learn something. - BLUEBOY

2019.2.2011 19:04

Seems there will be plenty of open-source for it- just not from the MS store.

It just makes Android more attractive anyway.


Its a lot easier being righteous than right.


DSE VZ300-
Zilog Z80 CPU, 32KB RAM (16K+16K cartridge), video processor 6847, 2KB video RAM, 16 colours (text mode), 5.25" FDD

Comments have been disabled for this article.

News archive