Microsoft bans open source from the Marketplace

[MatiasRaudzus]

This is not impressive at all, but it probably won't make a difference if there's an outcry from FOSS developers.

Microsoft has raised the ire of the open source community with its Windows Marketplace licence by specifically refusing to allow software covered under an open licence to be distributed.

The licence, which anyone wishing to distribute Windows, Windows Phone, or Xbox applications through the company's copy of Apple's App Store is required to agree to, is the usual torrent of legalese - but hides a nasty surprise for those who support open source ideals.

Jan Wildeboer, open source evangelist and Red Hat employee, was one of the first to spot the restrictions in Microsoft's licence this week. "One thing is extremely obvious," Wildeboer claims in a post to his personal blog. "Microsoft wants to keep its platform clear of Free Software. Period."

As evidence, Wildeboer points to Article 5 of the Application Requirements section of the Microsoft Application Provider Agreement, which states: "The Application must not include software, documentation, or other materials that, in whole or in part, are governed by or subject to an Excluded License, or that would otherwise cause the Application to be subject to the terms of an Excluded License."

The reference to 'Excluded License' refers to an earlier section which explicitly names the GNU General Public License version 3 and its Lesser derivative - two of the most common open source licences around - along with 'any equivalents.'

Effectively, the agreement requires that products shipped through the Windows Marketplace contain no open source code at all. Considering that Microsoft uses open source libraries in its own products, and has even contributed code to open source projects in the past, it's a poor showing.

The licence doesn't just stop the release of open source programmes on the Windows Marketplace, however: taken at face value, it would also prevent closed-source apps from including open source libraries - a major blow for developers.

"This, coming from the company that publicly claims to be a friend of open source," argues Wildeboer, "should make app developers think again if this mobile platform is the platform of choice."

The full Microsoft Application Provider Agreement can be downloaded directly from the Microsoft Developer Network, if you want to check Wildeboer's interpretation.

http://www.thinq.co.uk/2011/2/17/microsoft-bans-open-source-marketplace/

[Digitalx]

well that's another lazy bad choice microsoft have made with the platform.

[Miuku.]

Well, if this isn't irony - I don't know what is.

[ZakO]

Open source code doesn't have to use the GPLv3, they haven't "banned open source code", they've banned open source code released under the GPLv3. As usual people just jump onto MS bashing without checking their facts.

http://www.arktronic.com/cms/blog-entries/2011-02-17/relax-microsoft-has-not-banned-open-source-from-marketplace

[Mr. Gibs]

I'm just going to quote a comment on the article:

Not afraid, just GPL3 is specifically and intentionally incompatible with the “one true app store” model since it requires that end-users be just as easily able to install modified versions. Copyleft in general would give the problem of Microsoft needing to distribute source along with the actual applications, and I’m guessing they don’t want to put crap in the store UI that would only confuse most people.

Microsoft isn't excluding every OSS license from the Windows app store and the original blog post even states that:

DISCLAIMER 2: Some articles that link here claim I say that *ALL* Open Source software is banned by Microsoft. That is NOT what I say. Please read on.

It's just another article designed to get hits...

[Frylock86]

"MS is NOT banning OSS from our WP7 App Store. People still hating on us to get cheap clicks. http://bit.ly/guKZcq" - @markjbrown via Twitter

[Miuku.]

Microsoft isn't excluding every OSS license from the Windows app store and the original blog post even states that:

Considering GPL is the most widely used license when it comes to FOSS software, if you take a peek at some of the software included with even your daily Windows applications, you'll notice "quite a few" of them carry GPL.txt - even games from Electronic Arts or Activision..

[ahhell]

Article sensationalism FTW!

[Mr. Gibs]

Considering GPL is the most widely used license when it comes to FOSS software, if you take a peek at some of the software included with even your daily Windows applications, you'll notice "quite a few" of them carry GPL.txt - even games from Electronic Arts or Activision..

And there's a perfectly valid reason why GPL applications can't be put on app stores. MS would have to make the source code available to people and applications when they're approved by MS get added with a bunch of DRM and other things that make it incompatible with the GPL.

Microsoft doesn't care how your app is coded, and why should they? But if you use a license that interferes with their system they could be held liable and thats what they want to avoid.

[azure.sapphire]

And there's a perfectly valid reason why GPL applications can't be put on app stores. MS would have to make the source code available to people and applications when they're approved by MS get added with a bunch of DRM and other things that make it incompatible with the GPL.

Microsoft doesn't care how your app is coded, and why should they? But if you use a license that interferes with their system they could be held liable and thats what they want to avoid.

Honestly, I think this could be handled through an external process. It seems more like someone that has ideological issues with the GPL. Microsoft is a very split "campus" on stuff like this with various opinions. I think given that it is the main license for most of the key open source initiatives(outside of the likes of Mozilla), it would have an unfair impact on those applications. Still, it is their platform and they can do what they want. I just wouldn't expect good press.

[guruparan]

Just saw this tweet...So this article means no sense on blaming it as OpenSource not allowed in Marketplace.

markjbrownMark Brown by WithinRafael

MS is NOT banning OSS from our WP7 App Store. People still hating on us to get cheap clicks. http://bit.ly/guKZcq

[HawkMan]

As other have said they're not banning anything, they're just protecting themselves from the same situation Apple has found itself in numerous times with stuff like VLC.

They're just saying the same thing in their license that GPL does, the FOSS license itself pretty much excludes the apps from being on the marketplace.

[Andre S. Veteran]

All weak copyleft licenses and very liberal licenses such as MIT/X11 are perfectly fine for use in Xbox and WP7 code. Source

That's all I wanted to know. I'm not a fan of GPLv3 so I'm ok with just banning that license while accepting the permissive open-source licenses like Apache and MIT.

[azure.sapphire]

That's all I wanted to know. I'm not a fan of GPLv3 so I'm ok with just banning that license while accepting the permissive open-source licenses like Apache and MIT.

Great, and all of those ten+ applications that are available. That was a joke. Seriously, does anyone know the distribution of GPL based applications, others that would not be supported and those that would? Software examples and percentages would be nice. I am having limited success with this. It would not allow such applications as the VLC, which Apple banned as well. I see nothing that seems to limit this only be GPL3.

[Argi]

Linux fanboy FUD. A better way of putting it would be "GPL3 apps can't be put on the Marketplace because of license incompatibilities."

[azure.sapphire]

Linux fanboy FUD. A better way of putting it would be "GPL3 apps can't be put on the Marketplace because of license incompatibilities."

I use a lot of GNU/FOSS software that is under the GPL2/GPL3. Does this make me a Linux fanboi? Maybe, I'm a communist? My main desktop is Windows 7. My main backup computers runs Windows. My backup server runs Windows. I do have a few Linux installs, but they are mostly virtualized.

I will agree that this is propaganda by the Free Software Foundation.