Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft Becomes Sponsor of Open Source Initiative

opensource.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 165 posts

Re: Microsoft Becomes Sponsor of Open Source Initiative

#71

Post by Sir_Cmpwn »

What signs of change are you expecting? Microsoft is a huge organization and change comes slowly to different products.

Here's the thing - if we see Microsoft making tangible changes to their behavior, and we reward that with more derision and distrust, then we aren't exactly incentivizing them - or anyone wathcing - to do more. I personally applaud Microsoft on their dramatically increased involvement in open source in the past couple of years and I encourage them to keep it up and explore other ways they can improve. Yes, Windows still sucks, and is getting worse. Keep putting their feet to the fire for it. But that doesn't mean we have to demean the legitimately good work they're doing - let them enjoy the success from that so they can apply it across the rest of the org!

Re: Microsoft Becomes Sponsor of Open Source Initiative

#72

Post by ausjke »

tyfon wrote: post #2

This is all fine and good. I hope their efforts are sincere. All money and support to free software is most likely good. However, I've been part of the open source community for 25 years, and I remember the brutal marketing against the "cancer" of open source. It will take a lot to convince me that there is not some underlying goal here that is not beneficial to free software. How much has Microsoft really changed? I…

Same feeling here, MS used to call OSS as cancer and tried so hard to kill it, now it begins to "embrace" that old cancer, I hope it will not become the real tumor and damage the so-far-so-good OSS society from within. People learn history for a reason, I'm still very suspicious at this point.

Re: Microsoft Becomes Sponsor of Open Source Initiative

#73

Post by watwut »

belorn wrote: post #47
watwut wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure what you ask? If the license they use is incompatible with projects license, then of course it is ok to rewrite it? And of course it is also ok to rewrite project for arbitrary reasons like that you don't like the maintainer.

Rewriting software just because it do not perfectly match a communities opinion about licenses is the least pragmatic way to go about software. It is the my-way-is-the-only-way approach, rather than working together and work with a mix of licenses and focus on the code. Diversity in licenses is a sign of cooperation.

What is the alternative, break the license or change your own? If I want to allow my library in closed code, I cant import GPL. Hence, I have to rewrite it. Rewriting Apache into GPL makes little sense, but is little work. You can just import it and slap GPL on top.

You cant just mix licenses, because licenses disallow/allow activities.

Re: Microsoft Becomes Sponsor of Open Source Initiative

#74

Post by arca_vorago »

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #56
csmattryder wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Devil's advocate: You're supporting `n` billion devices around the world running your product, and the users are typically non-technical (from "I know how to open Word" to "Where's the 'Any' key?") You need to battle against your competitor's product that "just work" because they can target one specific hardware profile and you can't, so you put in telemetry to improve compatibility. Makes sense. It enrages us, the t…

> and the users are typically non-technical (from "I know how to open Word" to "Where's the 'Any' key?") This isn't nearly as true as it used to be, because those people are on phones and tablets now. People who actually use desktops fall into one of 3 categories: content creators, office workers, and gamers. Microsoft has ruined Windows by trying to make it into a webapp with a tablet UI in a vain effort to recaptur…

You had me until the Linux part. I've been using GNU+Linux and BSD as an OS since the late 90s. I've supported windows and osx as a sysadmins as well.

Windows is not the least worst choice, and gnu/Linux has made huge strides in the past few years towards just works. That said though,one of my issues is this concept that everyone should be able to use a computer without learning how.

Comp uters are inherently technical, its not that hard to learn. Its like what I started telling all the old people who kept saying, at the workplace, "I don't know computers..." Or some variation.

My response, well you better learn or you aren't going to have a job much longer...

I just don't get the want for a chimpanzee usable OS.

Re: Microsoft Becomes Sponsor of Open Source Initiative

#75

Post by [deleted] »

SEJeff wrote: post #53
hannob wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the philosophical difference I was talking about. Doesn't change the fact that all code you release under an Apache license is free software in the sense of the four freedoms as defined by the FSF. Whether you like their ways or not.

That is somewhat debatable I suppose. The freedom (if you want to quote RMS) absolutely includes the so called viral provisions of licenses such as the GPL. RMS is quoted as saying proprietary software should be illegal. As a software engineer myself, I find that sort of demagoguery a bit tiring, and consider a license with less mandatory stipulations as more "free" (admittedly under a different definition than the F…

[deleted]

Re: Microsoft Becomes Sponsor of Open Source Initiative

#76

Post by alexvoda »

danielbarla wrote: post #70
SEJeff wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is somewhat debatable I suppose. The freedom (if you want to quote RMS) absolutely includes the so called viral provisions of licenses such as the GPL. RMS is quoted as saying proprietary software should be illegal. As a software engineer myself, I find that sort of demagoguery a bit tiring, and consider a license with less mandatory stipulations as more "free" (admittedly under a different definition than the F…

Yepp, it's a trade off between the rights of the developer and the rights of the consumer / user, you fundamentally can't have both (simplification). RMS goes all on the latter side, essentially.

Like with most of RMSs terminology, I disagree with the dichotomy of developer vs user.

Freedom 1 and 3 apply specifically to users who are or will become developers. I believe what we actually want to talk about is publisher vs user/consumer instead of developer vs user.

The FSF people really like their ambiguous terminology, unfortunately.

Re: Microsoft Becomes Sponsor of Open Source Initiative

#77

Post by jordigh »

cjsuk wrote: post #9
tyfon wrote: post #2

This is all fine and good. I hope their efforts are sincere. All money and support to free software is most likely good. However, I've been part of the open source community for 25 years, and I remember the brutal marketing against the "cancer" of open source. It will take a lot to convince me that there is not some underlying goal here that is not beneficial to free software. How much has Microsoft really changed? I…

They haven't changed a bit. Open Source is merely a marketing tag for them to gain credibility. They are not very good in the open source community; most of their github OSS releases other than a few high profile ones are unmaintained crap with zero response. If you want to fire up Linux in SCVMM for example, the tooling is open source now, but full of bugs and no way to ship it with working tools. Nothing is ever re…

> most of their github OSS releases other than a few high profile ones are unmaintained crap with zero response.

I find this a very entitled and weird attitude. I also find the opposite side of this attitude weird, that if you release source suddenly you have new obligations. That opposite side is even worse because it makes people scared of releasing code.

Being open source or free software isn't some kind of contract to provide support and "community" or whatever. Slap a license on the code, toss it over the fence and be done with it. If you want to offer support and accept patches great, if not, also great. If you're doing it for fun or advantage good, if you're doing it out of respect for your users to let them fix it themselves, even better, because the alternative is to give them no recourse but to go around begging for you and only you to fix it.

The free software that MSFT has releases is free software (and open source), period. They don't have to do anything further to deserve that appellation.

Re: Microsoft Becomes Sponsor of Open Source Initiative

#78

Post by bad_user »

SEJeff wrote: post #53
hannob wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the philosophical difference I was talking about. Doesn't change the fact that all code you release under an Apache license is free software in the sense of the four freedoms as defined by the FSF. Whether you like their ways or not.

That is somewhat debatable I suppose. The freedom (if you want to quote RMS) absolutely includes the so called viral provisions of licenses such as the GPL. RMS is quoted as saying proprietary software should be illegal. As a software engineer myself, I find that sort of demagoguery a bit tiring, and consider a license with less mandatory stipulations as more "free" (admittedly under a different definition than the F…

There's nothing in the Free Software definition that requires copy-left licensing and RMS, along with the other FSF members have validated most OSI approved licenses as being Free Software, including BSD, MIT, MPL and Apache 2.0.

RMS has said a lot over the years, including that the dual licensing business model (e.g. GPL + proprietary) is a valid business model (i.e. whatever it takes to keep development of the GPL version going). And his opinions don't necessarily reflect the official position of the FSF.

Re: Microsoft Becomes Sponsor of Open Source Initiative

#79

Post by pksadiq »

hannob wrote: post #22
ekianjo wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All money and support to free software is most likely good. Open source is not the same thing as Free Software. From the website itself, in the history section: > The conferees believed the pragmatic, business-case grounds that had motivated Netscape to release their code illustrated a valuable way to engage with potential software users and developers, and convince them to create and improve source code by partici…

> Open-source is used broadly to define a way of developing software, but it says nothing about the rights it gives users. That is totally wrong and a myth spread by people who like to call their products "Open Source" while they aren't. The Open Source Definition is very clear: https://opensource.org/osd Practically there is no difference between Open Source licenses and Free Software licenses. The difference is mer…

> The difference is merely a philosophical one

NO. They can be very different practically.

For example, your Android phone/router contains open source software pieces (and very likely have GPLv2 licensed code). You get the source code of those, but you may not be able to change them. So yes, they are open source, but not free software.

Open source means the code is open, and you can do anything with the code (licensing restrictions implied). Free software extends that further to have freedom to run modified code on the same device[0] (See freedom 1 and its explanation: The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish). This is a very important distinction between free software and open source software.

This was one of the primary reasons why GNU GPLv3 was introduced.

So in many occasions, open source != free software.

[0]https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html

Re: Microsoft Becomes Sponsor of Open Source Initiative

#80

Post by bad_user »

Sir_Cmpwn wrote: post #71

What signs of change are you expecting? Microsoft is a huge organization and change comes slowly to different products. Here's the thing - if we see Microsoft making tangible changes to their behavior, and we reward that with more derision and distrust, then we aren't exactly incentivizing them - or anyone wathcing - to do more. I personally applaud Microsoft on their dramatically increased involvement in open source…

> if we see Microsoft making tangible changes to their behavior, and we reward that with more derision and distrust, then we aren't exactly incentivizing them - or anyone wathcing - to do more

Well, if we are speaking of incentives, then here's one ...

Don't screw with open source or open standards or your legitimate competitors by unfair competition, because many people will never forget it, so don't be surprised if 10 years later you still have a negative image that lingers, in spite of your huge marketing department that keeps paying shills.

This is much like in society really. If somebody screws me or my family, I'll probably cut all ties with that person forever. Being marginalized is a natural reaction. Why should companies have their cake and eat it too?

Post reply on HN