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

91–100 of 165 posts

Re: Microsoft Becomes Sponsor of Open Source Initiative

#91

Post by nailer »

pksadiq wrote: post #79
hannob wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 (licensi…

> You get the source code of those, but you may not be able to change them.

Yes you can. See https://opensource.org/osd-annotated :

> 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.

Re: Microsoft Becomes Sponsor of Open Source Initiative

#92

Post by [deleted] »

DonHopkins wrote: post #64
jrochkind1 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, there _is_ a difference. But it's _not_ true that open source (as defined by OSI) says "nothing" about the rights it gives users. It says something. "free software" says something else/more (which may or may not be a good thing, that's a value judgement). "free software" is indeed an (intentionally) confusing name meant to discredit "open source".

You've got the directions of the arrow of time and cause and effect backwards. "Free Software" and "Copyleft" came WAY first. "Open Software" came later, and was meant to intentionally and personally discredit RMS, "free software" and "Copyleft".

[deleted]

Re: Microsoft Becomes Sponsor of Open Source Initiative

#93

Post by jordigh »

pksadiq wrote: post #79
hannob wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 (licensi…

You can change the free parts of Android. That's why everyone and their brother can release Android phones, not just Google, and why F-Droid and Replicant can exist.

However, I think you may be correct that some or perhaps most Android hardware is tivoised to not allow you to install derivative Androids. If so, that's a case of what good is a phone call, Mr Anderson, if you cannot speak.

Re: Microsoft Becomes Sponsor of Open Source Initiative

#94

Post by jordigh »

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…

> absolutely includes the so called viral provisions of licenses such as the GPL.

No, no it does not and rms has very specifically said that free software doesn't need to be copyleft. They even have a diagram which explicitly includes permissive licenses in the free category:

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.en.html

Your definition of freedom isn't different than the FSF's. You perhaps just disagree on what is necessary to safeguard that freedom and you disagree that proprietary software is unethical.

Re: Microsoft Becomes Sponsor of Open Source Initiative

#95

Post by pksadiq »

nailer wrote: post #91
pksadiq wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 (licensi…

> You get the source code of those, but you may not be able to change them. Yes you can. See https://opensource.org/osd-annotated : > 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.

>> You get the source code of those, but you may not be able to change them.

> Yes you can. See https://opensource.org/osd-annotated

Well. I have explained about that in the above comment. I'm not saying that you can't modify the source. But open source software don't require the user to be able to run the modified versions on the same device, free software do.

So the same software can be both free software and open source or open source only based on where the code is run.

Re: Microsoft Becomes Sponsor of Open Source Initiative

#96

Post by X86BSD »

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…

To be accurate, it was not the cancer of "Open Source", it was the cancer of the GPL.

Re: Microsoft Becomes Sponsor of Open Source Initiative

#97

Post by nailer »

pksadiq wrote: post #95
nailer wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You get the source code of those, but you may not be able to change them. Yes you can. See https://opensource.org/osd-annotated : > 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.

>> You get the source code of those, but you may not be able to change them. > Yes you can. See https://opensource.org/osd-annotated Well. I have explained about that in the above comment. I'm not saying that you can't modify the source. But open source software don't require the user to be able to run the modified versions on the same device, free software do. So the same software can be both free software and open…

Where in The Free Software Definition https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html does it require the user to be able to run the modified versions on the same device?

Re: Microsoft Becomes Sponsor of Open Source Initiative

#98

Post by pksadiq »

nailer wrote: post #97
pksadiq wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> You get the source code of those, but you may not be able to change them. > Yes you can. See https://opensource.org/osd-annotated Well. I have explained about that in the above comment. I'm not saying that you can't modify the source. But open source software don't require the user to be able to run the modified versions on the same device, free software do. So the same software can be both free software and open…

Where in The Free Software Definition https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html does it require the user to be able to run the modified versions on the same device?

> Where in The Free Software Definition https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html does it require the user to be able to run the modified versions on the same device?

Quoting from the above link:

Freedom 1 includes the freedom to use your changed version in place of the original. If the program is delivered in a product designed to run someone else's modified versions but refuse to run yours — a practice known as “tivoization” or “lockdown”, or (in its practitioners' perverse terminology) as “secure boot” — freedom 1 becomes an empty pretense rather than a practical reality. These binaries are not free software even if the source code they are compiled from is free.

Re: Microsoft Becomes Sponsor of Open Source Initiative

#99

Post by bousaid »

cjsuk wrote: post #30
Quarrelsome wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They haven't changed a bit. o_0. I remember when I had to use tools to disassemble their precious source that they kept withheld and locked up. Now they post their new tech to github and I can view all the source easily. Now they try to make their tech work on Linux. I'm all for fair criticism but your prose is not that, its dogma. If you think they're still the same company I can only imagine that you left your ey…

They're not really different though. People's memory is short. I've had access to MSFT source code before under shared source apart from the CSPs suspiciously, I've had symbol server around for years and been able to pop into framework code, then there's stuff like this: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc749640.aspx - not even counting the amount of source coming from MSR etc. My criticism is not dogma, it's…

I’m sorry but you are incredibly ignorant. There’s a huge focus on customer feedback and “customer obsession” in the company now. And that’s coming from Satya himself. I’m sure what are talking about was true in the past (and it seems like you experienced a lot) but things really have changed - not completely of course, Microsoft is so huge that it’ll take a while.

You should just ask some people who work there;)

Re: Microsoft Becomes Sponsor of Open Source Initiative

#100

Post by bousaid »

tyfon wrote: post #19
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…

If they used the collected data only for compatibility improvements and discarded it when done. If they allowed me to opt-in and I could shut off _all_ other telemetry. If I trusted Microsoft. Then we could talk :)

They actually have incredibly strict policies about user privacy. Everyone in the company recently had to watch a short movie (with actual actors and realistic scenarios) about appropriate data usage and permissions.
Post reply on HN