An Argument for Why Windows Will Go Open Source
justinkterry.com
An Argument for Why Windows Will Go Open Source
1–10 of 75 posts
Re: An Argument for Why Windows Will Go Open Source
#2[deleted]
Re: An Argument for Why Windows Will Go Open Source
#3> Also note that Microsoft will still be able to charge money for the open source code because there's no reason that you can’t other than piracy concerns, and due to the increased legal scrutiny corporations tend not to pirate products, unlike the general public.
Yes, Microsoft will still be able to charge money for the open source code, but if the code is open source, other people will be able to distribute it free of charge or for a fee, that is not at all illegal or piracy! Open source has always meant this. Let me quote from the Open Source Definition, by the Open Source Initiative, the only authority on what constitutes open source:
> 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.
All of the open source licenses listed on osi.org allow users to redistribute the software free of charge.
Re: An Argument for Why Windows Will Go Open Source
#4The fun thing is that I can also imagine how it will technically likely work too, such as test signing .msu and .cab to install code modifications for testing. Outlook recently added .msu to blocked attachments.
Re: An Argument for Why Windows Will Go Open Source
#5So the author has some commentary on operating system code licensing with no understanding on open source licenses (that bit about charging money for the source code and "piracy", see other comments here) or proprietary development habits (randomly licensing bits and pieces from third parties when they're no differentiator and too onerous to develop in-house)
Unless those third party licenses allow for redistribution of the source code under open source licensing terms (haha. no.), the result will _at best_ be a CDDL-alike licensed code distribution of everything else. See how well that worked for OpenSolaris' reception in the wider open source ecosystem.
Re: An Argument for Why Windows Will Go Open Source
#6So the author has some commentary on operating system code licensing with no understanding on open source licenses (that bit about charging money for the source code and "piracy", see other comments here) or proprietary development habits (randomly licensing bits and pieces from third parties when they're no differentiator and too onerous to develop in-house) Unless those third party licenses allow for redistribution…
Third party code would be mostly a problem for XP and older with things like HyperTerminal and Pinball. Even for MS they were a problem: https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20080225-00/?p=...
Re: An Argument for Why Windows Will Go Open Source
#7> Also note that Microsoft will still be able to charge money for the open source code because there's no reason that you can’t other than piracy concerns, and due to the increased legal scrutiny corporations tend not to pirate products, unlike the general public. Yes, Microsoft will still be able to charge money for the open source code, but if the code is open source, other people will be able to distribute it free…
An abundance of reasons for why rms was right when he penned:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
Re: An Argument for Why Windows Will Go Open Source
#8> Also note that Microsoft will still be able to charge money for the open source code because there's no reason that you can’t other than piracy concerns, and due to the increased legal scrutiny corporations tend not to pirate products, unlike the general public. Yes, Microsoft will still be able to charge money for the open source code, but if the code is open source, other people will be able to distribute it free…
Open source does not mean you are free to distribute the code, necessarily. It literally just means that the code is available for inspection. Paid-for open source software isn't a new thing.
You're thinking of _free_ open source software. While I'm not a huge FOSS-head, there is a distinct difference between "_free_ and open source" and just "open source". It's all in the licensing.
I could, in theory, write a license that says, basically, you can't distribute my source code, but you can look at it, compile it, and even alter it to fit your needs. In fact, a lot of licenses on older software projects allowed for exactly that.
I could also release a license that says that you can only redistribute my code if you haven't purchased it, but if you have purchased it, you're not allowed to redistribute it. Pointless? Yeah, probably. But that's still a valid license.
Anything goes, as long as you can come up with the proper legalese to put in the license.
EDIT: I get it, some people support OSI's definitions, some FSF's, and apparently sharing the opinion of one has angered the supporters of the other. A lot of this is subjective, and I know that. I'd appreciate it if you discussed and voted accordingly.
Re: An Argument for Why Windows Will Go Open Source
#9> have to lose for making Windows open source and requiring people to pay to use win32 apps?
Surely, if Windows is open source, we can port Wine to it and run all the win32 executables we want? Wine already runs old Windows programs better than Windows does.
Re: An Argument for Why Windows Will Go Open Source
#10Lol. That is not going to happen. When I was working on a project that required access to the Windows source code, the security hoops I had to jump through were ridiculous. Can't see them abandoning all that nice security machinery.