11–20 of 134 posts
As others here pointed it still seems to be OK with BSD, MIT and other OSI licenses.
In my opinion allowing something with a GPL license would just cause complications for them and the people who build the app.
Hence GPL like licenses that require distribution of source code, and that you grant redistribution rights to everyone you distribute it to are being explicitly prohibited. (And in fairness I can see why those licenses would cause problems for Microsoft as distributors)
On the other hand BSD like licenses that allow you to repackage and distribute without source and without passing rights forward are acceptable.
It's a pragmatic choice by Microsoft, but I'm amazed by their ability to piss off developers almost every time they make a decision.
Yes, but you can't even publish an API without pissing off a developer somewhere. Folks like Guido Van Rossum even say things to the effect: if someone somewhere isn't pissed off, you're probably not doing it right.
They aren't prohibiting "Free Software", they are prohibiting software that is under a license that requires the distributor to pass certain rights along to the recipient. Hence GPL like licenses that require distribution of source code, and that you grant redistribution rights to everyone you distribute it to are being explicitly prohibited. (And in fairness I can see why those licenses would cause problems for Micr…
They aren't prohibiting "Free Software", they are prohibiting software that is under a license that requires the distributor to pass certain rights along to the recipient. Hence GPL like licenses that require distribution of source code, and that you grant redistribution rights to everyone you distribute it to are being explicitly prohibited. (And in fairness I can see why those licenses would cause problems for Micr…
Exactly. Also GPL style licenses are a virus that while they promote freedom, in reality they take it away. It assumes that people are naturally untrustworthy and thus forces them to act in a way the creators of GPL see as the right way. Because of how the GPL licenses are worded, especially insane versions like the AGPL, everything they touch may be affected negatively. MIT and BSD style licenses on the other hand a…
This is amusing in the light of Microsoft's attempts in recent years to cosy up to open source and pretend that they're embracing it via Codeplex, Mono, MPL, etc. I think this shows what their true values are.
It's a pragmatic choice by Microsoft, but I'm amazed by their ability to piss off developers almost every time they make a decision.
Seems that Microsoft is taking heat for respecting the wishes of the GPL. Talk about a can't win situation.