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

Microsoft: No GPLv3 Software for Windows Phone and Xbox Apps.

jan.wildeboer.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 134 posts

Re: Microsoft: No GPLv3 Software for Windows Phone and Xbox Apps.

#31

Post by jonny_eh »

They're only preventing GPLv3 (and its ilk). There's a reason they mention GPLv3 and not GPLv2.

GPLv2 just requires the sharing of source code for a given binary. GPLv3 takes it a lot farther and requires that a mechanism also be provided to use derivative works. So if a car manufacturer uses GPLv3 code, they not only have to distribute the source code (which may or not be an issue), they also have to allow people to flash their own code onto the car's embedded computers.

This problem stemmed from TiVo, they used GPL code on their set-tops but signed their binaries. People could make derivative works, but couldn't use them.

In the embedded space, you can imagine that GPLv3 is very much hated. It's a big reason why a lot of projects haven't switched to v3.

Re: Microsoft: No GPLv3 Software for Windows Phone and Xbox Apps.

#33

Post by dan00 »

skore wrote: post #16
btipling wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You're probably just trolling, but it needs to be said every time: The freedom that the GPL takes away is the freedom to bring down the system. It keeps people in check and prevents corruption. If you enjoy the freedoms of MIT and BSD style licenses - why do you complain about the GPL? It seems that it only takes "freedoms" away that you don't appear to be interested in anyways?

"The freedom that the GPL takes away is the freedom to bring down the system. It keeps people in check and prevents corruption."

Sure, a license will ensure that people cooperate, write good code and are interested in the quality of a project.

Do you really think that the reason that people are doing this is mostly an implication of a license?

Re: Microsoft: No GPLv3 Software for Windows Phone and Xbox Apps.

#34

Post by wladimir »

bitwize wrote: post #28
wladimir wrote: post #18

I don't want my platform to restrict what software I can run, especially not based on license. Is there any mobile platform these days that doesn't try to be your nanny as well?

You haven't cracked root on your Android phone yet?

I know it's possible to crack firmwares to get around any restrictions. But I think it's silly to have to hack your own device to have control of it. I'd prefer a platform in which that is the default...

Re: Microsoft: No GPLv3 Software for Windows Phone and Xbox Apps.

#35

Post by jcromartie »

btipling wrote: post #15
SimonPStevens wrote: post #12

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…

MIT and BSD warm my heart. GPL makes me paranoid and brings to mind images of seedy paranoid people. Maybe that's all the GPL FUD implanted in my mind by big corporations talking... but maybe not?

I don't know but I have never been inclined to license anything under GPL.

Re: Microsoft: No GPLv3 Software for Windows Phone and Xbox Apps.

#36

Post by bitwize »

wladimir wrote: post #34
bitwize wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You haven't cracked root on your Android phone yet?

I know it's possible to crack firmwares to get around any restrictions. But I think it's silly to have to hack your own device to have control of it. I'd prefer a platform in which that is the default...

1) Google Nexus phones do come with this as the default.

2) For many Android devices (kit from MOT excepted), the hacks are pretty trivial. I suspect the protections on HTC phones are more of a "Warranty void if removed" sticker than something to really bar you from gaining root.

Re: Microsoft: No GPLv3 Software for Windows Phone and Xbox Apps.

#37

Post by silversmith »

motters wrote: post #13

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.

What it shows is they do not wish to run a code distribution network (that would be required in case of GPLv3 licensed applications) alongside their app store. Perfectly reasonable, in my opinion.

Re: Microsoft: No GPLv3 Software for Windows Phone and Xbox Apps.

#38

Post by jancona »

nolok wrote: post #26
skore wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're probably just trolling, but it needs to be said every time: The freedom that the GPL takes away is the freedom to bring down the system. It keeps people in check and prevents corruption. If you enjoy the freedoms of MIT and BSD style licenses - why do you complain about the GPL? It seems that it only takes "freedoms" away that you don't appear to be interested in anyways?

Because freedom also means freedom to use my code and keep it to yourself if you want to. There isn't any corruption in that. Tons of software here are using bsd/mit licensed code and not releasing their change, that has nothing to do with corruption (or you don't understand what corruption is, go read a definition). Using the GPL means you're free to use my code ... As long as the result is under gpl too. You lose y…

You can modify GPL code and keep it to yourself. What you can't do is modify it and distribute the resultant binary without also releasing the modified source.

Re: Microsoft: No GPLv3 Software for Windows Phone and Xbox Apps.

#39

Post by gonehome »

jedsmith wrote: post #30
cosgroveb wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not going to comment on whether GPL style licenses actually have the effect of promoting freedom like they say, but I don't see at all how they take it away. An author is free to write code and distribute it under the GPL. Likewise anyone else is free to fork it, or use it in their own codebase so long as they honor the terms of the license . How does that take away anyone's freedom? Don't like the terms of an au…

> Don't like the terms of an author's library? Go write your own then. I really hate this attitude. Isn't one of the advantages of the Internet bringing developers together to work on things? Can't we put our collective capabilities toward improving things instead of rewriting them from scratch simply because they're not our favorite license or favorite language? Gnote springs to mind. Edit: Wow, three downvotes with…

The point of the GPL is to ensure future collaborative development is possible with anyone who has the software. It exists because of people taking software and incorporating it into proprietary programs that force others to reinvent the wheel when unnecessary.

Essentially I agree with you that we are best served by putting our capabilities towards improvment and the goals of the GPL align directly with protecting that idea.

Re: Microsoft: No GPLv3 Software for Windows Phone and Xbox Apps.

#40

Post by ryanelkins »

hasenj wrote: post #9

Doesn't the Apple App Store have the same problem? The only difference being that Microsoft actually mentions the GPL explicitly.

This actually has been an issue for the App Store recently, primarily concerning VLC. See http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/no-gpl-apps-for-apples...
Post reply on HN