oh fooey

Story: Microsoft Proves it Can Go Open Source Total Replies: 10
Author Content
tuxchick

Mar 12, 2010
12:05 PM EDT 		One tiny bit of insignificantware is not doing open source.
justintime

Mar 12, 2010
2:20 PM EDT 		then by your definition, pretty much no one is doing open source because most F/OSS is "insignificantware". Another mail client? Insignificant. Another IM client? Insignificant. Another file manager? Insignificant. Another battery status applet? Insignificant. All these things are a dime a dozen, but when combined into the GNOME or KDE desktops, for example, suddenly they become significant.
hkwint

Mar 12, 2010
2:36 PM EDT 		Wow, you have some guts, kalling KDE signifikant on LXer!
tuxchick

Mar 12, 2010
2:41 PM EDT 		Poor ole justintime, you hate everything I say. Sorry. Oh wait, no I'm not sorry.

For anyone who cares about a serious on-topic discussion, this doesn't prove that MS can "do open source." There is a lot more to real open source than releasing one little bitty app under a BSD license and a promise not to sue. "Doing open source" covers a whole of ground:

-building a community and accepting outside contributions -not playing games with standards and source code -not trying to control and micromanage -having genuine openness and transparency, rather than having ulterior motives

What this particular project really sounds like is yet another classic Microsoft ulterior motive, an attempt to resurrect Passport/Palladium/whatever the current name is of their pet 'all your ID are belong to us' scheme that will not die:

Quoting: With U-Prove, identity information can be used securely, and private data can be safely shared to those parties that need it, without leaking more information than is required... In a world with U-Prove, many existing identity management problems would go away.



Even if we have no reasons to suspect Microsoft of nefarious intent (yeah right), I have yet to see any reason to trust their competence, especially in security.
azerthoth

Mar 12, 2010
2:43 PM EDT 		bah, Gnomes belong in gardens not computers Hans. That being said, as much as the anti KDE4 crowd confuses me and I rattle their cages now and then, Fluxbox still keeps even my more horsepower machines happy.
justintime

Mar 12, 2010
5:24 PM EDT
Quoting:Even if we have no reasons to suspect Microsoft of nefarious intent (yeah right), I have yet to see any reason to trust their competence, especially in security.


They released the code under an FSF-approved license. You have the code. You can audit it. You don't have to trust their word.

I agree that they have tended to not accept outside contributions, but so what? Fork it and start a community around your fork. If you manage to create a community, then your fork will likely end up becoming the canonical version of the code that everyone else uses.

Oh wait, I forgot - all you care about is bitching and moaning about how evil Microsoft is. Forking code and creating a community around your project takes effort - something you are unwilling to actually do.
tracyanne

Mar 12, 2010
6:37 PM EDT 		Except in spite of the license, a BSD license, the freest of the free, Microsoft have managed to make it impossible to fork the project, or to do anything interesting with it, that they don't/won't approve of.

According to Glyn Moody's analysis
Quoting: it's just unfortunate that the accompanying Open Specification Promise has a big loophole that makes it pretty useless for consideration by serious free software projects.


And

Sam Ramji's Question and Glyn's answer

Quoting: Sam Ramji said...

Glyn - what terms do you think need to be added to the OSP by Microsoft in order to make it GPL-compatible? Brendan Scott had a good post here but I'm still trying to get my head around what's missing. 7:43 PM

glyn moody said...

@Sam: OK, first of all, IANAL: what follows is probably not true in any deep legal sense; it might not be true in any shallow, non-legal sense, but I'm going to say it anyway, since it's the best I can do, and it might help.

One problem, in my understanding, is that the promise doesn't apply to all future specifications, just the ones around at the moment. This means that one day a new version of a specification might pop up that *wasn't* covered, and so would be useless for free software purposes.

Solution: make the promise include *all past, present and future* versions.

Another issue has to do with derived code. If I write some code for one of the covered projects, the promise applies. But I believe - correct me if I'm wrong - if someone takes that code from me and uses it in their project, they are not covered. That's not compatible with the GPL.

Solution: give pass-on rights to any user of code (maybe subject to something about being compliant with the terms of the GPL or similar).

But the *real* solution is as I said: put all the relevant patents in the public domain so that anyone can use them in any way. This will get the widest use of the technologies, which is the point of the exercise.

As you know, the patent system is broken, and trying to patch just isn't going to work. The sooner people just short-circuit it by putting everything in the public domain, or - preferably - we get rid of it, the better.

Idealistic, unreasonable? Certainly - and your point is....?

Hope that helps - please feel free to come back for clarifications of my poor explanations. 8:03 PM




azerthoth

Mar 12, 2010
6:40 PM EDT 		straw man
tuxchick

Mar 12, 2010
9:16 PM EDT 		MS has plenty of opportunities to "do open source". And to do open standards, and to not lie, cheat, bribe, and subvert government procurement processes, and to make clear, straightforward truthful statements. Talk is cheap. I'll believe they are 'doing open source' when it actually happens. Glyn Moody is sharp and right-on, it's rare that I ever disagree with him.
hkwint

Mar 13, 2010
11:31 AM EDT 		The problem there's a difference between 'open source' and an 'open project'. Microsoft source code / standards may be open, but its projects are closed.

az: You're the second Flux fan this week, I really should give it a try! Now if I only could find some 'switching from WindowMaker to FluxBox' guide...
gus3

Mar 13, 2010
11:35 AM EDT
Quoting:Now if I only could find some 'switching from WindowMaker to FluxBox' guide...
In Slackware, it's a simple "xwmconfig". ;-)

Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]

Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!