Port 25 - Communications from the open source community at Microsoft

Comments RSS

1. cronos said:

   At first glance, this is a big list of related open source software, big because it's from Microsoft. But there are some issues:
   
   some software as flexwiki, is licensed with the Common Public License, approved by the Open Source Initiative, and that's good;
   
   other software, as rotor, is released under the "shared source initiative", that forbidds their commercial use ( http://msdn.microsoft.com/MSDN-FILES/027/002/097/ShSourceCLILicense.htm), a very basic right;
   
   other software, as SQL Server 2005 Express, doesn't has their license  easily available, and I cannot see their relation with open source;
   
   and finaly, there are too much different licenses. If you are only one company, why you cannot select only one open source licence, preferably well known?
   
   Personally, I hate to read every license invented in order to use a software; I only use software with the licenses GPL, BSD or Creative Commons. Maybe the lawyers have a lot of fun writing and reading licenses, but I seriously doubt that an average engineer enjoys that.

   posted at 06:15PM 05/23/2006
2. Wesley Parish said:

   FWIW, cronos, Microsoft has attempted to put its house in order in relation to "Shared Source" license proliferation, with the announcement on Matusow's blog that there were three new Shared Source licenses and two Microsoft-only versions, and these were to replace the previous proliferation.
   
   I've suggested replacing the four-license MS WinCE shuffle by a simpler Microsoft Community License plus AT&T-style proprietary buy-out idea; so far I've seen nothing happening, and I doubt it ever will.  
   
   As far as the Express offerings go, they're "free-as-in-beer" and aimed at the hobbyist crowd, being cut-down versions of the Visual [programming language of your choice].  Their licenses are strictly boilerplate EULA.
   
   I think it would be too great a change in Microsoft's corporate culture to expect them to have their source code released under something like the MsCL.  It would change people's atitudes, it would win hearts and minds, it would help roll back some of the worst excesses of Microsoft's past few years.  But I doubt the MS senior executive can think that far ahead.
   
   As for me, I'm hoping that the current Shared Source license proliferation with be pruned back as quickly as possible.  The current Shared Source license proliferation makes a license compliance and source code reusability nightmare of epic proportions.

   posted at 10:51PM 05/23/2006
3. jwelch@bynkii.com said:

   You're pointing at an old version of the Shared Source CLI. The current one is:
   
   http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=8c09fd61-3f26-4555-ae17-3121b4f51d4d&DisplayLang=en#Requirements
   
   Oops, that's Windows only! How'd that happen! I guess the rest of us have to go use Mono. You do know that pointing to an old version that is cross-platform and ignoring the current version which is Windows only does NOT make you guys look on the up-and-up, right?

   posted at 11:02PM 05/23/2006
4. Sam Ramji said:

   Wesley:
   
   My team is working with the Win CE folks right now in reviewing what they should make available under shared source, and your input on what we should use for licenses is coming at a good time.  I saw your post on Jason Matusow's blog, suggesting we use the MS-PL for all Win CE source, but I didn't note the AT&T style buy-out idea (are you suggesting a dual-licensing strategy)?
   
   Also, comments and suggestions on how specific product teams should use open source licenses like MS-PL and MS-CL are right on target for Port 25.  This team regularly engages with product groups (from Mobile to Devices to Windows Server, etc.) and we're willing to deliver your intelligent feedback directly.
   
   We are committed to simplifying the license proliferation that you note, per Jason's comments.
   
   Finally, thanks for your thoughtful engagement on this topic.  Microsoft has much to learn here and we do best with this style of directed feedback.
   
   Thanks,
   
   Sam

   posted at 11:11PM 05/23/2006
5. ericlee748 said:

   Sorry, I didn't realize there was a newer version of the Shared Source CLI; thanks for the correction.  I guess that makes sense given that there was an update to .NET.  
   
   Not sure why it only runs on Windows - I'll check around to see why that decision was made.
   
   The Express tools I included aren't open source, but I included them at the end of the list because they are free, and seems to be in the ballpark of what we're talking about here.
   
   Licensing is really complicated at Microsoft; I don't think anyone designed it that way, it just grew and grew into tons of variations.  There is a real effort to simplify it (both commerical and non-commercial), but it'll take some time to unwind it all :)
   
   Thanks,
   
   Eric.

   posted at 11:20PM 05/23/2006
6. rjdohnert said:

   Have you ever thought that they might be prepping the crossplatform release?  Believe it or not quality is important, if Microsoft went ahead and released it and you had compile errors or any other problems some people would be crying foul and cursing Microsoft.  Wait, thats happening already.  if you are rustrated with the release of the Shared Source CLI then I do suggest Mono.  two things will happen, you will have an open source implementation of the .NET Framework and maybe the guys over at Microsoft will get off of their collective asses and release the Shared Source CLI for other platforms.
   
   " You're pointing at an old version of the Shared Source CLI. The current one is:
   
   http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=8c09fd61-3f26-4555-ae17-3121b4f51d4d&DisplayLang=en#Requirements
   
   Oops, that's Windows only! How'd that happen! I guess the rest of us have to go use Mono. You do know that pointing to an old version that is cross-platform and ignoring the current version which is Windows only does NOT make you guys look on the up-and-up, right? "  

   posted at 12:15AM 05/24/2006
7. rjdohnert said:

   Let me guess; The reason for no other platform releases is because there are certain security features that the CLI uses that are only available for Windows XP SP2 and/or;
   
   1) Each downlevel OS that we support is incrementally more expensive.  The thing to understand is that dev costs are the tip of the iceberg for us. Test and support are the big cost drivers.
   
   2) Supporting older OSes has a diminishing returns profile. There is a lot of benefit for support n-1, less for n-2, even less for n-3.
   
   3) The accountant-types will always argue to use new features to drive upgrades.  Delivering these features down-level is a pure cost with no demonstrable revenue gains.  (Increases in customer satisfaction are real but hard to demonstrate or quantify BEFORE you ship.)
   
   4) It is hard to overstate how serious the company is about delivering secure products.  Said another way, the MSFT immune system is highly tuned to attack anything that has a hint of being unsecured (as it should be).
   
   Do those excuses sound about right?
   
   " Not sure why it only runs on Windows - I'll check around to see why that decision was made."
   

   posted at 12:22AM 05/24/2006
8. rjdohnert said:

   Stay tuned to my blog for a report Im doing on Microsoft.  Warning, its a little on the not so friendly side.  I will provide a direct link when it goes live tomorrow afternoon.

   posted at 12:28AM 05/24/2006
9. Wesley Parish said:

   Sam,
   
   Yes, dual licensing is the idea I was thinking about.  The MS WinCE under the Microsoft Community License for the general public, students, businesses that want it, hobbyists, etc.  A licensing deal where the company either licenses with annual renewals or pays a big lump sum for a non-revocable license buy-out, for those with that sort of money.
   
   That's the sort of thing I'm thinking of.
   
   It gives businesses options while allowing the public use and study of a source tree that is likely to become even more prominent, and that will also open it up to proper peer review and debugging.

   posted at 09:14AM 05/24/2006
10. rjdohnert said:

    Link to my article, as promised
    
    https://rjdohnert.wordpress.com/2006/05/24/microsoft-improvements-needed/

    posted at 04:32PM 05/24/2006

• 1
• 2
• Next >