Port 25 - Communications from the open source community at Microsoft

Comments RSS

1. fluke said:

   You missed some very interesting related links:
   
   Rob Mensching's "Source code is an inanimate object"
    @ http://blogs.msdn.com/robmen/archive/2006/04/20/580427.aspx
   
   And in turn, Miguel de Icaza's blog:
    @ http://tirania.org/blog/
   
   I got to see Miguel de Icaza give a talk on implimenting software RAID for Linux.  He is the *only* speaker I have ever seen that can a dry subject like RAID and get so excited that he is literly jumping around and getting ahead of himself in the talk.  It was impossible not to get wrapped up in what he is talking about because he is so alive when explaining it.
   
   Another thing that he brought up is the living nature of an open source project.  Just because RAID 1 is implimented at "beta" quality doesn't mean all future development is at beta quality.  It is possible that while implimenting RAID 5 that it will break the RAID 1 code.  So, it is possible for things to get worse before getting better.
   
   I think that rubbed off on Rob Mensching as well.  Rob M. even says: "Today the WiX toolset improves because there are thousands of people that use it, praise it, curse it, write about it, and some add more code to it."  Not only does he have praising (postive) the project but also cursing (negative) it as part of the method that it improves.  Also, part of improving a truely open source project is sometimes *breaking* it but still leaving the broken version freely distributable for others to move forward with.
   
   One of the big differences I see between FOSS is MS Share Source, is that MS-SS developers seem to have no problem with inherit additional restrictions on developer/use of the project that voilate FOSS ideals.  So, while the one simple page on it's face appears to fit in line with FOSS concepts, the actual terms for a Codeplex VS Powertoy contributor actually takes on the additional restrictions of the VS SDK license to accomplish the developement.
   
   So, the MS-SS VS Powertoy developer also agrees to:
   
   - never break the VS UI guidelines (which aren't even provided until after you already agree to the SDK license)
   - never adversely affect functionality
   - **ensure the quality** is equivalent to the quality provided in the SDK
   - not expose the functionality that allows use by a third party product
   - may not disclose integration code to third parties in source code form
   - can not enable development or distribution of extention or wrappers
   - must pass the test suite and submit accurate test results to MS
   - must have a click-wrap or signed EULA
   
   Sam refers to the differences between open source and shared source as being po-"tat"-o vs. po-"tot"-o.  However, when you consider the limitations of the MS-Shared Source/Visual Studio license, there are major differences that show through.
   
   - FOSS licenses take into account that potental "developers" and the "end user" can be the same person
   - MS-SS/VS requirements treat distribution to the end user as a seprate party from encouraging further developement
   - FOSS licenses take into account that distribution of broken versions (violations in UI, adverse functionality, lack of quality, breaking of established tests, etc) to third party potental developers is part of the growth cycles of the product
   - MS-SS/VS requirements treat any distribution to third parties as a final product
   - FOSS licenses would allow a plugin of plugins such as allowing bindings to an interpreted language (such as being able to create plugins python) -- see Script-Fu for GIMP as an example
   - MS-SS/VS requirements do not allow bindings that a "third party" can use to access "integration code"
   - FOSS licenses would allow modular developement of plugins where the full functionality of the plugin is made up by loading sub-plugins
   - MS-SS/VS requirements do not allow sub-plugins if the interface for  sub-plugins is available to "third parties"
   - FOSS licenses would allow silent installation/start-up of a plugin
   - MS-SS/VS requirements demand a EULA be agreed to for the plugin (in addition to the EULA already agreed to for VS)
   - FOSS licenses would allow forking of a project and continued developement under the same exact terms with no bias to either development branch
   - MS-SS/VS may be only casually enforced for CodePlex contributors while the full terms of the MS-SS/VS restrictions enforced against those that attempt to fork the project, thus creating bias to contribute to only the CodePlex branch
   
   For these reasons, I don't see FOSS and MS-SS/VS to be interchangable and would not recommend contributing to a MS-SS project until such time the issue of inherited requirements has been corrected.
   
   Anyways, overall this was an interesting interview.  Keep up the good work.  :)

   posted at 06:22PM 06/29/2006
2. Port 25 said:

   Be careful what you write on your blog about having such a great time at OSCON, because the Port 25 team will find it! I mentioned that I had wanted to do a second video regarding everything I had learned at OSCON. I was (almost) embarrassed how my first

   posted at 06:26PM 09/11/2006
3. Port 25 said:

   I recently attended OSCON 2006, and had a lot of fun being there. Microsoft’s presence in the Open Source World is still a novelty (to say the least), so I always got a reaction out of people at the conference when they saw my badge!

   posted at 03:20PM 10/12/2006
4. Port 25 said:

   Hank Interviews Photosynth Developer Ian Gilman and shares his thoughts after 10 months at Microsoft...

   posted at 09:19PM 02/28/2007