LWN: Comments on "Microsoft bans free software from Windows Phone Marketplace (The H)"

re: matters

gvy — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 17:16:26 +0000

Hey, what's that Windows Phone anyways?

(pun intended)

License hackery

idupree — Mon, 21 Feb 2011 22:27:46 +0000

Legally, that exclusion probably means something (IANAL), but technically/logically, I'm wondering.

It excludes licenses that require, as a condition of redistribution(etc.), certain things (e.g. source code). Think about that word "as a condition".

Imagine "GPL v2 (or later?). As a special exception to the GNU GPL, you may redistribute the program such that it may not be used, modified or distributed." Or "..may not be..except to make pigs fly". Then your license GPL+exception wouldn't logically count as an excluded license, because there are terms that you can accept that do not resemble copyleft (or to be precise, do not match (i) or (ii) or (iii) or GPL v3). And yet it preserves all the freedoms of the GPL, because that license is pretty much useless. (I'm eliding the difference between an "exception" and a "dual license" which I'm sure is important legally.)

If a copyleft such as the GPL permits strictly more things than a certain proprietary license (such as my "exception" above, and probably more), then it seems difficult to ban such licenses via a general definition and still allow many proprietary licenses.

Obviously, lawyers would see right through that "exception". Less fanciful is a dual license GPL + "smartphone app store owners and their delegates may redistribute unmodified copies", or GPL + "anyone may redistribute unmodified copies". The latter sounds like, say, CC-BY-ND. Is the Creative Commons (Attribution-)No Derivatives license (3.0) allowed by MS? - I didn't read the legalese close enough to be sure (I guess it might fall under "(iii) redistributable at no charge" depending how it's written). I'm not sure how well it would preserve freedoms (CC-BY-ND doesn't mention patents, for example), and it wouldn't allow reusing existing copyleft code, but would it work? Hmm, it might be incompatible with itself, but one could probably get a working license.

...for the current terms. If Microsoft doesn't like us, they can just keep changing their terms a small amount to exclude the new popular Free license, and then we haven't a chance at this game. :-(

Microsoft bans free software from Windows Phone Marketplace (The H)

misiu_mp — Sat, 19 Feb 2011 12:47:05 +0000

>It may well be that Microsoft's Marketplace terms of service are similarly incompatible with some GPL provision.

Of course Marketplace ToS is incompatible with the GPL: it explicitly prohibits it. Won't get more incompatible than that.

Microsoft bans free software from Windows Phone Marketplace (The H)

gnufreex — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 22:18:38 +0000

I have my theory why they double-banned GPLv3 and call ed it out by name, while they are keeping quiet about MPL and others. They are especially peeved against GPL and they are making misdirection play: make people talk about GPLv3 and how awful it is (that is up to their AstroTurf team to steer up GPL-is-terrible discussion) and in the process, forget about all other licenses they are banning. Here is my post about this, to avoid repeating myself http://gnufreex.wordpress.com/2011/02/17/wp7-walled-garde...

After seeing what pro-Microsoft crowd is posting all over internet, I think I nailed it.

Microsoft bans free software from Windows Phone Marketplace (The H)

daniel — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 20:40:10 +0000

Right. Microsoft loves all take and no give. Google does a bit too much of that too. See the unabashed bias against GPL and in favor of Apache licence of GOOG's illustrious "open source programs" manager.

Microsoft bans free software from Windows Phone Marketplace (The H)

daniel — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 20:21:35 +0000

<quote>So, they do not seem to like patent defence terms in Free licenses.</quote>

So much that they are willing to sacrifice developer mindshare to fight it. But I think the ban is basically all copyleft, not just antitrap. It would both sorts of provision are now causing meaningful difficulties for the tired old monopolist.

Microsoft bans free software from Windows Phone Marketplace (The H)

anselm — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 19:26:34 +0000

Well, if they don't want to distribute free software then they don't want to distribute free software. They're Microsoft, after all – what would you expect? And of course it's their app store, so they get to pick what they'd like to carry.

However, not to worry. Probably someone will very soon find a local root exploit – of which, given past performance, there will undoubtedly be hundreds – in the Windows Phone operating system, which will eventually allow people to set up an alternative app store for free stuff.

Microsoft bans free software from Windows Phone Marketplace (The H)

dps — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 18:56:40 +0000

You could probably distribute BSD software under a different, M$ WP7 store compatible, licence. The BSD people thought that trivial changes would not happen because anybody else could trivially replicate them.

Almost any other free software licence would be excluded because they are explicitly designed to ensure freedoms that M$ does not want to permit. If that became a huge competitive disadvantage then I suspect the TOS would change.

A really good open source game might make anything that does not support it unsaleable to the young. I suspect that this a large fraction of the market nobody could afford to lose. I am happy with a device with no camera that is just a phone but then I have experienced linux 0.99pl13 and telnet. Now, like everybody else, I just use ssh :-)

Microsoft bans free software from Windows Phone Marketplace (The H)

Trelane — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 17:47:49 +0000

has, solves, two sides of the same coin. :)

Microsoft bans free software from Windows Phone Marketplace (The H)

shmerl — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 17:47:20 +0000

They think it's smart because it pushes off competing technologies. It's not smart from users perspective - another incentive not to use WP7.

Close, but not cigar...

shmerl — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 17:45:03 +0000

The problem lies in digital signatures I think, not in the source code.

Microsoft bans free software from Windows Phone Marketplace (The H)

shmerl — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 17:07:01 +0000

Because GPLv3 has the tivoization issue (which GPLv2 has not): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization

Microsoft bans free software from Windows Phone Marketplace (The H)

shmget — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 16:17:13 +0000

"they don't want to be distributing software whose license they are not equipped to follow."

They purposefully _chose_ to be not 'equipped to follow'.
This is not an unfortunate and overlooked technical side effect of a design choice, this is WAD.

Close, but not cigar...

khim — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 09:17:01 +0000

Sorry, but this is bullshit. Yes, GPLv2 does have such a problem, but Microsoft makes explicit emphasis in GPLv3 and... what are we seeing there? Right - this: If the place to copy the object code is a network server, the Corresponding Source may be on a different server (operated by you or a third party) that supports equivalent copying facilities, provided you maintain clear directions next to the object code saying where to find the Corresponding Source.

As you can see this problem (along with many other problems) was fixed in GPLv3: it specifically puts the burden on developer, not on distributor!

Microsoft bans free software from Windows Phone Marketplace (The H)

paivakil — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 07:45:10 +0000

Actually, paravoid has a point - Free - as in freecom _ software comes with a responsibility to be socially responsible /if/ you are doing beyond mere using it.

no, they aren't

trasz — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 07:42:08 +0000

No, BSD is fine here. Read the earlier part: 'Excluded License means any license requiring'. Using code released under BSD license does not require one to allow the creation of derivative works.

no, they aren't

niner — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 07:09:41 +0000

"or allow the creation of derivative works or redistribution at no charge"

Both would apply to BSD style licenses, so they are banned as well.

Microsoft bans free software from Windows Phone Marketplace (The H)

lutchann — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 03:14:43 +0000

No, I think this standard Microsoft practice of trying to keep their third-party developers as far from the GPL as possible. Many developer tools and code samples they release prohibit mixing MS-owned code with code under a GPL-style license. Do a Google search for "excluded licenses" for some examples.

Microsoft bans free software from Windows Phone Marketplace (The H)

cmccabe — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 01:30:29 +0000

So far, they've banned non-C# software and also copyleft software. With any luck, they'll soon roll out a nice hefty "revenue sharing" arrangement to scare off any remaining app developers. Then we can finish shovelling WP7 into the same shallow grave as the ZunePod.

Microsoft bans free software from Windows Phone Marketplace (The H)

vonbrand — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 00:13:43 +0000

Since GPL (all versions) are OSI approved licenses, presumably...

Microsoft bans free software from Windows Phone Marketplace (The H)

dskoll — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 21:47:11 +0000

The TOS are basically stopping Free Software from ever existing on WP7.

That's true, but who gets hurt? Answer: WP7 users, not Free Software. Limiting the number of apps available on your platform is not exactly a smart move.

Microsoft bans free software from Windows Phone Marketplace (The H)

paravoid — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 21:18:38 +0000

Since when GPLv2 (with or without "or later") is "open-source software" and not "free software"? Not to mention that BSD and a ton of other licenses are also free software licenses.

Microsoft bans free software from Windows Phone Marketplace (The H)

elanthis — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 20:47:16 +0000

It doesn't exist, therefor it doesn't matter?

At one point the GPL didn't exist, Linux didn't exist, etc.

The TOS are basically stopping Free Software from ever existing on WP7. The license isn't saying, "hey, this doesn't exist yet, just pointing that out folks." It's saying, "hey, this doesn't exist and it never ever will, because we said so."

Thankfully, nothing stops you from writing Open Source code for WP7. You just can't require that Microsoft comply with GPL-ish terms on a device that is explicitly non-hackable. Which makes sense in various ways, honestly.

Microsoft bans free software from Windows Phone Marketplace (The H)

elanthis — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 20:40:54 +0000

Yup.

Posting length limit, sigh.

Microsoft bans free software from Windows Phone Marketplace (The H)

nybble41 — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 19:45:23 +0000

It hardly matters as the GPL clearly does match conditions (i) and (ii), and matching just *one* of the conditions is enough to qualify as an "Excluded License". However, while the GPL does not require that you distribute the software for free, it certainly does require that the software be *redistributable* for free--that is, you cannot prevent others who receive GPL'd software from you from redistributing it at no charge.

Note that this does not just apply to open-source code; closed-source freeware (that is, software licensed transitively for free redistribution, not just that which you receive for free) would also be excluded due to condition (iii).

Microsoft bans free software from Windows Phone Marketplace (The H)

tzafrir — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 19:05:44 +0000

Right. I was mis-reading it.

Let's try again:

Excluded License means any license requiring, as a condition of use, modification and/or distribution of the software subject to the license, that the software or other software combined and/or distributed with it be

(i) disclosed or distributed in source code form;
(ii) licensed for the purpose of making derivative works; or
(iii) redistributable at no charge.

So, any GPL any similar satisfies (i) and (ii). Any copyleft satisfies (ii).

But I wonder what about (iii). It's actually something that the GPL does not require (you may charge as much as you want for it. As long as there are suckers around. You must not prevent those potential suckers to copy the software around after they got it from you, though).

(But yeah, I know they explicitly name all the GPLv3 variants. And I know IANAL).

Microsoft bans free software from Windows Phone Marketplace (The H)

ikm — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 18:56:38 +0000

While it is surely possible to write free software for Windows Phone, pretty much none exists right now. When it comes to free software on various device markets, the buzz is usually about the existing FOSS programs ported to that devices - or more specifically, the inability to distribute them despite the fact that they are readily available. Here we have a "no chicken and no egg" problem instead, which is mostly only boring - so Microsoft doesn't want free software written in their handicapped proprietary language for their handicapped proprietary platform, who cares?

Microsoft bans free software from Windows Phone Marketplace (The H)

foom — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 18:39:12 +0000

Why is it moot? Surely it's possible to write free software in C#.

Microsoft bans free software from Windows Phone Marketplace (The H)

gnufreex — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 18:29:08 +0000

That is correct. WP7 is .NET only.

Microsoft bans free software from Windows Phone Marketplace (The H)

ikm — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 18:16:23 +0000

I somehow got the impression that you can only write .NET apps for Windows Phone. If this is the case, this whole topic is mostly moot.

Microsoft bans free software from Windows Phone Marketplace (The H)

iabervon — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 18:08:23 +0000

I would expect that this is a response to the GNU Go/Apple App Store issue from last year: the site lacks the functionality necessary to comply with the license, and they're not planning this functionality, and they don't want to be distributing software whose license they are not equipped to follow.

Microsoft bans free software from Windows Phone Marketplace (The H)

aleXXX — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 17:51:09 +0000

BSD-style licenses should be ok, if I understood their conditions correctly, right ?

Alex

Microsoft bans free software from Windows Phone Marketplace (The H)

gmaxwell — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 17:50:32 +0000

So you can't distribute GPL licensed free software for a platform where the executable format includes a proprietary linker stub? I somehow doubt that this is the intended or actual effect of the license.

Stuff which you are _required_ to do and is merely part of working with the systems sounds squarely within the the realm of the intended here to me.

Microsoft bans free software from Windows Phone Marketplace (The H)

tetromino — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 17:35:07 +0000

> It's the same reason why Apple was forced to remove VLC from the iPhone App Store.

My comment above is wrong, mea culpa. Apparently, the real reason why VLC was removed from the iPhone App Store was because GPL is incompatible with the App Store terms of service; see http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2010-Octo...

It may well be that Microsoft's Marketplace terms of service are similarly incompatible with some GPL provision.

Microsoft bans free software from Windows Phone Marketplace (The H)

foom — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 17:30:41 +0000

It would of course be trivial for them to host the source code too, since they already have a massive hosting system set up. If they decided they wanted to, which of course, they don't.

Microsoft bans free software from Windows Phone Marketplace (The H)

gevaerts — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 17:30:31 +0000

Where does it say it isn't?

Microsoft bans free software from Windows Phone Marketplace (The H)

tzafrir — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 17:24:19 +0000

And this is not a problem with GPLv2, LGPLv2.1 and MPL because?

Microsoft bans free software from Windows Phone Marketplace (The H)

gevaerts — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 17:14:43 +0000

I don't think it has anything at all to do with DRM or what you have to link to. It's much more simple than that.

If you put a GPL (or any copyleft) licensed bit of software on these marketplace things (whether it be itunes, android market, or this one), it's all very nice to argue that the marketplace (or the about box of your application) links to your website which has the source so the source code availability requirements are satisfied, but if your website goes away, the distributor (Apple, Google, Microsoft) suddenly is responsible for satisfying the source availability requirement. I can easily see a legal department there deciding that this just isn't worth the hassle.

Microsoft bans free software from Windows Phone Marketplace (The H)

pboddie — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 17:12:54 +0000

Yes, the commenter is confusing technical matters with legal or contractual ones. I doubt that VLC was linking to any DRM-related library, but in any case, it was the terms of use for Apple's store, which sought to deprive purchasers of the privileges granted by the Free Software licensing, that caused the conflict and ultimately led to the withdrawal of the software.

Microsoft bans free software from Windows Phone Marketplace (The H)

tetromino — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 17:11:30 +0000

> programs under the GPL are allowed to link with proprietary stuff it that's part of the "core" system

That wouldn't help if Windows Phone packages are required to include some proprietary stuff in the package itself.