Microsoft want to join in Open source?


#1

Microsoft Open Technologies, Inc?? http://msopentech.com/about/
Microsoft want to work with Open source ?
Is it related to Free software? How it will be related ?


Open Source articles in Tamil
#2

Open Source != Free Software

Free Software says there should be 4 freedoms which We strongly believe, while Open source ideology is to compromise with any of those 4 freedoms and introduce restriction somewhere so that the organization that releases their product as open source continues to reap profits at the cost of User freedom.

If proprietary software are restricting knowledge and freedoms, so is Open source.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html

We have already seen that Microsoft has open sourced (not free software) Azure cloud management tool. They are purely doing it for their business purpose. As people are learning more and more about Open source and Free Software, the same Microsoft which said this system will kill itself, is now adopting the same system.

By the way these moves should be welcomed and this should in turn pave way for Free Software.


#3

Microsoft has also sponsored many OSS events. Also it has its own chain of OSS tools and remember seeing their own Github page as well. Like Prassana mentioned Free Software != Open Source.


#4

Thank you guys. :smile:


#5

the one thing microsoft given to FOSS world is C# compiler(Roslyn) and .net for mono


#6

Adding fuel to the flame :wink:


#7

This is pure admission of defeat after a statement like this one http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/06/02/ballmer_linux_is_a_cancer/

Microsoft is a cheap organization, unable to compete now it gearing upto survival by some means.


#8

Needs and situations change, a business should adapt to it. Change does not mean cheap. Also business decisions and philosophy can change if CEO changes.


#9

Then why is it free software foundation tamil nadu . It should be Free and Open Source Right. FOSS


#10

@KISHORE_VIGNESH_BARA your message is unintelligible. Could you explain what you mean.


#11

Right, so as already pointed out above Open Source != Free Software. We vouch for Free Software ultimately. Though, Open Source has become more prevalent because of the corporates and tech industry had adopted the word for their gains, we will also continue to use FLOSS (Free / Libre Open Source Software) at times in order for the people to understand what we are trying to communicate with them.

If you have read through the philosophical difference between Free Software & Open Source, then you can understand that Open source licenses are not much different from non-free or proprietary licenses. There are lot of instances where one could say open source but then it doesn’t ensure freedom from the user end point, rather it only helps the monopolies to withhold their control like how Android is being held.


#12

Ya, Google gives you free look up at it Open source android. Open source has it bottle neck what do you comment for Cynogen. They stole it from google.

if free != open source ?
true do you mean to say free != Gnu ??

Since GNU is a non permissive license, They restrict commercialization out of the free stuff ? Is that not an restriction ? Is there any true free software out there ?


#13

There are two kinds of free software licenses

  • copyleft licenses, like GNU GPL, which prevent you from exploiting the free software by modifying it and releasing it under different licenses; and
  • permissive free licenses, like MIT and Apache, which lets you give out a base software for free for the eventuality that commerical organizations will use that as the base for developing their own commercial software.

If you consider no restriction as complete freedom, then anything that’s MIT licensed is probably the most “free” software.

But the only problem with permissive free software is that there is a very good chance that someone will use that and create something better without giving out the new source code. Thus, the very free software becomes reason and support for the creation of a non-free software - which is kind of counter productive.

In Microsoft’s case we aren’t even talking about the difference between these. Microsoft, as far as I understand from their website, wants to use the word open in some of their “cloud” products. If you look through the list of their projects, it is mostly libraries that allow other free applications to interact with microsoft’s non-free applications that are being open-sourced.

While it is certainly good that Microsoft is doing at least some work on free software, we have to see that they’re releasing code as “free” only when such code would be of no use when it’s non-free (for example, a azure module for fog, or reactive extensions that make it possible for programmers to code for their cloud platform)


#14

Depends on what’s important for you. Not all open source software are free. But almost all “free software” are open. Take TrueCrypt for instance, you can look at the source code (open) but you cannot share the code (not free).

Also, the most permissive license is probably BSD license. But it’s not copyleft which means it’s not viral. Also, the argument that Cyanogen stole from Google is shit. That would mean almost all Android phone manufacturers (except those owned by Google) stole it too. The Android license permits it and anybody can share it or modify it.