Windows 8 Store will allow open source apps
extremetech.com
extremetech.com
> Microsoft has achieved platform unity across all their devices — something that Google and Apple are still a year or more away from reaching.
This alone makes it hard for me to take this article seriously, also it's highly sensationalist.
Also, what did Apple "backport" from iOS to OSX? They made a few more pieces of OSX "iOS-like", such as Launchpad, but I'm not aware of any significant pieces that were actually ported from iOS.
And to be clear, I work for Microsoft. I don't want it to look like I'm bashing Apple here, because I'm not. Apple makes some very nice stuff. But I don't see them as having platform unity in any meaningful way (nor does Microsoft at this point).
Windows users are already almost all open-source users, and one major reason for the app-store to exist is so that Windows users can get their software from a trusted source.
If you're on a Windows machine, do a quick count of the open-source applications you have installed. Open-source is a juggernaut on the Windows platform. MS knows this very well. They have problems getting users to use their free software (e.g. Internet Explorer) that comes installed on every copy of Windows instead of something that's open source! Of course, while free software does greatly enhance the value users can get out of Windows, it is also a big security problem. For every awesome open source application there is a shady malware reflection, and users sometimes have problems telling the difference. Malware is a big reason why Windows gets flak for not being secure.
Enter the MS App store. The only way to sell users on the idea of getting all their software from the app store is for the free software they use to be there waiting for them. That means even the competition must be there. Yes, you can expect Chrome and Firefox to be on the MS App store. Security isn't the only benefit of locking users into an app store though. The platform "unification" MS seems to be striving towards could also benefit from features the app store could have. e.g. Centrally managed install-bases for all your computers. Install VLC on your office computer and it winds up on your mobile and home computer too. Get a new computer? One click (or less) and everything you installed from the app store on your old machine could be waiting for you on the new machine.
Of course, Apple has shown that managing an App store is not without its difficulties. Slow review processes irk developers, and malicious software can still slip through. Can MS do better? Only time will tell.
I'm just surprised that this is surprising.
Anyways, this is missing the bigger point that Windows 8 is going to restrict how you can deploy applications on your own PC. It's not just the app-store approach, it's that you cannot use the new APIs and UI system unless you are approved. Insane.
How is that worse than the app-store approach? If anything, it's a lot better because you can still run/develop programs like Steam. Try doing that on the app-store based iPad.
edit: Apparently, I was less than clear. The GPL has always forbidden distributing GPL'ed apps under Apple's (and not only Apple's) rules, since well before their app store existed.
GPL: You have the right to modify and redistribute the application.
Apple: No you don't.
rbanffy: The GPL forbids redistribution.
Apple restricts you to 5 devices, the GPL does not. Apple restricts you to personal, non commercial use, the GPL does not.
Although Apple's app stores don't have provisions for distributing source, they don't do anything to stop the source of a developer's app being posted for modifications or redist.
I'd love to see some examples of your claims.
(i) If you are an individual acting in your personal capacity, you may download and sync an App Store Product for personal, noncommercial use on any iOS Device you own or control. and it keeps going.
Fanboys coming out saying it isn't apple adding restrictions. What a joke. If I acquire an application through the app store then Apple restricts my usage.
See also my other comment where I still assumed that you made a mistake and were not selectively quoting: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3344535
But the App Stores allows you to install apps on as many Macs or iOS devices you want (as long as you own or control them) and it also allows for commercial use (also by companies and organizations).
Is the first restriction listed at http://www.apple.com/legal/itunes/us/terms.html
I'm no hyperchicken, so don't put much stock in what I have to say.
The Mac App Store seems to have different terms for non-commercial and commercial use. Here are the terms for non-commercial use:
If you are an individual acting in your personal capacity, you may download and use an application from the Mac App Store (“Mac App Store Product”) for personal, non-commercial use on any Apple-branded products running Mac OS X (“Mac Computer”) that you own or control.
tl;dr: If you are not an enterprise, you can download apps for non-commercial use and install them on all Macs you own or control.
Here are the terms for commercial use:
If you are a commercial enterprise or educational institution, you may download a Mac App Store Product for use by either (a) a single individual on each of the Mac Computer(s) used by that individual that you own or control or (b) multiple individuals on a single shared Mac Computer that you own or control. For example, a single employee may use a Mac App Store Product on both the employee’s desktop Mac Computer and laptop Mac Computer, or multiple students may serially use a Mac App Store Product on a single Mac Computer located at a resource center or library. For the sake of clarity, each Mac Computer used serially by multiple users requires a separate license.
tl;dr: If you are an enterprise, you can download apps for commercial use and install them on all Macs you own and control as long as those Macs are also only used by a single person. You can alternatively install the app on a single Mac that is used by several people.
The terms are the same for commercial and non-commercial use, the only difference is that companies can also use their license as a single-Mac license (which can be used by as many people as they want).
I meant commercial as interpreted in relation to the GPL and I know that I came across as incredibly unclear. I read those terms as giving both individual and corporate customers the same license to use the software but explicitly prevents redistribution.
You can resell GPL software. You cannot resell App store software.
I can't fathom how you managed to misinterpret my post so badly, but, for your benefit, "The GPL prohibits distribution under Apple's freedom-limiting terms".
Satisfied?
If the FSF had modified the GPL to exclude the App Store, then you'd be more correct.
If I cared to blame someone for this, it would be Apple, as the GPL predates the App Store. It really doesn't make sense to specifically blame anyone, though. You just have two sets of rules that are mutually incompatible. Just note the consequence and be done with it.
Microsoft's store allows GPL software (and other open source) by simply saying that when it comes to open source software the oss licence will take precedence over Microsoft's own licence terms.
The problem with Apple's App Store rules is that it's their way or the highway. There is no way to grant your users more freedom than the App Store does.
This, coupled with the fact that you can't install apps other than from the App Store on an iPhone (without jailbreaking your phone or paying extra money to be a developer and building them yourself), is why I will never own an iPhone (at least until they fix those problems).
Though it might also be pointed out that in addition to the GPL predating the App store, it would be reasonably simple for Apple to modify its policies to be compatible with the GPL, while it would take a fundamental change in what the GPL means for the GPL to work with the current App Store policies.
I guess it's kind of a moot point if they are put on the store for free, though.
I am the sole developer of an open source Android app (pressureNET), but nobody has copied the code and re-uploaded - if they did, isn't that just "forking"? I'd be thrilled if anyone found my project worthwhile enough for that - it's never happened to me before.
I guess I'm confused why you think that forking is 'risk'. That's not only the expected behavior, but the hoped-for behavior, isn't it?
Ah. So the problem is that someone may act illegally? That's always been the case, since the dawn of time. If you're going to develop some open source software, of course there is a risk to you that someone may copy it and not follow the license. But there's significantly greater risk to the person copying, correct? If it's a crime (is it?) they risk having a criminal record and all that.
So, there's nothing new here, no new risks that open source developers haven't been facing since always, and nothing at all unique about this situation. In fact, it's probably a lot better now since you have a single source to contact (the app store owner) to let them know there is a TOS violation and illegal content on their site. In previous times, there may have been no recourse (say, the copier has hosted the content on a Russian domain; you've got nowhere to turn).
All in all, it seems the situation for open source developers is significantly better than it ever has been regarding illegal copying of their software.
"Microsoft welcomes OSI open source to Win8 store, GPL blocked at the door"
link: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/12/08/open_source_windows_...
The article does not make any sense, really. Especially this line:
>“If your app includes FOSS, it must not cause any non-FOSS Microsoft software to become subject to the terms of any FOSS license.” Although Microsoft didn't name it, it's talking about GPL.
Why would a GPL'ed app cause a non-FOSS software made by MS to become subject to the GPL? Does the app using the WinRT API cause the API to go under GPL?
Distributing VLC(even if by MS) does not cause the Win32 API used heavily by VLC to go under the GPL.
There's an explicit exclusion in the GPL to allow linking against non-GPL "System Libraries", which does not include every closed-source library Microsoft has ever released. Even without the clause in question I doubt you'd ever be able to get a court to declare that Microsoft had to release the source to one of their non-Windows products because you tricked them into distributing a GPL application linked against it, but I can't really blame lawyers for being cautious in an untested area.
What are other people saying about the Windows 8 Store TOS?
Published the day that Apple announced the Mac App Store's 100 millionth download...