Microsoft mulls changing Windows Phone Marketplace terms to add more open-source licenses

By | February 18, 2011, 7:09am PST

Summary: Microsoft officials say they are considering modifying the Windows Phone Application Provider Agreement to add more open-source licenses “in upcoming revisions.”

As headlines rolled by over the past couple of days claiming Microsoft was banning free and open-source applications from its Windows Phone Marketplace, I sat back and waited.

I was waiting to see what Microsoft officials would say, if anything, about the terms and conditions detailed in its Application Provider Agreement for the phone Marketplace. According to that document, brought to light this week by a Red Hat evangelist, apps licensed under the GNU GPLv 3, GNU Affero General Public License version 3, the GNU Lesser General Public License version 3, and “any equivalents to the foregoing” are banned from the Windows Phone Marketplace. (Apple also has banned GPL’d software from its own App Store.)

How could Microsoft officials — at least some of whom are attempting to court the open-source development community — reconcile this ban with Redmond’s supposedly more open-source-friendly stance?

At the very end of the day on February 17, I finally got an answer from the Softies. A spokesperson noted that some open-source-licensed apps are allowed in the Windows Phone Marketplace today. And there may be hope that the pool of supported licenses will grow — if there’s enough developer and customer push-back.

From the spokesperson:

“The Windows Phone Marketplace supports several open source licenses, including BSD, MIT, Apache Software License 2.0, MS-PL and other similar permissive licenses. We revise our Application Provider Agreement from time to time based on customer and developer feedback, and we are exploring the possibility of modifying it to accommodate additional open source-based applications in upcoming revisions.”

So there you have it. If you want Microsoft to include more open-source-licensed apps on Windows Phone, now’s the time to make it known….I’ve asked Microsoft execs where and how developers should make sure their feedback on this issue is seen. If/when I get an answer, I’ll add it here.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Mary Jo has covered the tech industry for more than 25 years for a variety of publications and Web sites, and is a frequent guest on radio, TV and podcasts, speaking about all things Microsoft-related. She is the author of Microsoft 2.0: How Microsoft plans to stay relevant in the post-Gates era (John Wiley & Sons, 2008).

Disclosure

Mary-Jo Foley

Freelance journalist/blogger Mary Jo Foley has nothing to disclose. WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get). I do not own Microsoft stock or stock in any of its partners or competitors. I have no business ventures that are sponsored by/funded by Microsoft or any of its partners or competitors.

Biography

Mary-Jo Foley

Mary Jo Foley has covered the tech industry for 25 years for a variety of publications, including ZDNet, eWeek and Baseline. She has kept close tabs on Microsoft strategy, products and technologies for the past 10 years. In the late 1990s, she penned the award-winning "At The Evil Empire" column for ZDNet, and more recently the Microsoft Watch blog for Ziff Davis.

Got a tip? Send her an email with your rants, rumors, tips and tattles. Confidentiality guaranteed.

57
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Microsoft mulls changing Windows Phone Marketplace terms to add more open-source licenses
tomlin21-24319035676893835085146735905770 11th Oct
A large number of many thanks on your options. Which was truly beneficial. Help me take into account the way it nfl jerseys 2012 operates out.
I bet they will still keep the GPL code banned for legal reasons. Also they don't want to be the distributor of source code for those projects. The funny part about this is that no one cared until the Red Hat guy showed up and mentioned it. The policy was in place since September.
This is not for legal reasons. This is Microsoft locking you into its restricted Walled-Garden phone platform.

It is madness that Microsoft bans free open-source GPL software from its Windows Phones.

Who would be crazy enough to buy a Windows Phone with this kind of restriction? Who wants to be restricted?

This is in contrast to Android, which is itself open-source software. Android has the Firefox web browser, which is open-source, and would be banned on Microsoft's Windows Phone 7.
0 Votes
+ -
I agree
Michael Alan Goff 18th Feb 2011
I will refuse to buy a phone on the basis of not being able to download Firefox. *eyeroll*
@zndac
There are other browsers on the Windows Phone 7 Marketplace (not Firefox though), so it's not about lock-in into MS otherwise they would be blocking those too.
It's obviously about some of the requirements the GPL license has, otherwise they wouldn't allow ANY open source software.
In any case, this IS NOT AN ISSUE, it never was until that blog post came out. Indie developers for the millions have been using other open source libraries in the XBOX and Windows Phone 7 marketplace without issues for years. Let's not make it a Microsoft wants to kill open source crusade.
@zndac "It is madness that Microsoft bans free open-source GPL software from its Windows Phones"

GPL is only one OS licence. There are Apache and BSD, that are allowed in the Marketplace. How is this Microsoft banning free open-source? Apache and BSD licences are far superior in terms of actual open-sourcing value - they are non-strict, they demand practically nothing, and they are short.
0 Votes
+ -
Better than a weed field trying to take over.
osreinstall Updated - 18th Feb 2011
@zndac

Actually it is the GPLv3 they are banning for good reason. According to the GPLv3 you cannot distribute patented code with it or copyright code or closed source that you don't plan to open up. It then becomes licensed under GPLv3. This opens up a serious can of worms. Since the code is under a different copyright scheme to begin with, the developer will be sued. Microsoft is not going to indemnify irresponsible developers so GPLv3 which is mandatory opening up of code including all code associated with it, will be banned. At least GPLv2 doesn't make opening up of code associated with it in the distro mandatory.

Kudos for MS for making this policy.
@zndac

All GPL software that could end up in Wp7 is by definition Mono based, because Wp7 is .NET only and doesn't allow native code whatsoever. So this is all non-issue for true FOSS software. Mono apps are encumbered anyways.
0 Votes
+ -
@zndac
I seriously doubt most people buying and using phones even have the vaguest clue about what GPL v3 is - let alone give a flying fig about it. They probably think it's some sort of GPS or something.

The ultimate proof of the falacy of your statement is in the pudding - exactly how many MILLIONS of iPhones, iPod Touches and iPads have sold in the past 4 years...? If anything, iOS is just as, if not more restrictive than the Windows Phone 7 ecosystem.
@zndac Who would be crazy enough to buy a windows phone? Me, that's who. And I like it too. Seriously, from a user perspective, it does not matter the least bit what license the app they are using is under.
Performing Arts degree
political science degree
Psychology School
0 Votes
+ -
No Java for you.....
linux for me 21st Feb 2011
@Loverock Davidson

Since Sun released Java as GPL in 2007, Microsoft has just banned Java from their phones!

Very smart move Microsoft!
@Loverock Davidson Pulauweb Web Hosting Murah Indonesia
Blogger Nusantara Blogpreneur Indonesia
0 Votes
+ -
They had to remove it fast because of whining, iirc.
apples appstore any. Dont expect it to hurt anyone elses either...
0 Votes
+ -
I was referring more to the fact that....
Michael Alan Goff 18th Feb 2011
There seems to be something wrong with putting GPL licensed products in. It isn't worth the drama.
@goff256
Thing is, in a copylefted project, there are numerous copyright owners, from a technical POV. Unless you file copyright papers for large contributions [ see for example http://www.gnu.org/software/libc/ ], you're not allowed to make them for FSF projects.

Literally, any contributor would have the rights to sue on GPL basis.

It's then propagated as 'free and open-source'. Sorry, but if I have to file papers and am strictly restrained on what I can do with the software, then I'm not seeing why this is 'the' freedom. Also, compare BSD licenses and the GPL by their lenght only. The GPL is multiple pages long with complicated and sometimes vaguely formulated restrictions; BSD licenses are typically printable on a quarter page. Apache 2.0 is a little longer due to having clearly regulated trademark terms and a patent grant, but not much. Ms-PL is also darn short. Only the GPL has to describe all kinds of possible freedom taking scenarios where what the heck could happen.
0 Votes
+ -
So, really
Michael Alan Goff 18th Feb 2011
GPL is not a good license?
@ChrisTX4 Most of the real IT world has known the GPL was trouble for a very long time. The OSS crowd acts so SHOCKED by this requirement. Oh yea, I bet you're shocked! Why are people trying to re-litigate the GPL question? Very few in the IT world really care, and certainly very few in the Microsoft developer ecosystem. Nobody cares except the OSS religious zealots who would never write an app for WP7 anyway, so this whole discussion is pointless.
@Tiggster I agree, also most .NET open-source software is Ms-PL or Apache licensed.
Only is it amusing how the 'openness' of Android is so much endorsed by the exact same zealots even ignoring that anything that relates to Google in Android - so real core parts - are closed-source. Got the Android Market code anywhere around? Though so.

I mean, look at iOS, it's totally dying because GNU Go and VLC aren't available.

@goff256 Indeed, I would say that. When a 'free' license doesn't allow me linking over half of the OSI-approved licenses because they're not free enough or whatever, then that's really just retarded.
Tiggster,
Discussion is pointless yet you speak. Your sound biased when Open Source development is talked about.
Choice is the best thing going these days.
@ChrisTX4 You are an idiot. That is obvious, judging by what you wrote.

"Literally, any contributor would have the rights to sue on GPL basis."

If you (and Microsoft) would only obey GPL, which is simple, nobody would have grounds to sue over anything. That in this case mean: provide source for *entire program*, provide copy of GPL, and enable users to load modified versions. If people didn't obey that, you wouldn't get program in the first place. So least you can do is pass along.
@goff256 That distribution of VLC was not in keeping with the original license of the product. That isn't whining, that's "You cannot distribute my software under any terms you feel are appropriate. You must distribute my copyrighted work this way or else. "
0 Votes
+ -
It was still whining
Michael Alan Goff 18th Feb 2011
It just wasn't whining without reason.
This isn't about open-source at all. They only disallow excluded licenses which refers to these which require "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." The GPLv3 and v2 series are technically not allowing linking with closed source components at all, so basically, linking any non-open source library (ie GAC assemblies) to the program would not be legal. It's technically grey-zone if distributing software that way is allowed.

Plus, GPLv3 has a broad amount of terms specifically made to encounter a perceived threat by Microsoft from the FSF.

I would highly doubt that Microsoft would allow any kind of exclusive license in their store(s) - I say plural here, because I suppose that rumored W8 store will be the same - when there's so much legal brawling related to it. So far, numerous commercial companies got sued because of GPL infringement. Never heard of one getting sued because of Apache 2.0, BSD (2- or 3-clause) or Ms-PL infringement. Strange thing, that is.

If you chose the copyleft, you're left on your own.
Microsoft is not banning open source at all. It is not banning free software either. GPLv3, however has some interesting twists that may make it unsuitable for distribution in a secure environment.

This is a really, really tricky issue. Here is an exceprt from "A Quick Guide to GPLv3" (from GNU.org).

GPLv3 stops tivoization by requiring the distributor to provide you with whatever information or data is necessary to install modified software on the device. This may be as simple as a set of instructions, or it may include special data such as cryptographic keys or information about how to bypass an integrity check in the hardware. It will depend on how the hardware was designed?but no matter what information you need, you must be able to get it.

For security, Microsoft requires code to be signed to run on Windows Phone. If they distribute software with a GPLv3 license then they must release the keys so that tinkerers can modify, sign, and run the code on their own. You would have to be an idiot to be unable to comprehend why this is a terrible idea.

I realize that because the defendant is Microsoft many people immediately jump to the conclusion that this is some evil conspiracy against OSS. Let me put it in perspective for you folk: even the Linux kernel is distributed as GPLv2 because this is such a bad idea.
@Rich Miles

I believe this explanation is incorrect. They don't need to release the keys to the app they sold you; they need to release the source so that you can (among other things) build your own version, for which you would need your own key.

What they really don't like about the GPL is that it prevents a user from taking the code private. BSD-licensed code can be modified and re-released as a proprietary app with no obligation to release the source. All versions of the GPL prevent that. GPL3 also has the "patent poison pill" clauses which seem to really irk the "OUR software patents are valid and worthy" crowd.
@sspicer@...

I am a bit confused. You are saying that GNU.org doesn't understand the GPL3 requirements .. or that Rich Miles misquoted?
@sspicer@... You're thinking of GPLv2 not v3. Mr. Miles is quite correct in his description. You can find negative comments from Linus Torvalds himself on the net regarding v3.
@sspicer@...
As I said, this is a tricky issue. I specifically quoted from GNU.org to try to eliminate opinion and speculation. I did not include the link because half the time comments with links get marked as spam. I'll try here though:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html

the link to the license text is here:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt

It's unclear to me how Microsoft might be affected by the patent threat protection in GPLv3. Section 11 (patents) seems to read that one must be a "contributor" to forego any patent claims. If, however, by signing the code, Microsoft somehow becomes a "contributor" then that is yet another story. Even if that were the case, they would have to know that it relies on a patent license that they own. There is no way they would knowingly distribute code that violates one or more of their patents.
0 Votes
+ -
GPL code linking requirements
Joe_Raby 18th Feb 2011
Aren't there issues relating to linking to Silverlight and/or XNA libraries? Aren't those libraries closed already? If so, GPLv3 is just plain incompatible with the way Microsoft wants to run their platform.

FWIW I agree about the code signing bit. Having to release code signing keys is just stupid, and I would rather know that my platform was secure than give away the keys to the castle. This is one reason why Android is a huge mess, and why malware is running rampant on it.
0 Votes
+ -
Avoid Windows phone altogether
apexwm 18th Feb 2011
I was not surprised to see the news of Microsoft banning the GPL. They have made comments on it before and show great distaste for it. My theory is that the GPL governs many products that are in direct competition with Microsoft in the PC software market.

So my take: avoid Windows phone, and even Windows on PC hardware. Microsoft is essentially controlling you and blocking you from getting quality addons for your phone if you use their product. The GPL ensures that you are not controlled by a single entity like this. In fact, this is why I also use GNU/Linux (Fedora), as I don't need to be controlled and limited.
@apexwm By your standards we would all be using Android and Ubuntu. Sounds like a pretty dreadful proposal to me. How about this? Avoid Android because it is a magnet for malware! Since its developers don't value user security or even the security of their own code, why should they be trusted with our information or protecting our privacy?

I think privacy and protection against fraud is a much more valid point than some stupid ideological argument about a false sense of "freedom". The GPL represents freedom like the cafe represents freedom inside a prison. You're free to do as you please as long as it complies with what you're told! LOL. No thanks!
@Tiggster
Just come clean your worried open source is going to cut into your finances.
@apexwm Verizon has been sued and had to settle. Google: verizon gpl infringement suit
They would have banned -all- OSS.

They didn't.
@apexwm I don't know if Linux is to the point it can replace the Windows based desktop OS, but I'm with you 100%. Those that used GPL did it for a reason. People need to stop complaining or trying to find ways to circumvent it. When I write I choose to do it under GPL and I would be pissed as hell if something I wrote in full or part was exploited by those bastards at Microsoft just to make the Windows Phone sell better. they want to make a good phone app, they can do it themselves.
0 Votes
+ -
In other words
John L. Ries 18th Feb 2011
If users and developers squawk loudly enough and it looks to MS that current policy is interfering with business, MS will consider allowing at least some GNU-style licenses. In the mean time, they do allow open source software under permissive licenses they view as more legitimate.
@John L. Ries I think they do allow GNU-style licenses. They disallow GPLv3, but it seems like GPLv2 seems to be okay. Do you have evidence that contradicts this?
0 Votes
+ -
From Adrian Kingsley-Hughes' article
John L. Ries 18th Feb 2011
@Rich Miles
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/microsoft-bans-gplv3-open-source-software-from-windows-phone-and-xbox-apps/11462

?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. Excluded Licenses include, but are not limited to the GPLv3 Licenses. For the purpose of this definition, ?GPLv3 Licenses? means the GNU General Public License version 3, the GNU Affero General Public License version 3, the GNU Lesser General Public License version 3, and any equivalents to the foregoing.

Only v3 GNU licenses are specifically mentioned, but the stated criteria have been features of all GNU licenses since GPLv1 was published in 1985.

It seems that it's not GPLv3 specifically to which MS objects, but *any* GPL-style license.
@John L. Ries

Fair enough. I don't see anything in that clause that would imply that *any* form of GPL is acceptable. I take back the statement that GPLv2 seems to be okay.
Even Ms-RL should be affected by this, not only strong copyleft licenses.
0 Votes
+ -
dumb move
KBot 18th Feb 2011
the GPL is one of the largest open source licenses and MS banns it? great marketing move for everyone who wanted to try a winphone7 won't because of this
@KBot

Can you us the numbers to show GPLv3 is the largest open source license? I know a lot of firms that were happy with GPLv2 that refuse to go near GPLv3.

The whole thing is because the Red Hat engineer brought it up. It's funny that people have been GPL licensing Windows device drivers for years but the license terms for the development kit say code developed with the kit can only be used for Windows, which technically violates GPL.
@KBot Hasn't seemed to hurt iPhone sales.
This will only be an issue if MS can actually sell a few WP7 phones. So far I haven't seen any indication of that happening.
0 Votes
+ -
A much more reasonable talkback thread.
TripleII-21189418044173169409978279405827 18th Feb 2011
I posted in this one, it was largely MS is Evil Vs Open Source is Evil. Here is my summary of the situation...
http://www.zdnet.com/tb/1-93616-1788821
MS is probably correct without enforcing that all open source apps PROVIDE for the source code which is a lot of expense and can't be guaranteed and is beyond their direct control.
...
This could be solved by changing things were they make a condition of submitting an open source app requires that the complete source be provided for said app to be hosted under Microsoft's control.


Does anyone think that the newest player wanting to expand it's market and has Apple/Android to contend with really think that alienating 50% (more or less, about the ratio who use open source to code) of developers is something MS wants? I suspect a change like the one I outlined above so they can comply with GPL'ed code.

TripleII
How many GPL apps are there in Apple's App Store? It think the number is a very excellent approximation for zero. Does not seem to have hurt Apple a bit.

Besides MS appears to be pretty cozy with its own "jailbreak"/sideload customers. GPL apps will be available in droves via that method, just like they are for iPhone.
This is exactly the type of issue that will make or break Symbian/Nokia users even considering migrating to Windows Phone. If Microsoft is smart, they will adopt a legal and wide-open policy on Software in their App Store. If they aren't many Symbian fans will look elsewhere for an OS and it probably won't be to Apple !
Here's a thought. The open source community said "We want to Develop on the phones" and Microsoft's first answer wasn't "NO" but "Let's read the licenses and adapt for you"

Let's see, a certain Manufacturer of another "app store" (let's not name any names....) has said outright "NO"

For whatever flaws you can point at Microsoft, they are at LEAST listening to customer feedback and TRYING to adapt.

Give the guys a break
A large number of many thanks on your options. Which was truly beneficial. Help me take into account the way it nfl jerseys 2012 operates out.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix