Microsoft caused a lot of concern in the open source community after changing the way developers can make money from open source software.
Video editing software such as Shotcut and WinSCP are examples of open source software that can be used for commercial purposes. Given how easy it is for anyone to repackage open source software as a new product, it seems that Microsoft is trying to put measures in place to prevent such imitations.
Section 10.8.7 of Microsoft's new policy states that developers must not.
….attempt to profit from open-source or other software that is otherwise generally available for free, nor be priced irrationally high relative to the features and functionality provided by your product.
The project owners and maintainers are not allowed to charge for their work because of the language. Some argue that it could have implications for proprietary applications that include open source components with certain licenses, while others say that developers may be deterred from making their software available under an open source license.
The policy was due to take effect tomorrow but influential figures from the open source community have been making their voices heard over the last few weeks. Barnes was not happy with the policy change as it could prevent open source developers from creating more sustainable projects.
I am disappointed by the @MicrosoftStore policy change that prohibits selling open source software. The Store provides independent open source developers an opportunity to create sustainable projects by charging a reasonable amount there. https://t.co/a3x9MSZJZS
— Hayden Barnes (@unixterminal) July 6, 2022
The announcement had been perceived differently than intended, and it would delay enforcement of the new policy, according to Microsoft executive Giorgio Sardo.
Microsoft gave its new policy a stay of execution, with this addendum bolted on to let developers know that nothing will change for now.
The policy change, announced on June 16, 2022, to 10.8.7 (Not attempt to profit from open-source or other software that is otherwise generally available for free, nor be priced irrationally high relative to the features and functionality provided by your product.) will not be going into effect on July 16, 2022. We have determined it could be perceived differently than intended, so we are revising this policy change to provide greater clarity.
It's worth taking a sideways look at the proposed new policy, including what ramifications it could have on the people behind the open source software, and whether Microsoft should serve as an open source gateway at all.
The language it used was the main issue for most people. It is reasonable to assume that the intent was to protect maintainers and owners of intellectual property, but the wording threw all open source projects under the bus. We can expect a revised policy in the future that will allow the official version of an open source app to continue to be monetized while others won't be able to.
Halla Rempt is the core maintainer of the popular open source digital paint program Krita.
I don't know if they're still okay with us charging for it, but it seems to me that they're actually happy with projects putting their own software in the store We're continuing as is.
A redrafted Microsoft app store policy would include provisions that support project maintainers and the ability to monetize apps, meaning that the income they get from Microsoft's app store would pay for half of the app's sponsored developers.
Other open source software maintainers are having to deal with this problem because there hasn't been any third-party Krita apps on Microsoft's app store.
Greenshot is an open source app that has been downloaded millions of times. Greenshot is available for Windows as a direct download but not in Microsoft's official app store. There are at least two so-called "copycat" apps in Microsoft's app store that use the Greenshot name.
There are problems with this, not the least of which is that someone is cashing in on their hard work. Even if an official version of Greenshot is launched in Microsoft's store, brand confusion could still cause more work for those behind the project.
Customers will come to us if there is an issue with the app.
It hasn't come to fruition because the third-party app in question is new to Microsoft's store. There are cases of similar issues in the open source world. The long-standing spat between Elastic and Amazon over the open source Elasticsearch project was partly about how Amazon was using the Elasticsearch brand name in its own hosted version of the product, even though Amazon's cloud customers would often address Elastic with issues related to the product.
Smaller, independent open source project maintainers don't have the resources to pursue this if they don't own the trademark rights.
Many in the open source community will be happy with Microsoft's upcoming policy change.
It feels morally wrong to take a free product from someone and sell it for a price. It is our reputation that is damaged if a third-party developer works.
According to the current wording of Microsoft's policy change, it will only affect apps that are trying to make money. The free apps will be allowed. Banning commercial copycats will be a big deterrent to anyone considering doing so.
Other prominent voices in the open source community are less concerned with the wording of Microsoft's policy than they are with the fact that Microsoft is trying to implement any type of controls.
The Software Freedom Conservancy is a not-for-profit organization that provides support and legal services for open source software projects. In the aftermath of Microsoft's policy change, Kuhn and his colleague Denver Gingerich wrote an in-depth post detailing their issues with the new policy and more long-standing gripes with Microsoft's attitude to open source.
It is our belief that the rights ensured by FOSS, as is well-enshrined in the licenses themselves, allow everyone to monetize the software. FOSS licenses treat all commercial and non- commercial equally. It is free as in freedom and free as in market.
While there are many different kinds of open source licenses available (whether they are all truly open source is a debate for another day), Kuhn is referring to so-called "copy left" licenses. A similar open source license is required for any software derived from an original open source. Private companies can easily adopt an open source project as part of a proprietary product, if the license doesn't impose such restrictions.
The spirit of open source is all about the freedom it allows.
There are generally not intended to be serious restrictions on the ability of the open source community to make money.
The issue of "trademark" or "brand confusion" is a point of discussion around Microsoft's proposed policy change, but it's not specifically related to monetization.
The rights to name and market a product are controlled byTrademark rules. Trademark restrictions on using a name are compatible with the open source software. This isn't a specific problem, but cloned software by fly-by-night entities and malicious software on app stores is a bigger problem.
Independent open source developers don't have the resources to pursue what are often faceless entities over trademark violations That is why a policy that discourages developers from taking advantage of others will be well received.
There are other issues that need to be addressed. Any policy that allows owners of intellectual property to sell open source applications could lead to more toxic business models, where developers are encouraged to make basic versions of their software available for free, and hide all the good stuff behind a pay wall. Many people argue that this model undermines the broader open source movement.
Microsoft had a rocky relationship with open source. Microsoft once considered open source software to be an evil entity, but in the intervening years it has worked hard to align itself with the open source world.
Many people still don't believe in Microsoft's open source philosophy. Critics of Copilot argue that the product doesn't make it clear which codebases it "borrows" from.
This opens the door to accusations of double standards since Microsoft seems to be trying to prevent other developers from making money from open source software in the same way. Why can't open source projects be monetized by other companies?
It was designed to allow both the original developers and downstream redistributors to profit fairly from the act of convenient redistribution. There is no company that supports the use of commercial methodologies that would want to curtail the rights of the people. We are suspicious of Microsoft's constant claims that they've changed their tune about free software. They still don't like it, but they've gotten more cunning about how to do it.
After reaching out to Microsoft several times, they did not reply.
All Rights Reserved © 2024
