Microsoft Open-Sources Edge's WebGL Implementation

[kpedersen]

Interesting that this project uses Cygwin as part of its build. For yacc and flex I guess

[eydee]

Reminds me of the amdgpu driver added to the Linux kernel that people are claiming to be FLOSS, but requires non-free binary firmware.

Just like the kernel ever did. Don't believe me? Delete the BIOS/UEFI from your motherboard and try booting.

[boxie]

Ah come on. You're asking them to commit suicide basically. If Wine becomes feature-complete as even just XP there will be no kind of reason to upgrade to newer windows, and most companies will just switch to a suitable RHEL, Novell Enterprise Linux or whatever.

I disagree. There are a lot of people with a lot of invested learning, tooling and experience who will want the stay the course with MS. Some might jump ship, but not many. The cost of people learning a new system with new bugs and new ways of resolving things is expensive both in Time and Money.

With the OS becoming more and more something that gets build (and commoditised) then we might have a chance of getting a source code drop or something. It all depends on what the business case is.

[Michael_S]

I'm going to ask despite already knowing the answer and despite the straw man that it is. What is there to support your argument that this is even remotely legal to do? The closest thing you can get to this is misappropriation and that will never slide with source code that's provided a written copyright license agreement in the root of the directory, as a link on their webpage, and in every single readable file just to be on the safe side.

Copyright licenses and patent licenses are two different things. The MIT license guarantees that Microsoft can't sue anyone that uses the code for a copyright violation, but it offers no protection against a lawsuit for patent violation. And in fact, Microsoft's public Chakra Core repository makes no mention of patents at all: https://github.com/Microsoft/ChakraCore

(EDIT: The difference between copyright and patents is one of the core reasons the Free Software Foundation issued version 3 of the GNU Public License. GPLv2 does not contain any patent grant. GPLv3 does.)

The patent provision I was thinking of only covers the open source .NET pieces: https://github.com/dotnet/corefx/blo...er/PATENTS.TXT - it says Microsoft and its affiliates will never file a patent lawsuit against people using, selling, or distributing the code. But if you remember, one of the great legal fiascoes of the technology industry of the past twenty years was the SCO lawsuits - and that was a proxy battle Microsoft was waging against Linux. So .NET is fine to use exactly until it becomes advantageous to Microsoft to file a patent lawsuit against you, in which case they can sub-license their patents to a third party, shuffle some papers until that third party is no longer considered a Microsoft affiliate even though Microsoft is calling all of the shots, and then that company can sue you into oblivion.

[Michael_S]

FreeBSD is meant for a handful of various platforms. The fact that people like Sony modified the software to their specific platform in no way politically or technically hurts FreeBSD. That's the *entire point* and one of the few cases where it's not completely looked down upon. There isn't a whole lot that Sony can contribute back that would be useful for the current goals of FreeBSD, while Sony is also avoiding any complicated licensing issues that would be attached to say a GPL-based system.

To be clear, Sony didn't ethically or legally violate any terms of the license for FreeBSD when they adopted it for the Playstation 4. So in that sense I agree that they did not politically or technically hurt FreeBSD.

But Sony *could* have contributed back the device drivers, which would have been handy for the FreeBSD team when working with other AMD GPUs and which would have made a Playstation 4 running FreeBSD an attractive option for tech-savvy people. $300, 4GB system RAM, 4GB video RAM, HDMI, Blu Ray drive, replaceable storage drive, two USB 3.0 ports, 802.11a/b/g/n, 10/100/1000 ethernet. That definitely would have been well-received by the FreeBSD community.

...but just like the last two generations of console, by the time the open source community reverse engineers it enough to gain full access to the hardware, the performance-per-dollar won't be good enough to matter. I bet in 2022 you'll be able to run full Linux or full FreeBSD with complete use of the graphics on a PS4. But by that point, nobody will care.

[Mystro256]

So it has nothing to do with drivers? But then you give crappy intel drivers as an example. Well tell intel to fix their drivers then and stop this bs. See how fast they will fix it. Its not like the drivers do anything wih glsl anyway... like compiling.

I'm sure they also use DirectX cause of NIH, or something stupid like that. I mean it is technically in M$ best interest to keep directx going by any means necessary.

[Luke_Wolf]

Copyright licenses and patent licenses are two different things. The MIT license guarantees that Microsoft can't sue anyone that uses the code for a copyright violation, but it offers no protection against a lawsuit for patent violation. And in fact, Microsoft's public Chakra Core repository makes no mention of patents at all: https://github.com/Microsoft/ChakraCore

(EDIT: The difference between copyright and patents is one of the core reasons the Free Software Foundation issued version 3 of the GNU Public License. GPLv2 does not contain any patent grant. GPLv3 does.)

The patent provision I was thinking of only covers the open source .NET pieces: https://github.com/dotnet/corefx/blo...er/PATENTS.TXT - it says Microsoft and its affiliates will never file a patent lawsuit against people using, selling, or distributing the code. But if you remember, one of the great legal fiascoes of the technology industry of the past twenty years was the SCO lawsuits - and that was a proxy battle Microsoft was waging against Linux. So .NET is fine to use exactly until it becomes advantageous to Microsoft to file a patent lawsuit against you, in which case they can sub-license their patents to a third party, shuffle some papers until that third party is no longer considered a Microsoft affiliate even though Microsoft is calling all of the shots, and then that company can sue you into oblivion.

Does your tin foil hat protect you from mind control rays too?

Yes Microsoft sues people, and yes Microsoft has sued people for using Open Source projects like Android quite successfully, but please show me an instance where Microsoft has opened up code and then sued people for using it, or did you forget that we're talking about Microsoft instead of Oracle?

[justmy2cents]

Not saying anything for sure... but often times Microsoft "open source" means a bunch of setup just so it can make a call into something (that does the work) that is not open source. We'll see (or not see).

which is no different than Canonical does it. everything is tailored to ubuntu without consideration for the rest even in areas that would be simple to abstract. take snappy for example, completely tied to ubuntu yet marketed as universal package installer and all work for any integration in other distros is left to whoever wants to do it which is not pretty when you consider how tied it is to one specific distro that just fends for it self

and you don't see people complaining against this model. more like you see rabid Canonical fans claiming this is the way to go

[Michael_S]

Does your tin foil hat protect you from mind control rays too?

Yes Microsoft sues people, and yes Microsoft has sued people for using Open Source projects like Android quite successfully, but please show me an instance where Microsoft has opened up code and then sued people for using it, or did you forget that we're talking about Microsoft instead of Oracle?

Microsoft started opening their code less than two years ago. We don't have any long term evidence, good or bad, to indicate what they'll do if people fork the MIT licensed code and do something Microsoft does not like.

But the company has given us no reason to trust it. From lying about release dates in the early days, to breaking API compatibility of office products with competing versions of DOS, to monopolistic OEM agreements to stifle competitors, to the SCO lawsuits, the patent lawsuits, the stream of FUD, and the anti-trust lawsuits against Google in Europe. And despite the new CEO, the Android patent lawsuits are still ongoing.

So what makes you think the sheep we're dealing with today is anything other than the same old wolf in a new outfit?

[cjcox]

Ah come on. You're asking them to commit suicide basically. If Wine becomes feature-complete as even just XP there will be no kind of reason to upgrade to newer windows, and most companies will just switch to a suitable RHEL, Novell Enterprise Linux or whatever.


What part of "it is published under MIT license" you did not understand? XP kernel wsn't released under MIT license.

(I use the word "you" below... and it's not necessarily aimed at you, but a collective "us" (mankind) if you will)

The problem is that Microsoft believes people (their employees) have no value and that all value is in what they produce, and if we give that away... then yes... they lose, because people aren't of any value... and certainly not "smart".

But... what if... what if people are where the value is. That means, even if something is made FOSS, the primary development will still be done by the "people" that were "smart" enough to create and open source it to being with. Now... let's say somebody else thinks they are "smarter" and tries to "own" the software. Well, it's FOSS, so it can't be "owned", at least not in that way. And Microsoft can always hire "smart" people as they are found.... oh... and they might just create another awesome product.

I prefer placing the value on the brains behind the FOSS rather than on just the software.

But would people pay for "Windows" just to ensure it continues to provide them with "value"? That's the question. If the answer is "no", then I guess were all prepared to move to Linux. Economics wise we suck at understanding value. How much is your car worth? How much is worth on the day it decides to break down and you need it the most? Pay for what works... what is needed... what is required for your needs. If you want the free ride, don't build any dependencies on it, because one day it will be gone. Support it, or pay for the support of it, and you keep the needed thing alive. So... if you need your car to work reliably, now is not the time to stop maintaining it... even if it seems like free money to you.

Personally I don't need Windows. However, I need Linux. The good news... there isn't a single Linux company (though Red Hat is certainly trying). That means that if (let's say) Red Hat dies (which could happen), there are other places with money remaining that is being poured into Linux (can't say the same about Microsoft). But if we all become freeloaders... well.. the picture isn't pretty. So either get involved in the direct writing of FOSS, or learn to support those that do the FOSS... it matters, especially if Linux (or name your FOSS) is needed.