On June 16, Microsoft updated the Microsoft Store's policy, which included a new content that "prohibits charging for open source or other software that is generally available for free in the store, and limits unreasonably high pricing", and prohibits the distribution of A browser application using Apple's Webkit engine.
"All pricing"..."none"...attempts to profit financially from open source or other generally free software. "
Image source: SFC
As soon as this move came out, controversy continued, and the developer community was the first to bear the brunt. Two completely different arguments were fermenting.
Some netizens praised: Microsoft’s starting point is good, because the legitimate open source programs are renamed and sold in the market by third parties, these imitators are actually stealing other people’s works, Microsoft intends to combat this kind of “piracy” behavior , I can only say that Microsoft has done a good job!
Giorgio Sardo, general manager of Microsoft's applications, partners, and stores, also explained: the revised policy is to protect users from counterfeit FOSS applications, and Microsoft's original intention is to support developers to distribute open source software through the Microsoft App Store.
But more outrage and "bombardment" from the developers of Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) and the Software Freedom Conservancy (SFC)
If so, SFC pointed out: This provision will overturn the long-standing application store policy and disrupt the commercial activities of the Microsoft store. In particular, Microsoft now prohibits redistributors of FOSS from charging any fee (i.e., "profit"), with the underlying intention that all legal free software is available "free" in source code form. (like "free beer").
Is Microsoft "accidentally injured"? It is still using the privilege of its super platform to "treat itself preferentially and hold power against itself". Before drawing this conclusion, perhaps we should clarify an issue.
Is open source software free software or free software?
"Open source is open source, and free is free. Although most free software is free, it does not mean that it must be No-Fee."
Ashwin, a technology geek, also said in public comments: An application has an open source license, which does not necessarily mean that it must be free, and developers can choose to sell their programs, depending on the open source license they choose. A good example is Robert Broglia's emulator apps on Android, they are paid apps (except SNES 9X+), but his app source code is public, meaning anyone can compile them for free, Paying a one-time fee provides a convenient way to get apps and updates from the Google Play Store, which complies with the GPL (General Public License). But that's rare, and it's up to developers to decide whether their open source programs are free or paid. Most open source software is freely available, and developers often offer users the option to donate to support the project, pay for expenses (electricity bills, internet bills, etc.).
However, Microsoft’s move seems to obliterate the possibility of all commercial open source. “Banning counterfeit programs is undoubtedly a good move, but the problem is this. Why does Microsoft prohibit genuine open source programs from being sold on the Microsoft Store? Hayden Barnes, senior engineering manager at SUSE Pointing out that great programs like WinSCP, Krita benefit from Microsoft Store sales, and it's not fair to penalize everyone just because some people commit fraud."
SFC also pointed out that for decades, Microsoft has spent a lot of effort to crowd out commercial open source software, saying that free software (especially Linux) is not a commercially viable product. Since Microsoft has claimed that open source is a destroyer of intellectual property and that free software can stifle innovation, it believes that national lawmakers need to be aware of this threat[1]. Currently, there are many developers who make a living creating, supporting, and redistributing free software, and they get paid financially in part by charging for free software in app stores. The FOSS community has long disagreed with Microsoft and believes that FOSS should be allowed equally for both commercial and non-commercial use.
"Open source must be free is the biggest misunderstanding of open source. As the technology of IT systems becomes more and more complex, the hidden costs of using software are gradually increasing, and the post-maintenance of open source is one of them." A senior technician in the industry pointed out.
InfoQ has also summarized two major misunderstandings of open source in the industry:
Free: Open source software is free, and companies do not need to pay for open source software, which reduces the market space for commercial releases.
Compliance: Open source software can be used and forked at will, resulting in frequent occurrence of corporate technical debt and security vulnerabilities, squeezing the market space for commercial releases.
Microsoft accused of "self-treating"?
The debate between commercialization and non-commercialization of open source is just one of them. This is a long-standing crux of Microsoft's "public anger".
"The privilege of the super platform makes Microsoft the obvious rule-maker. This is what we are most "discomfort" about." One developer snapped.
SFC also speculates that this is a common behavior pattern of Microsoft. Unconscionable policies are rolled out first, only to be retracted "with magnanimity" weeks or months later. All this is just to reduce the forms of free software activity that have no direct benefit to Microsoft. In fact, Microsoft adopted this strategy when they first created their app store (then branded as "Windows Marketplace"). Initially, Microsoft banned all free software from its app store. When outrage aroused, Microsoft is willing to modify the policy to allow its entry. Now a large number of free software developers such as SFC call on Microsoft to reverse this new anti-free software store policy, and hope that Microsoft will clearly state in these policies that the sale of commercial open source is not only allowed, but also encouraged.
"Microsoft makes Copilot under Github free first, let's talk about it, only allow yourself to break the rules..." Some netizens questioned, indeed, in June this year, GitHub acquired by Microsoft is called "a code-knocking artifact, an AI assistant for programmers "Copilot officially announced that it would switch from free to charging, and it was collectively complained at that time. The core of the complaint was that the official admitted that it would use all the public code on GitHub to train Copilot, and did not distinguish between license categories. But now it is going back to charge developers, which is tantamount to "selling the crops that the code farmers have worked so hard to grow back to the new code farmers, isn't this cutting leeks?".
The practice is completely different from before and after, banning commercial open source to the outside world, but secretly charging fees for its own open source projects, it is hard to doubt that it is not "self-preferential treatment". An industry insider responded to this.
What is "self-preferential treatment"?
The 2020 European "Digital Market Act" clearly states that platforms with gatekeeper status must allow third parties to interact with their own services and must not restrict users from accessing services outside their platforms. Platform Enterprise Competition Compliance Management Regulations also specifically pointed out that Internet platform enterprises should be vigilant against behaviors that undermine fair competition such as "self-preferential treatment", "big data killing familiarity", algorithm abuse, forced "choose one", and disorderly expansion of capital.
Among them, the banning behavior is also a monopoly. Regarding the nature and characteristics of the banning behavior, Liu Xiaochun, executive director of the Internet Legal Research Center of the University of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, introduced that the banning behavior is divided into four situations:
One is to directly process the content, such as deleting posts and sealing links;
The second is the barriers to external links on the current platform;
The third is through data blocking on the API port;
The fourth is the ban imposed by the platform as a "gatekeeper".
Today, companies like Microsoft have set up app stores as the gatekeepers of the software industry, SFC points out. Whether it's a commercial software distributor reaching customers or a not-for-profit software distributor, the primary way to reach code donors is through the app store. Microsoft already has an "iron fist" in control of the software distribution chain, and for the second time has squeezed free software out of the market. If successful, even app store users would be convinced that the only legal free software is noncommercial free software.
The latest response is here
The new policy was originally scheduled to take effect on July 16. But according to Giorgio Sardo, general manager of Microsoft's applications, partners, and stores, they will delay the implementation of the policy in response to objections received from the developer community.
"On June 16th, we shared a policy to protect consumers from misleading merchandise, which will go into effect on July 16th. As we listen to the development community, the feedback we get may not be the same as expected Different. We will hold off on implementing the policy until we clarify our intentions. Stay tuned.”
SFC believes that Microsoft's compromise may be just a well-planned drama in advance. Microsoft may end up saying that they welcome open source very much, but in fact that welcomes only to the extent that they benefit from free software on their platform.
Regardless of whether the "boots" of Microsoft's new open source policy will finally land, vigilance against super platforms has become a mainstream.
References
[1]https://web.archive.org/web/20010301202013/http://news.cnet.com/investor/news/newsitem/0-9900-1028-4825719-RHAT.html
CSDN "Microsoft suspects that free software developers are "surviving" and prohibits publishing commercial open source in the Microsoft store! "
InfoQ "Microsoft began to ban commercial open source: starting from the App Store, effective on July 16? ! "