Microsoft Releases Source Code For Web Sandbox 188
nandemoari writes "After flirting with open source development for some time, Microsoft has made another step towards real commitment with the release of source code for Web Sandbox, a program used to test and secure web site content.
The Sandbox source code will be released under the Apache 2.0 license, an open source license agreement allowing the content creator to maintain copyright while permitting others to develop the product for their own use. Microsoft has gradually been increasing their involvement with the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) since 2008 when they agreed to fund development of certain ASF initiatives."
Ray Ozzie (Score:4, Interesting)
Given Wired's article on Ray Ozzie, this doesn't surprise me. Ray seems to really believe the future of Microsoft lies firmly in the cloud, and the Microsoft is behind the curve in that arena.
Trusting your business to the cloud, and Microsoft's cloud means you must trust them for security.
Microsoft, internet and security haven't exactly gone together over the years.
Maybe this is an honest effort to improve how IT professionals view Microsoft's commitment to web security.
Re:So what? (Score:2, Interesting)
There's a lot of software that only runs on Linux or BSD and is useless to me on Windows, but I don't think less of it because of that.
More importantly, I'm more interested on what I can do with my applications and less about the OS they happen to be running on. This is called "the right tool for the job", and for me at least, completely trumps philosophical arguments about degrees of freedom.
Re-licensing (Score:5, Interesting)
Can we re-license it (or fork it) under GPL?
It would break my heart if someone improved the software just to see the improvements turn into proprietary ugliness.
Re:Apache? (Score:2, Interesting)
Do you honestly believe that all software companies should just shut their doors, or give their products away by licensing it in such a way that everyone else can also release it(which is the same as shutting their doors)? I suppose you think that all artists (authors, musicians, etc...) should give their product away as well? That anything that anyone creates magically belongs to the whole of humanity? That it has no value at all? If you do then you are the most short-sighted individual I have ever come across. Money must be exchanged for services rendered (software, books, music) or they will cease to exist. It is not free to make them and somewhere along the way there has to be an exchange of money or the entire financial system breaks down (even worse than it is now). And before you pipe up with the mantra: "release your software for free and then charge for services!" please answer the following question: "Why in the fuck do you think your 'services' have a value when the software does not?".
Re:So what? (Score:1, Interesting)
Considering that it only runs on a proprietary OS and that you are writing it in a language that has no open compiler, you might as well. It makes little difference, that software is not free in any real sense.
The Mono Project guys would like to have a word with you.
Re:Update the Microsoft icon? (Score:5, Interesting)
He is the most meaningfully philanthropic billionaire. As of a year or two ago he'd given 56% of his total accumulated wealth to charity over his lifetime. That's pretty cool, and the B&M Gates Foundation does a lot of great stuff, like pay for my local NPR and PBS stations. Compare to, oh, the Walmart heirs, who have given less than 0.01% of their wealth to philanthropic causes.
Re:So what? (Score:3, Interesting)
Ubuntu will run on any relatively mainstream system. Dell's machines, in particular, are quite Ubuntu-friendly. Drivers were an issue three years ago, but not so much now.
As for "run their software", that's why it's valid to make OSS for Windows. Some people are locked into Windows for one reason or another - "We have to use Joe's Address Mangler 3.0 for Windows" - so the solution is to provide OSS programs to fill as many needs as possible.
The sooner we can make OSS "their software", the sooner they'll convert to Linux.