Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||
Are Microsoft's new licenses open source? (NewsForge)
NewsForge examines Microsoft's new licenses and the company's interaction with the Open Source Initiative. "It would seem the adversarial days of OSI are over. In the same article, [Danese] Cooper writes that OSI 'received strong and consistent feedback' that focusing on Microsoft's past actions against open source was 'leading to the false impression that open source was all about muckraking instead of a viable, professional alternative to the traditional proprietary world of software.'
To that end, the infamous Halloween Documents have been removed from the OSI Web site, and OSI members have even been meeting with Microsoft to talk about its Shared Source licenses."
(Log in to post comments)
Animal Farm, anyone? Posted Oct 26, 2005 22:21 UTC (Wed) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] It begins. "Two legs good, four legs bad."
Microsoft? open source? Posted Oct 26, 2005 22:31 UTC (Wed) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Can someone knowledgeable explain what is happening? Has OSI been assimilated or what?My take from complete ignorance is this: Microsoft has found out that attacking free software does not work, so they have been looking for a breach in the wall. It has presented in the way of OSI, which has often presented itself as agnostic and business friendly. This way Microsoft will say that they do "Open Source", while OSI can say "even Microsoft does Open Source". Of course: nothing of substance will ever come out of them. There is no way they can do their thing (easy to license, difficult to keep away from) with free software. But they can wear a friendly mask to governments and customers.
Microsoft? open source? Posted Oct 27, 2005 0:41 UTC (Thu) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] Microsoft has put out some licenses recently that apparently really are FLOSS, according to FSF Europe, and evidently also according to the OSI. One of them even seems to be a form of copyleft. However, some of the other "shared source" licenses definitely do not qualify, and it's not clear what, if anything, Microsoft plans to release under the free licenses.There's the usual problem that the new licenses are incompatible with the existing licenses, such as the GPL.
Microsoft? open source? Posted Oct 27, 2005 8:54 UTC (Thu) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] So far so good, but why is the OSI bending backwards for Microsoft? Why is Microsoft courting them?
Microsoft? open source? Posted Oct 27, 2005 12:13 UTC (Thu) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] Microsoft has decided that they like open source... Just as long as they run it on Microsoft Windows and server/business products, and they use Microsoft software development products.
For example OSS-fans beleive in using the 'best tools for the job'. OSS is good for somethings, closed source is good for others, according to this philosophy.
So what if using Visual Studio locks into using Microsoft Systems as long as VS is better then Eclipse, Kdevelop, Vim, Emacs, and friends?
Are Microsoft's new licenses open source? (NewsForge) Posted Oct 26, 2005 23:37 UTC (Wed) by jstAusr (guest, #27224) [Link] > Microsoft's past actions against open source was 'leading to the false> impression that open source was all about muckraking instead of a viable
Like, yesterday, today, and tomorrow are really a long time in the past?
Open source just isn't good enough, it doesn't do enough to protect the developers or businesses working in collaboration with each other. Unless they are working in collaboration to form cooperative monoplies.
OSI sucks, long live FSF.
Are Microsoft's new licenses open source? (NewsForge) Posted Oct 27, 2005 0:13 UTC (Thu) by bk (guest, #25617) [Link] It seems OSI has been thoroughly neutralized by the clever marketing department at Microsoft. They even got them to pull the Halloween documents, the most substantive thing OSI has ever done for the F/OSS community.
Microsoft puts some peripheral, largely worthless code (from a proprietary business perspective) out under a BSD-like license and OSI rolls over and plays dead. Beautiful. Someone call RMS, he was right.
Are Microsoft's new licenses open source? (NewsForge) Posted Oct 27, 2005 1:33 UTC (Thu) by NightMonkey (subscriber, #23051) [Link] I don't think the OSI should be trusted at this point. I didn't realize that there was a "negotiation" going on about the core values of Open Source that the OSI would need to make "concessions". Was Open Source in trouble, or something? Or has the OSI just chosen pragmatisim over integrity?
What is the value of saying something is "professional", if that just really translates to "watered down"? Often I've found that using the term "professional" as a criteria for judging something is a polite mechanism for judging by something other than actual merit, whether what is being judged is technology or people. It is not surprising that the dominant proprietary software vendor would openly wonder if F/OSS is "viable or professional" and use that as a wedge against F/OSS. What is sad is that the OSI is giving such views credence and is so ready to change their tune to play Microsoft's score.
It sucks that they have "opensource.org".
``"negotiation"'' & ``"concessions"'' Posted Oct 27, 2005 18:44 UTC (Thu) by Max.Hyre (subscriber, #1054) [Link] I didn't realize that there was a "negotiation" going on about the core values of Open Source that the OSI would need to make "concessions".You make good points. (I especially like your characterization of ``professional''.) OSI's actions should definitely be scrutinized. But, you have quotation marks around `negotiation' and `concessions', and I can find neither word in the article. If you can point me to their locations, I'd appreciate it, particularly since the rest of the comment is based on the ideas they (possibly incorrectly) engender. Otherwise, they're scare quotes, and unworthy of the discussion.
Are Microsoft's new licenses open source? (NewsForge) Posted Oct 27, 2005 2:49 UTC (Thu) by rm6990 (guest, #30921) [Link] The documents are still available at archive.org (direct link).They are supposed to become available on ESR's private website soonish, but they are not there yet. Anyways, enjoy! ;-)
Are Microsoft's new licenses open source? (NewsForge) Posted Oct 27, 2005 3:27 UTC (Thu) by clump (subscriber, #27801) [Link] Sadly, I think OSI is no longer useful. There are some really bright people there, Michael Tiemann for example, but the organization as a whole is causing a lot of harm.
OSI Posted Oct 27, 2005 4:42 UTC (Thu) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] The people remaining at OSI, after the trustworthy ones left, are largely Libertarian ideologues. ("Libertarian", by the way, is very different from "libertarian". In practice it tends to mean "corporate shill", as in "laws shouldn't apply to my sponsor".) It's a minor boon that they didn't get the trademark. Still, it's best to remember we have good reasons to say "Free Software" instead of "Open Source".Probably we need a competing Open Source Board so what remains of OSI won't, by default, be thought to define the term. Bruce, where are you when we need you?
OSI Posted Oct 31, 2005 10:48 UTC (Mon) by tao (subscriber, #17563) [Link] ("Libertarian", by the way, is very different from "libertarian". In practice it tends to mean "corporate shill", as in "laws shouldn't apply to my sponsor".)You meant "libertarian" is very different from "liberal", I hope?
Are Microsoft's new licenses open source? (NewsForge) Posted Oct 27, 2005 9:25 UTC (Thu) by penguinroar (guest, #14460) [Link] I dont think OSI is doing the right thing here. When you know someone is after your blood its pretty stupid to just bend backwards and show your throat. Microsoft should be held at an arms length distance at all times. Look at what has happened to their partners in the past, the closer the relationship the bigger disaster afterwards. If OSI should let Microsoft into tha ballpark it should be after big gifts and public excuses from Microsofts part. How about a public apology for Ballmers comments re. cancer?
Are Microsoft's new licenses open source? (NewsForge) Posted Oct 27, 2005 17:40 UTC (Thu) by wookey (subscriber, #5501) [Link] People seem to be a bit unfair on OSI here. I know nothing about the details so I am merely taking things at face value, but if MS have published a couple of genuinely-free licences (and I happy to take George Greve's generally-commendable opinion on this), then the OSI is right to confirm this fact. Clearly that doesn't mean much without some actual software being released under them, but you never know - maybe MS really is thinking about joining the party, and if so we should encourage them rather than berate them.
We are of course right to be suspicious of MS, and like many here, I am no great fan of the OSI and the 'Open Source' label either. But they were certainly right about the term being popular with corporations; it is pretty rare to see people selling Free Software solutions actually calling it Free Software, at least to start with. It's so much easier if you start talking about Open Source so the business types can follow what you are saying and only start calling it Free Software once you have got the job. It's rather sad that this is the way it has played out, but that certainly seems to me to be where we are at right now. Maybe it was a necessary step?
Are Microsoft's new licenses open source? (NewsForge) Posted Oct 28, 2005 6:56 UTC (Fri) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] The way I see it business is critical to success of Free software.
That is most of us have a living to make. For many of us thats a central part of our lives and how we most significantly contribute to society, aside from having families and friends. How Free are we if we are forced to use nothing but closed source software for the majority of what we do for a living? It's important for businesses (for the businesses themselves, not so much for free software itself) to be able to choose Free software and still remain competative.
If Microsoft actually has Free/Open source license licenses and wants them OSI approved.. and if they meet the criteria of the OSI for 'open source software' then they are almost under a moral obligation to license them. If they reject them on the grounds of politics then that makes the rest of the licenses that they aproved seem questionable.
That's how I look at it. If I ran OSI and MS actually released OSS licenses then I would aprove them also.... after VERY carefull examination, of course.
It's not like I would trust those bastards. :-P
Are Microsoft's new licenses open source? (NewsForge) Posted Oct 28, 2005 7:14 UTC (Fri) by rqosa (guest, #24136) [Link] > if they meet the criteria of the OSI for 'open source software' then they are almost under a moral obligation to license them I thought that they said that they would not approve any more licenses unless they serve a purpose which currently-approved ones don't, in order to cut down on license proliferation.
Are Microsoft's new licenses open source? (NewsForge) Posted Oct 28, 2005 7:30 UTC (Fri) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link] Have they "approved" them, or merely "confirmed that they meet the Open Source definition"?
AIUI, they looked at the licences and said "one is free, one is open, one is commercial, and the other two are nasty".
Cheers,
So what? Posted Oct 31, 2005 13:01 UTC (Mon) by kempelen (guest, #19458) [Link] "One minor sticking point with the licenses is that they name Microsoft asthe licensor." This is not a minor issue. :-) When I saw the announcement of the new licenses, I thought Microsoft encourages developers do release their code under an open source license, and provides help with publishing licenses. THIS would be great, much better than an open source version of the official Notepad or whatever. :-) (Notepad was just an example.) Later I saw the company name mentioned in the licenses. And the .NET starter kit released under that. So what then? The licenses look useless to me. If the license text was saying "replace Microsoft with your company name or copyright holder of the software", that would be something. I must be completely misunderstanding something here.... Or do they mean: open source is good for publishing code examples, to get more developers creating proprietary software with our expensive development platforms??? :-D
|
|||||||||||