Weekly Edition
Return to the Announcements pageSponsored link
Vyatta –
Linux & Open Source
Alternative to Cisco –
Advanced Routing,
Firewall, VPN, QoS..
Free Download ->
| |||||||||||
OSI Approves Microsoft License Submissions
The Open Source Initiative (OSI) has approved two licenses submitted by
Microsoft as open source licenses. "The formal evaluation of
these licenses began in August and the discussion of these licenses was
vigourous and thorough. The community raised questions that Microsoft (and
others) answered; they raised issues that, when germane to the licenses in
question, Microsoft addressed. Microsoft came to the OSI and submitted
their licenses according to the published policies and procedures that
dozens of other parties have followed over the years. Microsoft didn't ask
for special treatment, and didn't receive any. In spite of recent negative
interactions between Microsoft and the open source community, the spirit of
the dialog was constructive and we hope that carries forward to a
constructive outcome as well." Additional commentary can be found at Microsoft's
Port 25 blog and at the 451
CAOS Theory blog.
(Log in to post comments)
OSI Approves Microsoft License Submissions Posted Oct 16, 2007 16:35 UTC (Tue) by sab39 (guest, #2185) [Link] Can't wait to see Groklaw spinning this as OSI selling out... :(
OSI Approves Microsoft License Submissions Posted Oct 16, 2007 16:37 UTC (Tue) by sayler (subscriber, #3164) [Link] yep. It seems pretty petty to deny OSI status to these licenses.
OSI Approves Microsoft License Submissions Posted Oct 16, 2007 17:14 UTC (Tue) by einstein (subscriber, #2052) [Link] Didn't the original license submission by microsoft contain some pretty odious restrictions, such as a windoze-only requirement and some other restrictions that were completely alien to OSS? IFF those nasty clauses were removed, I could technically understand granting the approval, but I still have to wonder, what is microsoft up to? Why yet another new license, when there are already too many?
OSI Approves Microsoft License Submissions Posted Oct 16, 2007 17:31 UTC (Tue) by rickmoen (subscriber, #6943) [Link] einstein:No, not on the particular two licences submitted to OSI. You're thinking of some of the other ones, Microsoft Limited Public License (Ms-LPL), Microsoft Limited Reciprocal License (Ms-LRL), and Microsoft Reference License, which are clearly proprietary but were not submitted. The ones submitted and (I gather) approved were Microsoft Reciprocal License (Ms-RL) and Microsoft Public License (Ms-PL). Microsoft have a "Shared Source Licenses" page housing all of the above licences. Rick Moen
OSI Approves Microsoft License Submissions Posted Oct 16, 2007 17:51 UTC (Tue) by einstein (subscriber, #2052) [Link] I see - Thanks for the clarification.
OSI Approves Microsoft License Submissions Posted Oct 16, 2007 19:53 UTC (Tue) by sbergman27 (subscriber, #10767) [Link] Yes. Groklaw would be a more valuable and more credible resource if she would go back to just reporting the facts with some explanation of the legal stuff, rather than spinning all of the wild, paranoid fantasies that are the regular fare on that site today. Just the facts, ma'am. Of course... it's her blog. She can do what she wants. Even make a fool of herself publicly. Plenty of other people do it.
OSI Approves Microsoft License Submissions Posted Oct 17, 2007 1:02 UTC (Wed) by TxtEdMacs (subscriber, #5983) [Link] It depends upon what you mean by the facts. If you wish rote recitation of press releases, those most times are less than factual. Political talking points are worse. When someone studies a topic deeply, developing a view should be expected, even if initially that person had no previous bent or knowledge of the topic. That is, of course, if the investigator is both intelligent and honest. There were stories of potential bribery by MS with the suspicious late show of interest in the ISO OOXML vote. This was also re-enforced by the very late upping of membership status to P where these groups would have a higher weight assigned to their vote. Proof, more suspect than proof. Nonetheless, these late joiners implicitly seemed to be one issue constituents that are now shirking their duties as Participating members of the ISO. Their corruption, my interpretation, is too obvious given they will not even cast an abstention on critical issues of importance to the ISO. Am I absolutely certain that MS traded cash and favors? No. However, the behaviour of these new members is too consistent for me to give weight to other possibilities. Check this link from a knowledgeable source, but with a established view. Inductively the smell is not sweet: <a href="http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=20071016092352827">http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?s...</a> Nonetheless, I have less and less doubt that you can explain it away. Why? I noted how the thread honed in on the restaurant issue and how easily it could be explained away. But I also noted how selectively blind the discussion was where it become problematic. Just the facts, what about the columnist that traced her address and then publicly spread her findings. Why was that person on the list? What about the investigator? Hey not a word. I guess those were beneath your worthy attention. Perhaps that is why I doubt you and some others here are really interested in facts. As you said, "... make a fool of herself publicly.", I guess you can say you are doing the same yourself, albeit more in privately.
OSI Approves Microsoft License Submissions Posted Oct 17, 2007 1:10 UTC (Wed) by Mithrandir (subscriber, #3031) [Link] Oh come on, that's a bit extreme. She makes it pretty clear when things are her own opinion, and you'd be a fool to listen to anyone's opinion without a critical eye. In my opinion she is insightful, and her mistrust of parties who have treated her rather badly in the past is pretty rational. She certainly makes attempts to put forward all of the evidence for her opinions, and you can draw your own conclusions. I always find her writing to be thoughtful, respectful and entertaining, even if I don't always agree with her conclusions. Placing her in the same box as the ridiculous shills on the other end of the opinion spectrum is just unfair and unjustified. I've been reading Groklaw almost from day one, and her very personal fall from trusting to completely cynical has been one of the most instructive aspects of her coverage.
FSF should also acknowledge that these are Free Software licenses Posted Oct 16, 2007 17:52 UTC (Tue) by dwalters (subscriber, #4207) [Link] Much as I'm sure the FSF might hate to do this, I think these two licenses comply with the Free Software Definition, and accordingly, should be listed in their Licenses page as Free Software licenses. The Microsoft Reciprocal License is also a copyleft license. Assuming these two do qualify as Free Software licenses, I'm not sure if they are compatible with the GPL. Perhaps someone from the FSF could comment on that?
FSF should also acknowledge that these are Free Software licenses Posted Oct 16, 2007 19:45 UTC (Tue) by moxfyre (subscriber, #13847) [Link] <font class="QuotedText">> Assuming these two do qualify as Free Software licenses, I'm not sure if they are compatible with the GPL. Perhaps someone from the FSF could comment on that?</font> No. Neither license is GPL compatible, since they both require source redistribution under the original license. The MS-Reciprocal License ------------------------- ... is basically like the GPLv2: if you distribute a derived work, you have to distribute the source, under the same license. Basically a copyleft license, except not GPL-compatible. The MS-Public License --------------------- ... is bizarre. You're allowed to distribute derived works freely, under BSD-ish terms (basically preserve copyright notices). So you can take a derived work proprietary. So far, sounds just like BSD, right? The catch is, *if* you distribute the source, you must distribute it under the MSPL license. You *can't* combine it into a GPL project. This seems designed gratuitously to break GPL compatibility. This license is: (a) like the BSD license in that you can take a derived work proprietary (b) like the BSD license in that you can redistribute it in open source form under the same license (c) *unlike* the BSD license in that you cannot incorporate it into an open source project with a more restrictive license. My take on it: -------------- Basically, Microsoft has produced a GPL-incompatible clone of the GPLv2, and a GPL-incompatible clone of the BSD license. The licenses may be open source, but they're almost transparently designed to impede code sharing with other free/open source projects... which is one of the hallmarks and great strengths of the movement. Thanks for nothing, Microsoft!
FSF should also acknowledge that these are Free Software licenses Posted Oct 17, 2007 3:14 UTC (Wed) by tao (subscriber, #17563) [Link] Considering how much fud Microsoft has been spreading about GPL being viral and thus never to be trusted, it would be entertaining to spin this back right at them about their reciprocal license =)
FSF should also acknowledge that these are Free Software licenses Posted Oct 17, 2007 4:34 UTC (Wed) by Tashlan (guest, #17277) [Link] Thank you for the brief overview. That was very helpful. The GPL and BSD, but with the MS logo on it. Similar, yet just different enough to be unusable outside their ecosystem. Yet another example of embrace and extend. This gives them the chance to explore their open-source strategy and steal talent without admitting the GPL is viable and relevant. Now that UNIX's ownership has been determined in court, perhaps Microsoft would like Novell to place some of that code under the MSPL where it will be visible and tempting?
FSF should also acknowledge that these are Free Software licenses Posted Oct 17, 2007 16:48 UTC (Wed) by rickmoen (subscriber, #6943) [Link] Tashlan wrote:This gives them the chance to explore their open-source strategy and steal talent without admitting the GPL is viable and relevant. Are you referring to the admission Microsoft Corporation already make by publishing Interix? ;-) (Maybe, also, you can explain how Microsoft Corporation is going to "steal the talent" of coders without them voluntarily consenting to issue code under Ms-RL or MS-PL (or any other, actually) terms, on their own initiative. Orbital mind-control lasers, mayhap? Somehow, this is reminiscent of the sky-is-falling rhetoric Brett Glass used to attempt against GPL proponents on the old InfoWorld forums.) Rick Moen
FSF should also acknowledge that these are Free Software licenses Posted Oct 17, 2007 19:56 UTC (Wed) by Tashlan (guest, #17277) [Link] > .. Microsoft Corporation already make by publishing Interix? That is a good point, but Microsoft isn't promoting the GPL publicly. They are only using it quietly because it fills their need. They didn't create the MSPL for nothing. They put a lot of thought into crafting the MSPL license rather than use the existing GPL license. That action is a statement and while it confirms the validity of the GPL license, I doubt that is the message Microsoft intends to convey. (To be fair, it isn't fair to discuss the company as if it were an individual with only one view. I'm purposely simplifying the situation for brevity.) > .. can [you] explain how Microsoft Corporation is going to "steal the talent" of coders without them voluntarily consenting ... I think I am mis-understood, please allow me to try again by way of analogy. "Steal" probably wasn't the proper word. Microsoft has created a separate tide-pool to swim in rather than jump into the existing sea. The pool will divert some of the sea's life into its waters. The net effect on the sea may be unmeasurable, but they are creating a separate body of water. That is divisive and while it isn't likely to drain the ocean of life, the effect is that some life will be confined to their pool that otherwise would have swam free.
FSF should also acknowledge that these are Free Software licenses Posted Oct 17, 2007 20:29 UTC (Wed) by rickmoen (subscriber, #6943) [Link] Tashlan wrote:That is a good point, but Microsoft isn't promoting the GPL publicly. Granted. The rest of us are obliged to take up the slack. ;-) (They didn't ever exactly trumpet to the skies, either, their very first product for Linux, the NetShow 2.00 beta released as a statically linked Linux binary in 1997. I cheerfully hounded the firm for years after that, correcting their respresentatives' claims that they've never seriously considered releasing code for Linux, pointing out that they'd already done so, and thanking them for the effort.) They didn't create the MSPL for nothing. They put a lot of thought into crafting the MSPL license rather than use the existing GPL license. Well, we'd actually like to think so, I imagine. At the same time, the club of mutually incompatible copyleft licences is getting to be quite a club, n'est-ce pas? Microsoft has created a separate tide-pool to swim in rather than jump into the existing sea. The pool will divert some of the sea's life into its waters. The net effect on the sea may be unmeasurable, but they are creating a separate body of water. That is divisive and while it isn't likely to drain the ocean of life, the effect is that some life will be confined to their pool that otherwise would have swam free. Fair enough -- but, again, that horse long ago left the stable. Licensing incompatibility, and even the deliberate kind, certainly didn't start with Microsoft Corporation. Rick Moen
FSF should also acknowledge that these are Free Software licenses Posted Oct 17, 2007 21:29 UTC (Wed) by Tashlan (guest, #17277) [Link] > .. that horse long ago left the stable. Licensing incompatibility, and even the deliberate > kind, certainly didn't start with Microsoft Corporation. Yes, that is true. License proliferation is a serious issue that didn't start with Microsoft. I was merely commenting that creating such a license fits well into their playbook. Unfortunately, most corporations take this route as well. :(
FSF should also acknowledge that these are Free Software licences Posted Oct 18, 2007 14:47 UTC (Thu) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] yes and no. In the early 2000s, they were all publishing their own licences, but afterward, Mozilla did a big relicense to GPL, and Sun's latest big liberation (Java) went GPL. I think the trend might be in reverse now.
FSF should also acknowledge that these are Free Software licenses Posted Oct 17, 2007 12:12 UTC (Wed) by jamesh (subscriber, #1159) [Link] No. Neither license is GPL compatible, since they both require source redistribution under the original license. I don't think the MS-PL restriction is that different than the BSD one. Consider the relevant clause from the MS-PL and MS-RL: If you distribute any portion of the software in source code form, you may do so only under this license by including a complete copy of this license with your distribution. Compared to the equivalent clause from the BSD license: 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. Note that in the case of the BSD license, the "copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer" make up the entire license text. If it is okay to integrate BSD licensed code into a GPL'd product (while maintaining the copyright), why would it be a problem to integrate MS-PL/MS-RL code while maintaining their license? (assuming all other conditions are acceptable). As far as incompatibilities go, section 3(B) of the MS-PL (3(C) in the MS-RL) probably is incompatible with the GPLv2 so it isn't completely smooth sailing. It is possible that this clause fits into the GPLv3's patents clause though.
FSF should also acknowledge that these are Free Software licenses Posted Oct 17, 2007 19:14 UTC (Wed) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] The FSF Europe people said that the licenses were free software licenses long before the OSI did.They are unlikely to promote their use because of GPL compatibility issues, but they appear to meet the "four freedoms" standard.
Special Treatment Posted Oct 16, 2007 19:53 UTC (Tue) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] OSI claims MS didn't ask for special treatment, and didn't get it, but the appearance is that MS did, in fact, get special treatment. In particular, as I recall, the OSI had previously expressed a goal of reducing the number of OSI-blessed licenses, to minimize license interaction when mixing code from different sources. They warned that they would not approve new licenses without compelling reason. These new licenses don't seem to offer any such compelling reason -- other than that MS has implied they might be willing release code under them but not others. Approving unnecessary licenses on such a basis is, by definition, special treatment, both asked for and delivered. This looks like another disappointing failure by OSI. They appear to have been successfully "gamed" by MS. Refusing to be gamed similarly by the next candidate will be cited as unfavorable special treatment. Who was it elected them, again?
Special Treatment Posted Oct 16, 2007 20:24 UTC (Tue) by sbergman27 (subscriber, #10767) [Link] """ but the appearance is that MS did, in fact, get special treatment. """ Indeed they did. There would not have been nearly as much debate before approving the licenses if they had not been submitted by Microsoft. """ They warned that they would not approve new licenses without compelling reason. """ Such a statement would have been more convincing had they started by denying GPLv3... a new license for which there was really no compelling reason. Either a license meets the requirements of the definition or it does not. If it does, it should be approved. It is *not* the OSI's place to fight license proliferation. Doing so would be a sure path to irrelevance for them. The value of the OSI is to act as a trusted authority on whether licenses meet the definition, no matter *how* many approved licenses there are. If they start denying approval on the basis of whether *they* think the license is needed and useful, then *their* usefulness to developers would be lost, since "every would know" that this or that license was really an OSS license, except that the OSI wouldn't approve it. And they would use those licenses, anyway, if they suited the licensors' purposes.
Special Treatment Posted Oct 16, 2007 20:56 UTC (Tue) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] Having approved redundant licenses from MS -- redundant in that they differ from existing licenses only in being incompatible with all of them -- only underscores OSI's present irrelevance. Microsoft would not have submitted the licenses if they meant to use them with or without OSI approval. They have plenty of other unapproved licenses to use already. The whole charade depends on having actually approved licenses. Getting these licenses stamped is only a step in a process. You may be certain that the remaining steps will not be toward peaceful coexistence with Free Software. Evidently MS is now applying strategists in this area who are much smarter than the OSI board members.
Special Treatment Posted Oct 17, 2007 20:09 UTC (Wed) by RussNelson (guest, #27730) [Link] ncm writes "... are much smarter than the OSI board members." That's a solvable problem. You are smarter than us, so you should run for the OSI board. Elections are held in middle to late March. Public nominations are accepted at osi@opensource.org. I suggest you put up your name for one of the seats that will be expiring at the end of March.
OSI board elections Posted Oct 17, 2007 20:33 UTC (Wed) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] Hey, Russ, that's interesting - I've never heard anything about OSI board elections before, and Google doesn't seem to know much either. The bylaws say that the board is elected by ... the board. How open is the process really, and do you plan to announce this election somewhere other than here?
Special Treatment Posted Oct 16, 2007 21:15 UTC (Tue) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Such a statement would have been more convincing had they started by denying GPLv3... a new license for which there was really no compelling reason.That was not the point of view of the creators of GPLv2, the license most often used in Free software. You will appreciate the fact that their opinion carries more weight than yours. It is *not* the OSI's place to fight license proliferation.They have stated such a purpose in the past. A sure way to irrelevance is to express a bunch of good wishes and then not come through with them. How about the first criterion to avoid said proliferation? 1. The license must not be duplicativeWhy approve a license and then put in the category "Licenses that are redundant with more popular licenses (9)"?
Special Treatment Posted Oct 17, 2007 7:12 UTC (Wed) by Rehdon (guest, #45440) [Link] Because they're *not* duplicative: they are Microsoft's versions of the GPL and BSD licence, only specially tailored so that they aren't GPL-compatible, as it has been pointed out above. So they serve a very special purpose: have MS experiment with OSS without risking to contribute a single line of code to the OSS world. Are they bad (in that they betray the spirit of FLOSS)? Yes. Are they OSI-compliant? Yes again (based on what I've read, I'll skip actually reading them thank you :). I really can't see another outcome out of this submission. rehdon
Special Treatment Posted Oct 17, 2007 20:16 UTC (Wed) by RussNelson (guest, #27730) [Link] My blog allows me to put postings into categories. After a few years of doing this, and after participating in the license proliferation committee, I'm convinced that ``categories'' is a wrong solution for organizing blog postings and licenses. I'm also convinced that ``subdirectories'' is a wrong solution for organizing files. A category is a single attribute. What you really want is tags. Yes, everything needs a unique tag which nothing else has, but we have a perfectly fine system for uniqueness: time. Every moment is unique. So, a license like the GPL might have "reciprocal,popular,stewarded,fsf" on it. Etc.
Special Treatment Posted Oct 16, 2007 21:26 UTC (Tue) by rickmoen (subscriber, #6943) [Link] ncm wrote:In particular, as I recall, the OSI had previously expressed a goal of reducing the number of OSI-blessed licenses, to minimize license interaction when mixing code from different sources. They warned that they would not approve new licenses without compelling reason. That is not an entirely accurate representation. (Disclaimer: I do not speak for OSI. I'm just a member of the free / open source software-using public who participates on one of their mailing lists.) In April 2005, the OSI Board, meeting at LinuxWorld Conference and Expo, announced that they would be moving to ensure that new licence submissions were (1) nonduplicative, (2) clear and understandable, and (3) reusable. They stressed that they needed to work out the details of how to implement these ideas, and would have a public comment process. Soon thereafter, OSI created a License Proliferation Subcommittee, which has by this point produced a draft report and FAQ, on which they are now accepting final comments. So, strictly speaking, the policy is not (quite yet) formally adopted. Nevertheless, this topic was discussed in depth on OSI's license-discuss mailing list, and consensus seemed to be that the two licences passed the committee's three draft criteria (though some including me found them a bit duplicative). Nathan, you've been awfully quick to criticise OSI on this and several prior occasions, and you've seldom seemed to take the time to check out the surrounding facts. Pity, that. Rick Moen
Special Treatment Posted Oct 16, 2007 21:57 UTC (Tue) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] If the committee's "three draft criteria" allow the "duplicative" MS licenses, that is conclusive evidence that they fail in their expressed purpose: to help curb license proliferation. The OSI has compounded that failure by actually encouraging license proliferation. The "surrounding facts" do not make things look better for the OSI than do the central facts.
Special Treatment Posted Oct 16, 2007 22:06 UTC (Tue) by rickmoen (subscriber, #6943) [Link] Nathan, were you listening at all? Despite the fact that the committee's criteria technically aren't yet adopted, the matter was discussed anyway, and there was consensus that the two licences aren't duplicative, nor unable to be reused, nor unclear or difficult to understand. (I was among the minority who even raised a question about duplicativeness, as to the two licences in question.)Rick Moen
Special Treatment Posted Oct 16, 2007 23:13 UTC (Tue) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] Yes, Rick. Your remarks underscore OSI's failure, both to evolve effective, objective anti-proliferation criteria, and also to avoid being gamed by the biggest and most avowedly hostile extant enemy of Free Software. We don't know yet how MS plan to abuse their certifications; all we know is that they will do so. OSI, for fear of appearing biased, allowed itself to be tricked. It must now spend its remaining existence chasing after its lost relevance.
Special Treatment Posted Oct 16, 2007 23:25 UTC (Tue) by dmarti (subscriber, #11625) [Link] Whatever happened to the idea of having "recommended" licenses and "compliant, but please don't use this redundant vanity license" licenses?
Special Treatment Posted Oct 17, 2007 0:03 UTC (Wed) by rickmoen (subscriber, #6943) [Link] Don, there's a committee recommendation about classification, that divides licences among these categories:
There's been some ongoing wailing and gnashing of teeth about the draft contents of those lists -- and it's not yet incorporated into the main licence lists, anyway. I get the vibes that there will be some revisions, before that is done. Rick Moen
Special Treatment Posted Oct 16, 2007 23:56 UTC (Tue) by rickmoen (subscriber, #6943) [Link] That's a bit sweeping, vague, and woefully short on logic. It also changes the subject.1. You started out with a rather lazy slur about "special treatment", which you didn't bother to substantiate, and seem to have dropped along the way, except in your subject header. Your idea of substantiation was to make a (false) claim about OSI having allegedly announced, at some (unstated) time past, that it would categorically approve no more licences without "compelling reason" -- which as I pointed out at some length was a highly inaccurate recounting of the actual pending (not approved) committee work. 2. From that inaccurate starting assumption, you then somehow arrived at the non-sequitur conclusion that OSI had been "gamed", without bothering to say what that game is, except for dark mutterings about a "process". Whatever the Redmondians' "process" is, would OSI sabotaging the integrity of its own certification process by refusing to certify an obviously qualifying, submitted licence change the outcome of such a "process"? 3. Also, you speak as if Microsoft Corporation were the only feasible users, and their codebases the only feasible application, of Ms-RL and MS-PL. Were Netscape Communications the only conceivable users, and Mozilla Communicator the only conceivable use, of MPL, when it was written? In my experience, open source licences are equally useable by all who find them to fill a need, often people and uses not anticipated by their authors. Anyway, I think I can reasonably speculate about Microsoft Corporation's intended use of those two licences: They'll experiment with the licences' use for maintenance of non-GPL commonses, and as a trial balloon for open source within that firm generally. Yawn. People not liking those terms will retain exactly the same remedy that always applies: Don't adopt those terms for one's own work, if you don't like them; don't write new code under them. Their commonses, in conjunction with participation by others, will either thrive or not. Those who don't partake will be no better or worse off. Rick Moen
Special Treatment Posted Oct 17, 2007 6:37 UTC (Wed) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] So you raised the issue of duplicativeness on the OSI lists. How come the Microsoft licenses are not duplicative? What is novel about them? (and please don't say "brevity", we are all adults here and can read reasonably fast).Also, you speak as if Microsoft Corporation were the only feasible users, and their codebases the only feasible application, of Ms-RL and MS-PL. Were Netscape Communications the only conceivable users, and Mozilla Communicator the only conceivable use, of MPL, when it was written?Again, it all hinges on whether the Microsoft licenses are duplicative (which they seem to be). The MPL takes an original approach to Free software (or Open Source if you wish), thus enabling its use for corporations which wish to have a weak form of copyleft. On the other hand, duplicative licenses which are widely used have their own merit (like Apache's, which is similar to BSD). But duplicative licenses with virtually no users have theoretically no place in OSI lists. Anyway, I think I can reasonably speculate about Microsoft Corporation's intended use of those two licences: They'll experiment with the licences' use for maintenance of non-GPL commonses, and as a trial balloon for open source within that firm generally.You are too kind. I can imagine a couple of worse things, like announcing: "Microsoft distributes MS Windows (C) (TM) (R) under Shared Source (TM) (R), which is a form of Open Source (OSI approved)". A convoluted way to associate their OS to Open Source, but one which might work in certain circumstances (propaganda for CIOs, procurement policies poorly drafted). And part of the usual Microsoft smokescreen for their illegal activities, like abusing their monopoly. Our only consolation in such a scenario will be to cry "I told you so" in a moderately loud tone. OSI members will be denied even that.
Special Treatment Posted Oct 17, 2007 14:53 UTC (Wed) by rickmoen (subscriber, #6943) [Link] man_ls wrote:So you raised the issue of duplicativeness on the OSI lists. No, that is not what I said. I said I was one of those who commented on that point, and was among the minority who felt the licences are nothing particularly special. As to what other commentators felt, if you want to see what they said, Read The Friendly Archives. As an aside, please note that duplicativeness in a licence is necessarily a matter of degree -- and also of opinion. Again, it all hinges on whether the Microsoft licenses are duplicative (which they seem to be). Hey, you have an opinion! You'll do well on the Internet (especially if you continue to omit your real name). I can imagine a couple of worse things, like announcing: "Microsoft distributes MS Windows (C) (TM) (R) under Shared Source (TM) (R), which is a form of Open Source (OSI approved)". A convoluted way to associate their OS to Open Source I believe you mean "to make them look really cheesy, and, more important, to risk bad publicity through further and particularly egregious public abuse of the term open source, in blatant bad faith towards OSI". I think they're too smart to do that, but obviously we'll have to wait and see. To pass the time, I'd be willing to put a small wager on that matter (after all, I'm not sure they're that smart), but am uncertain offhand how to word it. Rick Moen
Special Treatment Posted Oct 17, 2007 18:04 UTC (Wed) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] No, that is not what I said. I said I was one of those who commented on that point, and was among the minority who felt the licences are nothing particularly special.Sorry for the mistake. In fact your sentence is similarly worded but certainly different (raised a question vs raised the issue). As to what other commentators felt, if you want to see what they said, Read The Friendly Archives.:D I read the discussion for MS-PL, and this is what I gathered. Chris DiBona: "Finally, why should yet another set of minority, vanity licenses be approved by an OSI that has been attempting to deter copycat licenses and reduce license proliferation?", posing the question. Brian Behlendorf: "I don't know yet if there has been an explicit rejection of a license up for certification, so I don't know if we've yet established how different a new license needs to be", so the issue is not clear. John Cowan: "I think (as I thought two years ago) that this is a case where the anti-proliferation rules should be set aside", effectively asking for special treatment. Bill Hilf: "There are already several hundred community projects that use these licenses, including over 150 Microsoft projects", making it a beautiful circular argument. I did not in fact find any messages from you speaking about redundancy. On the discussion for MS-CL there was nothing I could find. In short, the issue was not discussed at great length because it was not considered relevant. Hey, you have an opinion! You'll do well on the Internet (especially if you continue to omit your real name).I don't see what my real name has to do with the issue: as far as I can see my driver's license might read "Man Ls, sq" and it wouldn't change the fact that I read the licenses and they did not seem to offer anything new. I think they're too smart to do that, but obviously we'll have to wait and see.Have you never heard Ballmer speak in public? He will stoop as low as necessary to make business. I mean, they only need to know their target customers; and in that they are immensely smarter than either you or me, witness their commercial success. To pass the time, I'd be willing to put a small wager on that matter (after all, I'm not sure they're that smart), but am uncertain offhand how to word it.Let's see. If Microsoft ever publishes the words "Windows", "Shared Source" and "Open Source" in the same sentence then I win, and you will pay me a beer next time you visit Spain. Let's make it two years; after that you win.
Special Treatment Posted Oct 17, 2007 21:39 UTC (Wed) by rickmoen (subscriber, #6943) [Link] (On the mistaken characterisation, not a problem. Glad to clarify.)I read the discussion for MS-PL, and this is what I gathered. That was definitely a fraction of it, but certainly not all. I vaguely recall there having been a bit more, as the thread arose several times. You'll probably notice that substantive discussion of proposed licences on license-discuss tends to get slightly swamped in (1) sparring between two or three licensing trolls delighted at the attention and everyone else, (2) net.randoms dropping in and posing questions about real and theoretical licence problems, and (3) various people arguing about gods-knows-what varieties of disputes regarding copyright, contract, trademark, and patent law. Also, it's not unknown for a licence to get proposed and garner almost no comment from anybody, presumably because either the proposer or the licence text just didn't interest people. For example, Socialtext's radically toned down badgeware licence (CPAL) got exactly one objection, from Matthew Flaschen, that the mandated display of original-developer info (if the technology supports such a display) for "sufficient duration to give reasonable notice" still arguably violates OSD#3 (Derived Works) because logo accumulation through code reuse could become unreasonable and impractical. I answered: "I do agree with the concern about logo accumulation in derivative works, and have voiced it myself, but feel that some sense of proportion should be applied, in judging the proper extent of that concern. Yes, an important aim of open source is to make code borrowing lawful and practical (to the extent that licence compatibility allows), but, realistically, Nicholas Goodman's logo-overload scenario is (even under the early badgeware licenses with fixed-size logos on every page) a severe (yet amusing) over-exaggeration of what could ever actually happen in the real world." OSI's Board approved CPAL without a great deal more discussion, and (IIRC) its report cited my comment and not a lot else. Partly, this was because nobody had much else to say. Partly, it's because the related issues had already been thrashed out in earlier discussion of the preceding MPL 1.1 + Exhibit B licences. My point is: Sometimes, you find few on-list comments because the proposal in uncontroversial, other times because it's just not interesting, other times because most relevant discussion occurred earlier in only peripherally related threads. Thus, the best way to understand the general thrust of license-discuss discussion is to read it on an ongoing basis. Looking up The Friendly Archives is very useful, but might miss some. Anyway, Matthew Flaschen and I (among others) explicitly opined that both Ms-RL and Ms-PL are clearly OSD-compliant, and did so both before and after one of those licences was renamed from its earlier naming. (Thus my point: You didn't find that.) John Cowan opining that "the anti-proliferation rules should be set aside" for Ms-PL doesn't signify, for, among other things, the fact that OSI has no such rules: It has only an intent (and subcommittee) to develop some. (Note also that Cowan didn't opine that he considered Ms-PL duplicative within the meaning of the subcommittee's recommendations. He just felt that a procedure that he mistakenly believed to exist should be waived.) I don't see what my real name has to do with the issue... Well, other people very likely do. I expect to have to stand behind what I say, and therefore try to take great care (human frailty, limited patience, and caffeine deficiency permitting) to make sure I can. When others, like you (but far less so than many, to be fair), start asking me from behind cover of pseudonymity to answer their carelessly mistaken misrepresentations of my posts, I think it only fair to point out the asymmetrical nature of our discussion: You can take sloppy, somewhat disreputable potshots at my posts with impunity, create the expectation that I'm somehow obliged to disprove them, and if necessary walk away clean from your nick if it ever proves embarrassing. I can't; I'm posting as me. But I didn't mean to harp on that (it's just because you asked, and besides, I gladly believe you that it was accidental), so let's please move on. Have you never heard Ballmer speak in public? He will stoop as low as necessary to make business. This would be a relevant objection if I'd said that Microsoft Corporation (or Steven Ballmer) were ethical. I did not. I said I said I believed them to be "smarter than that". I don't think I should have to do all of your homework, so, consider taking a few minutes figuring out what you'd do if you were OSI President and observed that Microsoft Corporation were going around invoking OSI's name in public attempting to suggest that its proprietary software is in some fashion open source. Novice PR problem. Let's see. If Microsoft ever publishes the words "Windows", "Shared Source" and "Open Source" in the same sentence then I win, and you will pay me a beer next time you visit Spain. Let's make it two years; after that you win. "Memo from Joe Sixpack, Microsoft maintenance division, Madrid: Windows is mentioned in the company's Shared Source Web pages, and is not open source. Please send a copy of this memo to Rick Moen, and advise him that 'man_ls' and I will be each having half a beer at his expense." ;-) Rick Moen
Special Treatment Posted Oct 17, 2007 22:19 UTC (Wed) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] It would really make me very sad to part with this pseudonym (apart from the fact that I have paid for the privilege, being a subscriber and all). In fact I'm the same old man_ls / Alex Fernández you had a little riffraff with a couple of years ago. That is precisely why I said that my real name doesn't matter: you didn't remember it from last time and that's perfectly fine, because who cares.OK, you think that it would just be a PR matter that can be dealt with, and let's hope it is so. We have all seen Microsoft do worse things (as in their infamous antitrust cause), and we have seen how it helps their friendly press and their astroturfing. We have also seen it fail (as in the Office Open XML fiasco). Maybe it will not work next time, or maybe they will not even try. It is true that e.g. with Windows CE (which has a "see but don't touch" license) it has not worked at all. Anyway the licenses are approved, so we can only wait and see. And pay that beer if you ever come to Madrid and I can show you an unambiguous case of :D
Special Treatment Posted Oct 17, 2007 23:43 UTC (Wed) by rickmoen (subscriber, #6943) [Link] Alex, I honestly do appreciate that reminder. And you're of course right, that people's reasoning should absolutely stand or fall on its own merits, and in that sense (among others) "real names don't matter". FWIW, I've actually worked hard to protect the right to comment pseudonymously or anonymously longer than I'd care to remember. And I'm pleased to report that we are, in fact, overall in total agreement (not that an honest difference of view isn't OK, too). In particular, your point is well taken about your stable "nick", and there are many I admire greatly, including, say, "Fyodor" of nmap fame, who I doubt writes grocery cheques in the Dostoyevsky character guise he adopts for software purposes. ;-> If I've seemed unduly suspicious, I do ask your pardon, and hope to remember you better next time. (As you'll note in the thread you linked, I've seen pseudonymous personae used for some extremely scurrilous things, especially for ankle-biting personal attacks against better-known open source people, so perhaps you can understand my wariness.) Rick Moen rick@linuxmafia.com
Special Treatment Posted Oct 16, 2007 23:32 UTC (Tue) by smoogen (subscriber, #97) [Link] The conversation went to Partisan feelings quite some time ago and therefore the parts of the brain that do listening have been turned off: <a href="http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Science/2006/01/24/emory_study_reveals_the_political_brain/4175/">http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Science/2006/01/24/emory_stu...</a> <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2007/08/the_political_brain_by_drew_westen.html">http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2007/08/the_politica...</a> My posting this will probably put me in the must be bashed column because I disagree.
Special Treatment Posted Oct 17, 2007 1:38 UTC (Wed) by gravious (guest, #7662) [Link] Fascinating: thanks. Burn all blog comments!
Special Treatment Posted Oct 16, 2007 23:37 UTC (Tue) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link] I think we need to distinguish between 'this licence meets the terms of the Open Source definition and has been certified as such by the OSI' and 'this licence is actively approved by the OSI and recommended for use in your projects'. The 'OSI approved' mark is confusingly named because it suggests the second when it really means the first, and the OSI themselves have been uncertain what their goal is. The FSF's list of free licences does a better job; for each one they say whether software under that licence is free software, and then separately they give the FSF's view on whether it is a good idea to encourage further use of this licence.
Special Treatment Posted Oct 17, 2007 13:53 UTC (Wed) by forthy (guest, #1525) [Link] Yes, that's why you don't go to the FSF to get an "approved" stamp on your license. Remember, Microsoft doesn't want open source, they just want to embrace and extend it. Wonder why they haven't put in an update clause with "may be replaced by other licenses with similar evil spirit in future", and no option to limit the code to one particular license version.
Special Treatment Posted Oct 17, 2007 20:33 UTC (Wed) by RussNelson (guest, #27730) [Link] Microsoft doesn't want open source, they just want to embrace and extend it. I can't for the life of me think how they would embrace and extend Open Source? What would they do, given us EVEN MORE freedom? "Ha! That will teach those Open Source idiots to fool with Microsoft! Here, take more freedom! See if you can handle it!"
Special Treatment Posted Oct 17, 2007 21:15 UTC (Wed) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] I can't for the life of me think how they would embrace and extend Open Source?Why, you just take Free software (or Open Source software, if you prefer) and extend it with your own additions! You don't even need to take the original software proprietary, you just have to keep your additions proprietary. Exactly the kind of thing that the GPL doesn't allow. That is why Microsoft doesn't like the GPL: they cannot embrace and extend GPL'd software. (They are not, after all, as clever as Google ;)
Special Treatment Posted Oct 17, 2007 19:37 UTC (Wed) by RussNelson (guest, #27730) [Link]
Compelling reasons for approving these licenses:
o They don't force you to sue somebody in a particular courtroom.
o They don't allow Microsoft to change the terms of the license
(unlike the GPL or a LARGE number of other open source licenses.)
o They contain a patent peace clause.
o They contain a mandatory patent license from each contributor (so
you can't sneak patented code into a project and then try to sue.)
o The two licenses differ only in the one reciprocal clause, so if
you understand one license, you understand the other.
o The license applies equally to every party -- there is no
"Original Contributor" like in the MPL.
o The warranty disclaimer uses generic language which should be
effective everywhere rather than ALL-CAPS US LANGUAGE.
o Succinct good.
I don't see any evidence for your "gaming" of OSI by Microsoft.
Special Treatment Posted Oct 18, 2007 18:36 UTC (Thu) by dvdeug (subscriber, #10998) [Link] I'm not familiar with any open source license that allows Microsoft (or the copyright holder) to change its terms unilaterally. Even the standard GPL option (not part of the license) doesn't let the FSF change the terms; it lets the FSF offer new terms, like a very limited one-sided form of the BSD license.
OSI Approves Microsoft License Submissions Posted Oct 17, 2007 1:29 UTC (Wed) by withaar (guest, #4201) [Link] I think this move of Microsoft goes more along the lines of "embrace and extend", just on a larger scale and in a very different way. For them open source is a medusa that can't be beat the conventional way. This change in approach by no means indicates that they will peacefully coexist. That would be unethical for a commercial enterprise that enjoys a virtual monopoly. Why would they not morph this into a more viral license down the line?
OSI Approves Microsoft License Submissions Posted Oct 17, 2007 20:25 UTC (Wed) by amikins (subscriber, #451) [Link] It's worth noting that Microsoft doesn't leave itself a back door to significantly change the terms of the license at some unknown point in the future, unlike the FSF.
OSI Approves Microsoft License Submissions Posted Oct 17, 2007 20:28 UTC (Wed) by RussNelson (guest, #27730) [Link] Mr. Withaar asks"Why would they not morph this into a more viral license down the line?" They might, but the Ms-PL has no provision for relicensing code under a newer version, and OSI Approval is only given for a particular version of a license. If they come back with a license that doesn't meet the OSD, they'll get the bum's rush.
OSI Approves Microsoft License Submissions Posted Oct 18, 2007 14:29 UTC (Thu) by nhippi (guest, #34640) [Link] Apart from the annoying "yet-another-license" thing, these licenses seem very understandable and open - none of typical MPL style legal garbage most corporate OSS licenses are. most interesting code under the newly accepted licenses seems to be ironpython (Ms-PL))
|
|||||||||||