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?

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.

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.