| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
FSF should also acknowledge that these are Free Software licensesFSF should also acknowledge that these are Free Software licensesPosted Oct 16, 2007 17:52 UTC (Tue) by dwalters (guest, #4207)Parent article: OSI Approves Microsoft License Submissions
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?
(Log in to post comments)
FSF should also acknowledge that these are Free Software licenses Posted Oct 16, 2007 19:45 UTC (Tue) by moxfyre (guest, #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 (guest, #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.
|
|
||||||||||||