| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Special TreatmentSpecial TreatmentPosted Oct 16, 2007 21:26 UTC (Tue) by rickmoen (subscriber, #6943)In reply to: Special Treatment by ncm Parent article: OSI Approves Microsoft License Submissions 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
(Log in to post comments)
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!
|
|
||||||||||||