FSF should also acknowledge that these are Free Software licenses [LWN.net]

FSF should also acknowledge that these are Free Software licenses

Posted Oct 17, 2007 4:34 UTC (Wed) by Tashlan (guest, #17277)
In reply to: FSF should also acknowledge that these are Free Software licenses by moxfyre
Parent article: OSI Approves Microsoft License Submissions

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?

(Log in to post comments)

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
rick@linuxmaifa.com

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
rick@linuxmafia.com

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.