LWN: Comments on "OSI Approves Microsoft License Submissions"

Special Treatment

dvdeug — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 18:36:43 +0000

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.

FSF should also acknowledge that these are Free Software licences

coriordan — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 14:47:12 +0000

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.

OSI Approves Microsoft License Submissions

nhippi — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 14:29:16 +0000

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))

Special Treatment

rickmoen — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 23:43:42 +0000

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

man_ls — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 22:19:08 +0000

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

rickmoen — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:39:53 +0000

(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
rick@linuxmafia.com

FSF should also acknowledge that these are Free Software licenses

Tashlan — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:29:56 +0000

> .. 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.  :(

Special Treatment

man_ls — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:15:46 +0000

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 ;)

OSI board elections

corbet — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 20:33:37 +0000

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

RussNelson — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 20:33:27 +0000

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!"

FSF should also acknowledge that these are Free Software licenses

rickmoen — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 20:29:07 +0000

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

OSI Approves Microsoft License Submissions

RussNelson — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 20:28:46 +0000

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

amikins — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 20:25:35 +0000

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.

Special Treatment

RussNelson — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 20:16:25 +0000

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

RussNelson — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 20:09:45 +0000

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.

FSF should also acknowledge that these are Free Software licenses

Tashlan — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 19:56:34 +0000

> .. 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.

Special Treatment

RussNelson — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 19:37:25 +0000

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.

FSF should also acknowledge that these are Free Software licenses

JoeBuck — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 19:14:08 +0000

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

man_ls — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 18:04:38 +0000

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.

FSF should also acknowledge that these are Free Software licenses

rickmoen — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 16:48:32 +0000

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

Special Treatment

rickmoen — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 14:53:35 +0000

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
rick@linuxmafia.com

Special Treatment

forthy — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 13:53:05 +0000

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.

FSF should also acknowledge that these are Free Software licenses

jamesh — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 12:12:03 +0000

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.

Special Treatment

Rehdon — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 07:12:56 +0000

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

man_ls — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 06:37:40 +0000

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.

FSF should also acknowledge that these are Free Software licenses

Tashlan — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 04:34:06 +0000

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

tao — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 03:14:15 +0000

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 =)

Special Treatment

gravious — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 01:38:54 +0000

Fascinating: thanks. Burn all blog comments!

OSI Approves Microsoft License Submissions

withaar — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 01:29:05 +0000

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

Mithrandir — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 01:10:03 +0000

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.

OSI Approves Microsoft License Submissions

TxtEdMacs — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 01:02:45 +0000

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.

Special Treatment

rickmoen — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 00:03:34 +0000

Don, there's a committee recommendation about classification, that divides licences among these categories:

Licenses that are popular and widely used or with strong communities
Special purpose licenses
Licenses that are redundant with more popular licenses
Non-reusable licenses
Other/Miscellaneous licenses

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
rick@linuxmafia.com

Special Treatment

rickmoen — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 23:56:58 +0000

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
rick@linuxmafia.com

Special Treatment

epa — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 23:37:15 +0000

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

smoogen — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 23:32:51 +0000

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

dmarti — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 23:25:02 +0000

Whatever happened to the idea of having "recommended" licenses and "compliant, but please
don't use this redundant vanity license" licenses?

Special Treatment

ncm — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 23:13:32 +0000

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

rickmoen — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 22:06:06 +0000

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
rick@linuxmafia.com

Special Treatment

ncm — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 21:57:26 +0000

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

rickmoen — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 21:26:08 +0000

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
rick@linuxmafia.com