Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Software Microsoft

Microsoft, OSI Discuss Shared Source Licenses 121

linumax writes "While Microsoft Corp. has publicly said it has no immediate plans to submit its newest Shared Source licenses to the Open Source Initiative for approval, the company met with the OSI board this week to discuss the matter. Ronald Mann, a law professor at the University of Texas in Austin, said two of the new licenses, the Microsoft Permissive License, which is modeled on the existing BSD license, and the Microsoft Community License, based on the Mozilla Public License, appeared to satisfy the Open Source Definition administered by the OSI."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft, OSI Discuss Shared Source Licenses

Comments Filter:
  • MS (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 22, 2005 @11:51AM (#13852542)
    Bill Gates Speaks Out Against Next-Gen DVDs

    Microsoft Becomes Wembley Stadium's Backer

    Microsoft, OSI Discuss Shared Source Licenses

    Has Slashdot had a tiff with Google and started seeing Microsoft instead?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 22, 2005 @11:52AM (#13852543)
    Ok, thats enough of M$ today.
  • Woah o_o; (Score:5, Funny)

    by Hikaru79 ( 832891 ) on Saturday October 22, 2005 @11:54AM (#13852561) Homepage
    In other news, Hell is reporting temperatures are at a record low. Also, Pork Airlines closes the quarter with 60% revenue increase.
  • by Prototerm ( 762512 ) on Saturday October 22, 2005 @12:17PM (#13852659)
    Microsoft will shortly announce their introduction of the "Burn FLOSS To The Ground And Salt The Earth Beneath It" License, saying it will make the world safer for convicted antitrust violators everywhere!

    Embrace...Extend...Extinguish
  • by Phil246 ( 803464 ) on Saturday October 22, 2005 @12:51PM (#13852804)
    (taken from http://abstractfactory.blogspot.com/2005/10/only-d ebate-on-intelligent-design-that.html [blogspot.com] )
    The only debate on Intelligent Design that is worthy of its subject

    Moderator: We're here today to debate the hot new topic, evolution versus Intelligent Des---

    (Scientist pulls out baseball bat.)

    Moderator: Hey, what are you doing?

    (Scientist breaks Intelligent Design advocate's kneecap.)

    Intelligent Design advocate: YEAAARRRRGGGHHHH! YOU BROKE MY KNEECAP!

    Scientist: Perhaps it only appears that I broke your kneecap. Certainly, all the evidence points to the hypothesis I broke your kneecap. For example, your kneecap is broken; it appears to be a fresh wound; and I am holding a baseball bat, which is spattered with your blood. However, a mere preponderance of evidence doesn't mean anything. Perhaps your kneecap was designed that way. Certainly, there are some features of the current situation that are inexplicable according to the "naturalistic" explanation you have just advanced, such as the exact contours of the excruciating pain that you are experiencing right now.

    Intelligent Design advocate: AAAAH! THE PAIN!

    Scientist: Frankly, I personally find it completely implausible that the random actions of a scientist such as myself could cause pain of this particular kind. I have no precise explanation for why I find this hypothesis implausible --- it just is. Your knee must have been designed that way!

    Intelligent Design advocate: YOU BASTARD! YOU KNOW YOU DID IT!

    Scientist: I surely do not. How can we know anything for certain? Frankly, I think we should expose people to all points of view. Furthermore, you should really re-examine whether your hypothesis is scientific at all: the breaking of your kneecap happened in the past, so we can't rewind and run it over again, like a laboratory experiment. Even if we could, it wouldn't prove that I broke your kneecap the previous time. Plus, let's not even get into the fact that the entire universe might have just popped into existence right before I said this sentence, with all the evidence of my alleged kneecap-breaking already pre-formed.

    Intelligent Design advocate: That's a load of bullshit sophistry! Get me a doctor and a lawyer, not necessarily in that order, and we'll see how that plays in court!

    Scientist (turning to audience): And so we see, ladies and gentlemen, when push comes to shove, advocates of Intelligent Design do not actually believe any of the arguments that they profess to believe. When it comes to matters that hit home, they prefer evidence, the scientific method, testable hypotheses, and naturalistic explanations. In fact, they strongly privilege naturalistic explanations over supernatural hocus-pocus or metaphysical wankery. It is only within the reality-distortion field of their ideological crusade that they give credence to the flimsy, ridiculous arguments which we so commonly see on display. I must confess, it kind of felt good, for once, to be the one spouting free-form bullshit; it's so terribly easy and relaxing, compared to marshaling rigorous arguments backed up by empirical evidence. But I fear that if I were to continue, then it would be habit-forming, and bad for my soul. Therefore, I bid you adieu.

Software production is assumed to be a line function, but it is run like a staff function. -- Paul Licker

Working...