Microsoft's New Permissive License Meets Opposition

seven7h writes "Linux.com currently has an interesting story regarding Microsoft's new Permissive License, which they are currently trying to get certified by the OSI (Open Source Initiative). What I find interesting is not just that this has received a lot of criticism and opposition, but that one of the key opponents is Chris DiBona, open source programs manager for Google, Inc. Microsoft's strategies of creating open source like programs (ie Shared Source) has been called into question and whether the open source industry should become associated with Microsoft. This looks like it may be something to watch as it could allow Microsoft a foot in the door into Linux/Open Source, or define a line between Linux/Open Source and Microsoft."

Microsoft already has a foot in the door to Linux

Everyone does. That is why it is free. Abide by the GPL and anyone can play.

Re:Microsoft already has a foot in the door to Lin

It is interesting that you mention the GPL, because that is exactly the target of this initiative by Microsoft. Remember, Microsoft isn't opposed to BSD licensed code, because they can use it all they want. They are only opposed to the GPL, which would force them to 'give away' their source code. That is what they called 'communist' and 'viral.'

Now, if you look at the license, it is indeed an open source license, and it can be used in conjunction with the BSD, Apache,or MIT licenses, but not the GPL. Thus, Microsoft creates this license, releases sufficient open source code to make people think twice about using the GPL (extend), and then once the GPL is dead, leaves the open source world (extinguish).

This is a very clever move, aimed at dividing the open source camp from the GPL camp. Currently they are divided in ideology but largely united in practice (as RMS says). Microsoft is aiming to divide them in practice as well. Personally I don't think Microsoft is willing to release enough code open sourced to make a difference, but time will tell. The next few years will be very interesting.

This is where the OSI fails.

Now, if you look at the license, it is indeed an open source license, and it can be used in conjunction with the BSD, Apache,or MIT licenses, but not the GPL.

The OSI doesn't even correctly track the licenses that it has "approved" already.
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/category [opensource.org]
How about a diagram showing the progression of license restrictions? Hmmmmmm? That way you could look at the chart and SEE where a specific license falls.

It would also show any holes that are not covered by a license yet.

Then it would be easy to draw a line and say "anything below this line is GPLv2 compatible". Or GPLv3 or whatever.

Instead we have licenses that effectively duplicate each other. And we argue over whether Microsoft's proposed licenses are "okay" or not. Instead we should be able to look at the proposed license and see exactly where in the matrix it falls and whether it is filling an existing void. Or simply duplicating an existing license's restrictions and grants.

Where's the structure?

Re:Microsoft already has a foot in the door to Lin

There are some "compatible" licenses, but that's merely a euphemism for relicensing. If a license allows to to relicense the software under the GPL, then it is compatible. If the MIT license, for example, said that you couldn't file off the license, then it would no longer be GPL. The GPL is a members only club.

That's not really accurate. What the GPL says is that the whole work must be distributable under the terms of the GPL. Neither the MIT, BSD or any other license I know lets you "file off the license", in fact it very clearly says The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. [opensource.org] It is simply that the MIT license is very permissive and lets you distribute it in a way that gives you all the rights of the GPL.

Think of it this way, you're building a house and the BSD parts say you can use them in any building. The GPL parts say the whole house must be blue. Is that ok? Yes, because you can simultaniously fulfill the conditions of both licenses by building a blue house. You can't paint the BSD parts red anymore, but the BSD parts are still BSD parts. It is illegal (criminal offense) to replace a BSD license text with a GPL license text, unless you're the copyright holder. But as part of a house, the house needs to follow the rules of all the parts.

Of course the kicker is that the GPL says you can't add no more restrictions (good or bad), so you can put MIT code in GPL projects, but you can't put GPL code in anything but GPL projects. But that they can be distributed under the terms of the GPL is substantially different from them being relicensed to be GPL code.

Re:Microsoft already has a foot in the door to Lin

Well, you know what they say - a dozen times bitten, thirteen times shy. They've resorted to underhand methods so many times in the past, it's only rational to expect any action like this to be "a trap".

Re:Microsoft already has a foot in the door to Lin

because any time Microsoft even tries to do anything even reasonably associated with open source, the OSS community shits itself and starts with all the Admiral Ackbar "it's a trap" crap. They don't even get a chance.

Well, when the guy with the hammer keeps hitting you in the head instead of fixing the hole in the roof, the next time he shows up you start thinking about calling the cops, even if this time he's carrying some nice roofing tiles.

And ... ?

They don't really have a foot in the door, because any time Microsoft even tries to do anything even reasonably associated with open source, the OSS community shits itself and starts with all the Admiral Ackbar "it's a trap" crap.

Microsoft says that Linux "violates" how many Microsoft patents?

Microsoft paid how much money to SCO for a license Microsoft doesn't appear to use?

Microsoft arranged for Baystar to invest how much money in SCO?

And the list goes on and on and on.

Microsoft can, at any time, download the source code for almost EVERYTHING in "Linux". And they can write whatever apps they want that "interoperates" with whatever in "Linux". And they can release it under whatever license they want.

But we aren't seeing that, are we? And the reason is that Microsoft's goal is to find some way to cripple Linux as a competitor. That's it. That's all it is.

So we should be wary of any and all "changes" that Microsoft wants. Keep the distinct and separate from Linux.

Re:Microsoft already has a foot in the door to Lin

Poor Microsoft. They try so hard to fit in. They make three licenses, two of which contain a clause saying that you can only run them on MS Windows, and for some reason they aren't embraced into the community!

What a surprise

Oh, so a Google person is against letting MS projects in in the OS market? What a surprise! The company that has more than 90% of the market of information search? I want to eat the cake alone!

Why is it interesting?

Why is it interesting that a google employee opposes something Microsoft does?
I mean, those aren't exactly love seats being thrown out of Microsoft's office windows.

Better wording maybe?

Who the heck came up with the "permissive" license.. It just sounds so dirty.... I mean do I need to wear protection with this license?? Wait a minute... I think I know that answer to that one... :-)

Re:Better wording maybe?

Now c'mon, after all those years everyone should know that you need all the protection you can get when you use MS software.

Re:Better wording maybe?

I mean do I need to wear protection with this license?? Wait a minute... I think I know that answer to that one... :-)

Yes, most assuredly - Microsoft Software is the main source of ITDs (Internet Transmitted Diseases) and STPs (Software Transmitted Patents).

My opinion

I was going to write about the whole license, but my only criticisms are in section 3 of this license, so I'll only write about that.

Section 3

Part A.

I wouldn't add this clause, but I have no problem with it, I just think that it is redundant.

Some may argue that MS is just being explicit to protect their asses, and we'll get back to that later.

Part B.

FUD possibility: The patent clause only covers contributors, it doesn't include users. The community has every right to reject this license if it is handling such an issue improperly (any license before the OSI at the moment should be considering this issue).

I can understand the need for licenses that don't involve patenting, but patents in licenses should be made an issue among accepted licenses.

Part C.

This seems to echo part D, I personally prefer the language of part D.

Part D.

I may be missing a legal nuance, but the word complies in the phrase "... you may only do so under a license that complies with this license."

Upon reading that, I wondered what "complies" meant, and looked for a definition. Since I cannot find one, I will note that I have interpreted it several ways, and because of the ambiguity, I would avoid this license.

Part E.

An argument for adding part A of this section was that MS is just covering their asses. Notice the disclaimer? I think it isn't as explicit as it should be. Of course, I'm no lawyer, so my evaluation of this scenario would be discounted in a heartbeat.

But, what I can do is have Microsoft argue this for me. Vista, the most important product they have, and they definitely care about it, has a disclaimer section [64.233.167.104][google pdf reader] in it's EULA (obviously).

Page 10, paragraphs E, G and H of the EULA are equivalent to Part E of this license. In fact, the only part missing is part C of the EULA:

"This warranty does not cover problems caused by your acts (or failures to act), the acts of others, or events beyond Microsoft's reasonable control."

Of course, we could look at other parties' licenses. And if MS' lawyers think conventional disclaimers (in the FLOSS community) have redundant or problematic text, I'd be glad to hear their commentary (and for the sake of acceptance, I think they should publish it if they have not already done so).

IANAL, but I don't really have a big problem (with the exception of part 3D) with the text of the license, although I think it needs some cleaning up. I also appreciate the patent additions, and agree that more conventional licenses should look into incorporating this "feature."

I think MS is really trying to get involved with open source programmers with this license (as opposed to feigning).

MS really trying to get involved with OS

I think MS is really trying to get involved with open source programmers with this license (as opposed to feigning).

I generally agree with this stance, but I also believe that those who point to the poisonous relationship MS has had with open source (or anyone else), over the years are quite correct to sound the warning.

Historically, Microsoft has often had alternative (often dishonest), motives for initiatives they put forward. Usually these revolve around dividing and conquering markets. The most likely ulterior motive here is to divide the OS community by carving off the GPL and FSF people (the only license the MS-PL would not play well with), and to maginalise individuals like Richard Stallman in particular.

I predict that if the MS-PL license is accepted and MS becomes part of the OS community, from that day forward the general understanding in the press/media will be that there are two different camps of open source. "Serious" (business-related) open source, and "Flaky" (left-wing FSF open source). The very fact that the second group is open about the ideological basis of their movement will work against them as it does in the political realm as well. Both camps are actually just as ideologically based as each other, but only the FSF is up front about it.

While this over-simplification of the field into two camps may be spurious, Microsoft is driving public perception here as they always do. All those folks that have never really thought seriously about open source at all will suddenly "discover" it because MS is into it, and their perception of the playing field will be defined by Microsoft's participation and seen through the Microsoft "lens" on open source.

I would expect all the major tech media outlets, especially the mainstream/popular ones, to jump right on this interpretation, in the same way as they jump on all Microsoft pronouncements. I also can't think of a single reason why any of MS's Enterprise customers or any large corporation for that matter would not also be happy in that camp. Even great open source supporters like IBM would probably much rather prefer it if the FSF were "just a bunch of kooky hippies" that no one had to worry about anymore. This kind of perception could be hugely popular, and not just with Microsofties.

As a long time left-wing kookie hippy I am not in favour of this, but I can certainly see how wildly popular this could be to large chunks of the open source community. This is classic Microsoft divide and conquer stuff and I can't see any reason why it won't work like a charm.

TFA says it all

From what I read in the article, this "Ms-PL" is just a generic copyleft license with built a built in grant of patents and no-warranty clause. Other than the fact that the license was written by Microsoft, I don't see anything possibly controversial about it.

Re:TFA says it all

See any of the many comments above. It's GPL-incompatible, almost certainly by design (since they basically make it as liberal as possible, but stop *just short* of GPL-compatibility).

It's an effort to split the open-source community into two camps, one around the GPL and "ideology," and another around the BSD and MS licenses and "pragmatism." In time, Microsoft can just grab all the code from the BSD and MS license camps, incorporate it into its own products, break compatibility, and walk away from the whole thing. At the very least they get a lot of work done for free, at the most, they've killed the GPL, which is open-source's main weapon against proprietization.

Re:TFA says it all

My complaint is the naming.

They have released the MS-PL and MS-LPL, with names purposefully similar to the GPL and LGPL.

The MS-PL is mostly okay, but the MS-LPL says the software can only run on MS Windows.

I see this as an attempt to confuse the situation and muddle up the name space.

Is it any wonder people are suspicious.

The pattern of Microsoft's development and distribution strategies has historically been to create a sickness - in the form of a defective technology - and present itself as the only cure. One of the best examples of this perhaps might be MS getting into the antivirus business.

That said, if Microsoft were to release code under an OSI approved license, it would be foolish to choose not to use it on ideological grounds alone.

Forget revolution, insurrection is where it's at. The more open code the better.

If OSI is to retain credibility, it must approve

The license meets every criteria for "Open Source" that OSI has published, and MS is following all the published procedures for approval.

They have no choice but to approve it, unless they want to lose credibility, and change "Open Source" to mean "whatever they happen to like", rather than "a license that meets this specified list of objective criteria".

All of the objections raises are very pointless. For example, there was the objection to how it does not get along with some other licenses. Hello! The same thing applies to many of the already-approved licenses. The objections from the Google guy are even worse--they don't seem to have anything whatsoever to do with the stated purpose of OSI. He's just using the mailing list as a soapbox.

"Want some candy little kid?"

Even if MS released software under GPLv3, I wouldn't touch it. I'm sorry but I do not care to use anything MS.

Taking "free" anything from MS seems to me like taking free candy from a predator.

I have done very well without using any MS products for the past 7 years.

Dog food

The real question here is if Microsoft are going to eat their own dog food, as the term goes, and actually use this license with software that they release. If they don't, we can safely say that it's all just a show.

Re:Dog food

If it gets approved, my guess is that they will loudly say that MS-PL is an approved open source license. Then they will release code under the MS-LPL license. Most people won't understand or see that extra L, and assume it's similar.

Of course, the MS-LPL is one of the worst licenses you can get (It can only run on MS Windows etc). They will purposefully confuse people with the distinction.

Re:Dog food

Ask yourself why MS is doing this. Why release the MS-PL and MS-LPL, with such similar naming to the GPL and LGPL, but making the MS-LPL an awful license.

Because they have a business to run. And they want to release some code in a reasonably open, BSD-style license, and they want to release other code in a way that is still reasonably open, but keeps it on their platform.

I cant think of a more reasonably way to do that than what they've done. The MS-PL and MS-LPL are identical (to my quick read at least), except the MS-LPL restricts it to the Windows platform. Again, their code, their right. Would you like someone trying to tell you what kind of license you can release code you create under?

And to say that MS-PL and MS-LPL are 'purposefully similar' in name to GPL and LGPL is just being either disingenuous or ignorant of the facts.

Let's look at some of the more popular, well known licenses supported by OSI, and how similar they are to the GPL and LGPL:

From Open Source Licenses by Category [opensource.org]:

GPL
LGPL

MPL - Mozilla Public License
CDDL - Common Development and Distribution License
CPL - Common Public License
EPL - Eclipse Public License
ECL - Educational Community License
APL - Adaptive Public License
OSL - Open Software License
QPL - Qt Public License
LPL - Lucent Public License

Now lets look at the MS licenses [microsoft.com]:

MS-PL
MS-LPL
MS-CL
MS-LCL
MS-RL

And you know what? Either phonetically, visually, or statistically (length, similarity of characters in similar positions, etc), the MS license abbreviations deviate farther from GPL and LGPL than do the other open source licenses supported by OSI.

The MS- in the front of each really distinguishes them. Maybe twitter would like to chime and and suggest that they should all be M$-.

About the only similarities are:

They all end with 'L'. But this is true for pretty much every license at OSI, so nothing unusual there.

One of MS's licenses ends with PL. So do a great number of other licenses at OSI, nothing unusual there.

MS has adopted a modifier pattern to their licenses to make some of them 'Limited'. MS-PL and MS-LPL, MS-CL and MS-LCL for example. This is similar in style to what FSF has done with GPL and LGPL, though its arguable that the 'Limited' has a nearly opposite meaning of what the 'Lesser' in LGPL has.

So in short, when looking at the license abbreviations, compared to the population of other OSI supported licenses, we see that the MS licenses vary far more from the GPL/LGPL than other OSI supported licenses do.

Based on this, it appears that, quite the opposite of your claim, MS went out of their way to make their license abbreviations easily distinguishable from the GPL and LGPL.

What others are finding at fault...

Groklaw has had a discussion about Microsoft's open source license [groklaw.net].Here's one of the quotes from there.

Michael Tiemann, president of the non-profit Open Source Initiative [computerworld.com], said that provisions in three out of five of Microsoft's shared-source licenses [microsoft.com] that restrict source code to running only on the Windows operating system would contravene a fundamental tenet of open-source licenses as laid out by the OSI. By those rules, code must be free for anyone to view, use, modify as they see fit.

"I am certain that if they say Windows-only machines, that would not fly because that would restrict the field of use," said Tiemann in an interview late Friday.

hmmm i'm sick

Should i start to cry now or later :(

Have To Defend MS Here

I don't like MS much but I have to say I'm on their side in this matter. They are submitting licensees for approval not asking OSI to support or approve of their broader business model. OSI needs to present itself as an impartial organization that will render fair objective verdicts about whether a license counts as open source whoever submits that license.

Besides, I think it creates all the wrong incentives when we give MS shit for improving its relation with open source. Admittedly maybe I'm a bit influenced here by this post [tirania.org] by Miguel de Icaza's blog but I do get the sense that MS is being treated worse just because they are MS. Of course it's only natural for people in the open source community to want to get back at MS when they can given how MS is treating them but in the long run I think giving them grief over their attempts to open source stuff just contributes to the perception in MS that open source software is a fanatical rabid anti-capitalist movement not reasonable people making software they can work with and make compromises to.

There are already several...

decent if not exceptional licenses MS could use, we don't need another. Once again, why does MS need to invent their own version of everything (game consoles, digital media players, graphics APIs, etc..). Past experience has shown they release their own version of something in order to subvert (at least) or take over (most often) that product/protocol/market segment. Why is anyone shocked that people are greeting this with suspicion?

Google's opinion on open source matters why?

Now I know everyone loves google but other than using open source products what exactly have they done to help out the community?

Why the concern?

I don't see why anyone would worry about Microsoft co-opting software to destroy the free competition...
Just look at what Microsoft did for Java! /sarcasm

Its open source!

The role of the OSI is to certify licenses that comply with the OSI guidelines for open source licenses. I understand that people don't trust Microsoft. Either do I. However, to reject a license based on who is proposing it rather than the content of the license would put lie to "open" in open source. Eventually Microsoft will adapt, and that will involve working with the open source community. They will also continue to compete.

Microsoft isn't like the Borg; there isn't one hive mind but rather thousands of individuals, some to are more friendly to open source than others. This creates internal frictions within the company in terms of determining strategy. Perhaps we should be supporting elements who are trying to move towards open source? Some have tried to make the point that Microsoft are undermining the GPL with this license, but if they wanted to do that they just need to make code available under a BSD style license.

This license is far more interesting, in that it deals with the patent infringement issue. After reading this license and separating the fact that it was prepared by Microsoft from the content, I feel that it is well written and worthwhile. There are fights we need to win against Microsoft in the area of file formats and their patent infringement claims. However this is not a good reason to reject good licenses.

Heed the words of Sun Tzu

Let nothing be done rashly, and at random, but all things according to the most exact and perfect rules of art.

...and above all things, keep yourself from distraction, and intend not anything vehemently, but be free and consider all things

Microsoft's largest revenue source is Office applications. I suggest Microsoft's attempted fast track of their XML standard and this attempt at OSI appeasement are just distractions. While the vocal majority of the Open Source community impels significant attention towards these distractions, Microsoft is quietly solidifying and extending it's position in the user application market.

Stop chasing every little piece of cheese Microsoft throws in the maze.

Bill Hilf caught in a lie!

Chris DiBona of Google Inc. has asked the question if the OSI license submission ment that Microsoft would "stop using the market confusing term Shared Source." While I disagree on several things, I think this question deserves a reasonable answer. Rather than answering the question, instead Bill Hilf provided the excuse that "the reasons we continued to call it the 'Shared Source' program was to acknowledge that these licenses had not been approved by the OSI." [1]
.
Based on what was said by Bill Hilf, a project covered under MS-CL or MS-PL should be referred in Microsoft marketing as a "Shared Source" application. But with the Sharedpoint Learning Kit, covered by the MS-CL [2], the term used by Microsoft is "open source application." [3] Independent of approval by the OSI, Microsoft has already pre-approved it's use of "Shared Source" and "open source" as interchangeable terms in a way that appears to be an attempt to purposely confuse. This could even be seen as a method to disrupt the moment that the previous open source terminology had gain in the popular press. Regardless of the intention, Microsoft's use of SS and OS as interchangeable terms is not consistent with Bill Hilf's claim.
.
So, this leads back to DiBona's question which is still left without a reasonable answer. Will Microsoft stop using the marketing term Shared Source as a method to confuse? If Microsoft is serious about working with the OSI, why is SS already used as an interchangeable term before the OSI has even approved the licenses?
.
[1] http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:1338 5:200708:mkohfpmjekmjelobgffa [crynwr.com]
[2] http://www.codeplex.com/SLK/Project/License.aspx [codeplex.com]
[3] http://www.microsoft.com/opensource/choice.mspx [microsoft.com]

Not much opposition other than DiBona

"What I find interesting is not just that this has received a lot of criticism and opposition, but that one of the key opponents is Chris DiBona, open source programs manager for Google, Inc. "

From reading the OSI discussion list [nabble.com], DiBona is virtually the ONLY person raising criticism and opposition. This summary is widely innacurate.

usdie dwon

(I posted this at Linux.com, as well.)

This license is full of technical problems, the least of which is the attempt to eliminate the MIT/BSD license "ambiguity" about whether alternative licenses can be used with it.

It may sound like I'm biased, but, like most Microsoft products, it attempts to enable a quick and simple implementation by implementing the obvious, but wrong elements of the theory.

Start with the name.

Permissive? Relative to the license, it is not permissive at all. No other license can be mixed in -- no perl artistic license, no GPL 1, 2, or 3, no Apache 1 or 2, no Mozilla, no BSD/MIT, not even a plain "Do with it what you want and I don't give a wooden nickel!" one liner license. At this point, I'm not sure even public domain source could be mixed in without opening a project that uses this Microsoft Permissive License up to lawsuits.

Relative to the source code, it is way too permissive. Anybody can join Microsoft's commune, so to speak. Anyone that can bring all contributors to the table, anyway. It's all a ("happy?") playground where everyone plays under the gentle gaze of the original authors who claim the original copyright of the original source code. For practical purposes, forks won't work well.

(Think of how it would be if someone with a strong personality like Theo, but lacking the commitment to freedom, were to release something like openbsd under this license.)

Freedom and openness are _not_ permissive. We are clear, are we not, that the GPL is by no means permissive? You are allowed to use the software only under the principles of protecting everyone's freedom to use the software. They way the license structures the limits and grants gives project leaders the authority to maintain their natural stewardship over the project while allowing _freedom_ minded individuals and groups to join in.

One way they can join in is to fork the project, but the license provides the framework for a clean fork. You can legally move on without leaving your source behind you, and that is a huge part of the freedom.

Even the BSD/MIT licenses are not truly permissive. The apparent ambiguities effectively allow room for project leaders to maintain their stewardship, and allow room for clashes to result in project forks.

The BSD/MIT licenses also technically allow "darkening" a fork, where a user refuses to pay his natural duty to the community by contributing back his or her changes. But the license provides no inherent leverage for the dark forks to use against the open forks. The license also allows the natural consequences of darkening a fork to occur. (Darkened forks naturally tend to wither away.)

(This "Microsoft Permissive License", on the other hand, will effectively work agaist project forks, and will effectively work in favor of keeping project leaders in charge way beyond their time.)

Again, the apparent permissiveness of the BSD/MIT licenses is in comparison to the radical pseudo-traditional idea that source code should be closed from public view. (Closed is actually very permissive, because whatever was done was done behind closed doors, and the guy with the biggest pocketbook got to play with whomever whenever with relatively few social consequences.)

The terms of the Microsoft Permissive License are inverted. The limitations are stated after the grants, which is going to make for some really difficult-to-untangle legal arguments.

The use-at-your-own-risk warning almost appears to not be there, which is probably appropriate for Microsoft's sales machine, but is not at all appropriate for the end users.

The grants are not complete. In the end, your lawyer is going to be telling you, you can't do that more often than not, preventing the implementation of useful features which is one of the primary benefits of truly open licenses.

The patent protection clause is a club, not a shield. Very one-way.

The above is just a start. Like I said, it is a typical product of Microsoft, implementi

Consider the facts

Microsoft has made incredible sums of money from their monopoly control of desktop operating systems. Linux represents the greatest threat to their monopoly that's ever come about. Their continued domination (and pocket stuffing) depends upon Linux (or any other competitor) being destroyed or sidelined.

Microsoft has a long history of anti-competitive behavior - look at how they've dealt with Stacker, Lotus, Netscape, DR-DOS - the list goes on and on. This is their history, and provides a good indication of their future behavior.

Now they're trying to make nice, put on the "open source" show and offer to interoperate with Linux? They're going to lay down their knives and cuddle up to the biggest threat to their continued domination?

Anyone that believes that Microsoft is sincere in their offer to open source their code - or work along with Linux - is (pardon me for being so blunt, but) a deluded fool. They'll prevaricate and make false offers as they try to find a chink in the armor - then they'll move in for the kill. Remember, they offered deals to Stack, Netscape, etc, etc. and every time it ended up badly for their "partners". Why believe that this time will be different? They're just trying to use the OSI rules against open source - will stupidity allow the MS camel to insert its nose into the open source tent?

Dotty Slashers shoud read and fully understand --

-- each clause of the actual licence [microsoft.com] before pontificating total nonsense. That so much utter twaddle is being spouted is a very sad commentary on the state of literacy in the US.
( Sadly, in much of the English speaking world too. )

1. Definitions. [ ... ] A "contributor" is any person that distributes its contribution under this license.

This infers that the 'people' who contribute to the original are neuters. Thus presumably mindless & unable to contribute anything of an intellectual nature. A better worded and less offensive clause would be:-

A "contributor" is any person who distributes her, or his, contribution under this license.
A rather sad reflection on the grammatical knowledge of the person who wrote the licence.

Now, read very carefully:

3. Conditions and Limitations.

[ ... Non contentious clauses ( I presume ) ... ]

(D) 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.

So i.e., if you use code from a project under this licence you may intermingle it with any other code merely by saying:- "Parts of this project use code licenced under the Microsoft permissive License, as reproduced hereunder", or words to that effect. You apparently do not even have to distinguish Ms-PL code from your code, if you did they would have used the word "contribution" rather than "distribution" in the above paragraph.

If you distribute any portion of the software in compiled or object code form, you may only do so under a license that complies with this license.

Thus, in effect, Ms-PL code cannot be distributed when incorporated into pre-compiled object or executable packages such as .rpm or .deb files as we know them at the moment. Frankly it's a great big Whoop-de-do! It's not by any means beyond the wit of the Free Software and Open Source Communities to compile the affected modules on the endusers' machines. Yes, it's an inconvenience for the distributors, but by no means anything like what is suggested by the level of outrage I read. Remember that Gentoo and others have been doing this for many years.

I know that the business practices and code quality espoused by Microsoft have, in the past, been highly dubious, but let's just give them a moment to demonstrate that they have indeed seen the light and realised that being decent citizens is a better plan for the continued existence of their business.

Those people?

Welcome to the World of Open Source! Everyone is welcome to come join in the....

What? Microsoft is coming? Hey, can you go flip the sign to "Closed" for a bit? No, they're already here? Ummmm, yeah I guess, well... we don't really want THOSE people in here though. I mean, they don't think like we do and will just stink up the place.

Look, we only serve GPL here buddy. You wanna buy some GPL, or you wanna go sit in the BSD section over there behind the curtain?

The nerve of some people! Thinking they can come in here and offer any old free license, as if we care about anything THEY say. Hmph!

strategies of war

Old histories have probably already noticed this (though I wonder if any have stated it publically).

Microsoft is doing much the same type of war planning that WWII Germany did prior
to invading France or co-opting Italy. first they send in spies and influence peddlers,
then achieve 'controlling influence' then setup a situation where they can march
right in (seemingly to save the day).

After the 'invasion' if the recipient country doesn't see "eye to eye" on cerain
matters, they are slapped rather hard (executions, purges, legal actions?).

Same situation here. Microsoft is now in the "join, trojan horse, kill it off" sort of plan.

Microsoft should be best viewed with utter suspicion or (at worst) not trusted at all.

Their business model is, coincidentally, very similar to the same ones being
used by "big content" (they very same guys who sue 14 year old kids of disabled mothers for
alleged filesharing on non-existant computers).

so, perhaps it is best to nip this one in the bud before it goes too far
and we are stuck with no solutions (or rights) at all....

Evil by default?

So even if Microsoft starts playing by the rules, they're still evil and wrong?