Microsoft License Goes to OSI But Not From Redmond 142
An anonymous reader writes "eWeek is reporting that a Microsoft Shared Source license, the Microsoft Community License, was submitted to the Open Source Initiative for official approval, but it wasn't Microsoft who submitted it. The license it appears was submitted by John Cowan, who is a programmer and blogger and who also volunteers for the Chester County InterLink, a non-profit founded in 1993 by former OSI president Eric Raymond and Jordan Seidel. Needless to say, the OSI contacted Microsoft to see if it should evaluate the license anyway, and was told to drop it."
Maybe they fear... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
That would be like the Don worrying about the wiseguys knocking him off
And people wonder why ... (Score:5, Insightful)
What next, are "we" going to start submitting bogus press releases, and trying to hold Microsoft to them? (I know that one is a little of an extrapolation, but not a huge deal.)
Re:And people wonder why ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And people wonder why ... (Score:4, Insightful)
BSD Licensed != Berkley University Code
MIT Licensed != MIT University code
GPL != FSF code
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But i would like to know why it was submited. I would also like to know how close it comes to being OSI compliant.
Re: (Score:2)
The point of debating it is because we don't know it is a prank. You and probably some one before you just asumed it was a prank. Thats just a preconditioned "what if". Many more are availible.
Well, I guess we can read the motivation [blogspot.com] from the guy himself. I suppose I still will characterize it as a stupid prank even after reading this, but I can see how someone might disagree.
I would also like to know how close it comes to being OSI compliant.
Didn't even start apparently.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I also don't agree that the license "doesn't even start to come close to being OSI compliant." OSI-approved licenses are a subset of OSI-compliant ones.
Re: (Score:2)
I also don't agree that the license "doesn't even start to come close to being OSI compliant." OSI-approved licenses are a subset of OSI-compliant ones.
I was just noting that OSI didn't even start the process. So this gives us no information.Depends on your definition (Score:4, Insightful)
However that's not really relevant here. MS's Shared Source license isn't OSS and they don't bill it as such. It's there so that certain groups, mostly governments and research institutions but also software partners, can get a license of MS's code to look at. They aren't licensing it for resale, it's for research and testing.
In the case of the Community License here it would mostly be for companies wishing to make extensions to MS software. If you wanted to make something that needed source access (for example Diskeeper back in the NT 3.1 days) and waned to sell that, you'd need to get this particular license.
None of their Shared Source things are shall-issue. You contact them and talk about why you want it and what for. If they like that, they'll discuss costs.
MS has no interest in its licenses being used by other people. They aren't in the business of writing a license for everyone, or dealing with potential fallout of that. It is for them to license their software when they wish to do so. Thus they aren't interested in the OSI picking it up. It doesn't benefit them at all to have a standard made of it.
Nothing is stopping you from using it as a reference for writing your own license, of course.
Re:Depends on your definition (Score:4, Insightful)
But with that definition all source is open; If I want to look at the Vista code I just buy this company called Microsoft, and all its code is available to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess you could say that you could buy Microsoft and then GPL the Vista code and then sell Microsoft and look at it but that's kind of a silly extreme, wouldn't you agree?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They may define "Open Source" (which appears to be a trademark), but not necessarily open source - I'll leave that to a good dictionary. Also, it seems possible that some people might consider the members of OSI to be zelots themselves as much as say, Steve Ballmer would be for his respective cause.
Re:Depends on your definition NOT! (Score:4, Informative)
A license doesn't have to be OSI-approved in order to be an open-source license. An OSI-approved license is one that is an open-source license in the judgment of various people, not just the OSI board members.
Not Consistent (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The definition may be consistent, but it is not the criterion for OSI approval.
No Hidden Agenda (Score:2)
My point is that the criteria are partly subjective on the part of the licencor, not that there's anything sneeky going on.
Re:And people wonder why ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:And people wonder why ... (Score:4, Interesting)
OT: Clarification (Score:2)
Re:And people wonder why ... (Score:5, Informative)
FSF's opinion (Score:3, Insightful)
On the other hand the FSF [fsf.org] has shown what they're thinking about it [fsf.org].
Although both institutions (read: ESR and RMS) are known to have divergent point of view, this hints about how much this license can be free, and what one should think before starting his own project using this kind of licensing (something for which knowing OSI, FSF and DFSG [debian.org]'s stance can be genuinly useful, as some other
Re: (Score:2)
Funny that the anchor you linked to is "non-free documentation licenses", given that the gnu "free documentation license" doesn't itself pass the DFSG, on which the OSD was based.
WARNING: Wrong anchor, sorry (Score:2)
Sorry, I mixed up the links : THIS [fsf.org] is the link to the non-free software license.
Thank you for pointing out my error.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:And people wonder why ... (Score:5, Funny)
Your use of the word extrapolation is a bit of a stretch.
Re:And people wonder why ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:And people wonder why ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft licenses aren't worth the bits on the screen.. they can be changed at will by Microsoft and "paper" versions don't count. MS refuses to version or date their licenses.. it's all a game to them. If OSI was to approve a MS license, MS would have to guarantee that it wouldn't change without notice.. and they flatly refuse to do that!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Couldn't the OSI say "here's the text of the license as of today, this version is/is not certified open source."
If MS then went and changed it, that version would be different from what the OSI approved, and the decision based on the old version would cease to be valid. However, the old version of the license wouldn't suddenly become invalid.
There might be some confusion as to the naming of them, but I think that could be easily overcome. The OSI could say "The MS Shared
Re: (Score:2)
Hunh? They might not be worth anything to you, but I imagine they are worth something to Microsoft, and I really don't think it's a game to them. I'm seriously puzzled
Oh, that's easy. (Score:3, Insightful)
Since Microsoft aren't required to use any specific license for any specific product, and since a product can be "open source" and under multiple licenses that include non-open ones (eg: the Windows version of the Qt toolkit, for the longest time) and "non-free" ones (virtually all other dual-licensing cases), the argument that Microsoft would be
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'll field this one.
You see, impersonal entities like "the OSI" lack a certain important quality known as sapience (though commenly mistakenly called sentience - it also lacks that, but that's rather beside the point) - without which, it's incapable of making decisions on its own without the help of an individual or group of individuals that do have that quality. In the OSI's case, as with many others, that group is
Re:And people wonder why ... (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't speak for the OSI, Microsoft, my employer, or anyone but me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1. The OSI website frequently features anti-MS rhetoric (and they do even today). There's no way in hell OSI would do a fair evaluation. So they would "officially" reject MS licenses, which is what the submitter likely wanted.
2. MS doesn't really give a damn what a self-appointed priesthood has to say regarding their license, and don't want to kowtow to them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who knows? Who cares?
At WORST, it is a completely innocuous stunt. Why would someone judge a group harshly, over something so trivial?
I guess in commercial corporations, no "stupid pranks" ever happen. ANYWHERE!
Traditional Business Plan (Score:1, Insightful)
On the plus side, open source windows would probably have a TON of exploits at first, but eventually get secured to some degree -- despite the fact that the security model is fundamentally flawed..
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Come t
Re: (Score:2)
Let's see:
I wish they had evaluated it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I wish they had evaluated it. (Score:5, Informative)
Have you looked at the license. I confess I had not before I read this,but then I check it out at http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/li censingbasics/communitylicense.mspx [microsoft.com]
The license itself is short and sweet, and easy to understand. Or at least so I deem, but of course IANAL.
I have no idea what software Microsoft has licensed under this license, but a casual read of it looks like the license should be certifiable by OSI. As far as I can tell, the only potentially confusing issue is the patent retaliation clause.
In most other respects, it looks like a simpler version of the GPL, including being viral. I can't imagine why MS wouldn't want it blessed by OSI. Probably they just don't want to be recognized for giving source away even when they do so. Heck, they might be worried that it would scare off investors who consider Microsoft's IP portfolio as a reason for buy MS shares. :-)
Now, it probably is a Good Thing that it isn't blessed, because the last thing we want is another viral license that also happens to be incompatible with GPL. (The patent retaliation makes it GPL-incompatible.) Life is hard enough figuring out Open Source license as it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I highly doubt that. More likely they're hoping someone else like you will think it's innocent and OSI compliant, and accidentally taint the Linux kernel with some of it's code. Having the OSI go over it would give programmers a clear wa
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I wish they had evaluated it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft seeking OSI certification would be admitting that Open-Source is a viable alternative way of writing software. It would be placing a certain amount of respect and recognition to other open source licences if they seeked an equal certification for their own.
That and, as someone pointed out earlier, they don't want their license being offical stamped non-compliant, makes it a lot harder to argue that they do release software as "Open-Source" for the PR department.
Re:I wish they had evaluated it. (Score:5, Interesting)
#1...MS requires the license to USE the software. Most of the others only require the license to reproduce or modify + distribute software. They demand something, however small, just to USE the software as it's given to you. It's an EULA, not a license. Notice they think you don't have the right to even PREPARE deritive works without permission.
Section 3 part A looks simpler than GPL, but combine with part C looks like BSD... except Microsoft always keeps it's mits in your work and all the work that follows. Where as BSD and GPL the orginal author's say ends as long as your new copy follows the rules. And again, they following users would appear to be required to accept Microsoft's EULA as well. GPL binds no progam license to any company in this manner.
And of course, Microsoft has a more restrictive patent clause than even GPL 3. Where as GPL 3 says you must ensure you have patent rights, and grant rights to downstream users, it doesn't try to take away from you for suing somebody. I know there was talk, but it's not in the license. Microsoft removes your license if you think you need to sue them.. or even counter/cross sue in defense of them sueing you! So if this was to become widespread, anybody that MS sued would loose all rights to the 'community' software when they tried to defend themselves.
I do notice 1 glaring ommisson for a microsoft license... They didn't leave themselves the right to revise/extend/revoke the license at will they usually include in every other license they write. I guess they're not all bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Not by my reading. Where does it say that redistributions of it must require users to agree to the licenses to use the software?
Even if MS puts a click-through license at the beginning of the installations or whatever of the software doesn't mean that you have to comply.
(Note that the grant of priviledge to use patents is different.)
except Microsoft always keeps it's mits in your work and all the work that follows.
How so? There's the patent clause, but that's all
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not saying you're wrong, but the license says: This license governs use of the accompanying software. If you use the software, you accept this license. If you do not accept the license, do not use the software.
and
(C) If you distribute the software in source code form you may do so only under this license (i.e., you must include a complete copy of this license with your distribu
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It would mean they could terminate the licence at any time, or at least force licencees to pay insupportable royalties.
Although I too am not a lawyer, so there my be good reasons why this would not work.
Re: (Score:2)
Point 1: MS claiming infringement based upon use of the software would be self contradictorary. If it's possible to infringe one of MS's patents by using their software, then that patent is covered by 2(B) and there's no infringement. The only thing that would make this possible would be if you added 3rd party functionality that infringes on the patent that MS orig
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting, isn't it? The problem becomes one of making the other party sue. Or counter-sue, of course; the patent disqualifiaction clause is one-sided. MS don't lose a thing if
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I know what you mean, but you do realise what that L stands for, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh come now, that's no argument at all. You can equally well say that when I copy anything, unless I do it by hand, I'm not doing it, the equipment I use is.
2) If you need to copy to use, the Berne Convention says this is not copying controlled by copyright
I'm not familiar enough with the Berne Convention to comment on this. If it is the case, however, and if it trumps local law (which are two big ifs), then you're free to simply ignore the EULA
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
These are, in fact, necessary. The GPL is an interesting license for claiming that you don't have to accept it to use the software, but it's worth noting that outsi
Re: (Score:2)
Here's the definition [opensource.org] of open source per the OSI.
Here's the MS "Community License" [microsoft.com].
What is in conflict?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I would never abuse the OSI process by submitting a license for consideration unless I thought that license met the Open Source definition. Life is too short for such machinations.
Mod Up (Score:2)
With that said I would only change my post to read "the best reason for submitting" instead of "undoubtedly the reason for submitting".
Whether this license meets the letter of the definition is something best left to the lawyers but this EULA (or any EULA) is definately a violation of the spirit of open source.
I also still maintain that OSI evaluation of a license should not be dependant upon consent by the author. Either a license is
MS license is likely to meet OSI compliance (Score:2)
You didn't read the article; nor did I until just now.
First, the reasons for OSI not evaluating licenses that aren't formally submitted by the license authors are detailed in the article.
Second, the MS license was NOT submitted so that it would officially be rejected by OSI. In fact, the opposite is the case. It was submitted
Re: (Score:2)
I still haven't. I will remain a proper and upstanding member of the slashdot community.
"First, the reasons for OSI not evaluating licenses that aren't formally submitted by the license authors are detailed in the article."
I haven't read the article but I have read some of Russ' comments here and also John (the submitter) reply'd to me as well. It certainly seems that my post is due an overrated mod.
With that said I still think the OSI should evalua
degrees of separation (Score:1, Funny)
Uh oh... IEEE Computer Society [csociety.org] links to OSI's site (first sentence, "Open Source"), which link
A quick rundown-- (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Microsoft's possible fear (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
It also appears that someone forgot to install service pack 2 and the most recent critical updates to the license.
This is the Clue Stick (Score:2)
If it doesn't work they'll buy the best developers and hide them away. If that doesn't work, they'll drop more litigation bombs.
It's all about maintaining the monopoly people. There's no maybe, that's it.
Why MS don't want OSI's Blessings (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Obi
Osier
Soy
Soil
Oasis
damage to OSI's credibility (Score:3, Insightful)
OSI's decision erodes confidence in OSI. If they want to be seen as a dependable arbiter of whether licenses comply with open source principles, they must evaluate licenses that have some importance in the market, no matter who actually submits the license for review. Asking the original author of the license for permission is not acceptable.
Strengthening OSI's credibility (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Exactly.
Re: (Score:2)
And why shouldn't they? Microsoft's behavior is a matter of public record, and there are numerous instances where strong condemnation of their corporate behavior is clearly justified.
What you wanted to happen was for OSI to, on its own, evaluate an MS license, reject it,
No, what I want to happen was for OSI to review it against their criteria and publish their conclusions, whatever they may be. I would welcome it if their license complied with OSI requirements
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see your point. Not-for-profits do certifications for third parties all the time. Why should OSI refuse to do what other such organizations regularly do?
For what it's worth, a cursory reading of the license leads me to believe that this microsoft community license is an open source licence.
I
Re:damage to OSI's credibility (Score:4, Informative)
Anyway, we certainly would have evaluated them had John not withdrew the approval request. Approval was just not the best of all possible courses of action, which is why we asked him to withdraw.
Re: (Score:2)
As I see it...
If Microsoft's shared source license is OSI compliant, then OSI should make that determination publicly so that Microsoft's change in behavior is recognized and people can feel secure in using the software.
If Microsoft's shared source license is formally OSI compliant, but you don't think it is actuall
Who submitted the GPL? (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
Not to defend, but... (Score:2)
Not to defend them, but FUD is FUD, even if it's against the 'other' side of the Open Source fence.
Nothing about this is wrong. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It would be interesting if they ever intended shared source to be anything other then an opensource riddin publicity show.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems only reasonable to me. The proper course of action seems to be practicing patience.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Those were indeed unflattering of Microsoft
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The official recommendation of PETA [wikipedia.org] is to split hairs, not hares. Preferrably human hairs, from your own head.
In fact, they even had a campaign with supermodels such as Christy Turlington and Naomi Campbell posing naked, with their heads shaved, on billboards, with the slogan "I'd Rather Go Bald than Split Hares" emblazoned across their chests.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do (Data link)
Not (Network)
Throw (Transport)
Stale (Session)
Pizza (Presentation)
Away (Application)
I do not know why this is still in my brain, I learned it 5+ years ago and have essentially never used it. It's like what Dave Barry said [umich.edu]: "[W]hen I was in college, I had to memorize -- don't ask me why -- the names of three metaphysical poets other than John Donne. I have managed to forget one of them, but I still remember that the other two were named Vaughan and Crashaw. Sometimes
Re: (Score:2)