OSI Approves Microsoft Ms-PL and Ms-RL 301
Russ Nelson writes "In a board meeting held October 10th and announced today, the Open Source Initiative approved two of Microsoft's software licenses: the Microsoft Reciprocal License and the Microsoft Public License. These licenses are refreshingly short and clean, compared to, say, the GPLv3 and the Sun CDDL. They share a patent peace clause, a no-trademark-license clause, and they differ only in the essential clause of reciprocation. Of course, Microsoft is not widely trusted in the Open Source world, and their motives have been called into question during the approval discussions. How can they be attacking Open Source projects on one hand, and seeking not only to use open source methods, but even to use the OSI Approved Open Source trademark? Nobody knows for sure except Microsoft. But if you are confident that Open Source is the best way to develop software (as we at the Open Source Initiative are), then you can see why Microsoft would both attack Open Source and seek to use it. It is both their enemy and their salvation."
They're animals... (Score:5, Funny)
Captain James T. Kirk: They're animals.
Captain Spock: Jim, there is an historic opportunity here.
Captain James T. Kirk: Don't believe them. Don't trust them.
Captain Spock: They're dying.
Captain James T. Kirk: Let them die!
easy answer (Score:5, Insightful)
Extend, embrace.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:easy answer (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Also, all the Xen 'public' headers I have used so far under Windows compile under the WDK provided compiler with about two extra #defines required.
gnu may embrace and extend but not extinguish (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, like almost any project that implements a standard. At some point they will add something... Ok...
And now you contradict yourself in your conclusion. Anyway, if you want to avoid compiler dependency *you* should be testing on more than one from the start. Anyone who knows to complain about compiler portability should know th
Yeah, one tiny little difference (Score:5, Informative)
GCC and Bash are opensource, you can get them to run on ANYTHING you bloody well want too. So if you want to use code that only compiles under gcc then all you need to do is get gcc to work on your system. Have you checked how many systems gcc works on? Go ahead, I will wait. Wow, long list eh?
Now compare this with closed source, lets say C#, how many systems does MS compiler run on? Oh, only windows. Wow that was quick.
Same with their IE, it ain't the problem that IE does things differently, it is that nobody really knows and can't copy that behaviour. THe problem ain't that IE does things differently as such, it is that they don't publish how to do it, so everybody else is left with browsers that run their "enhancements" slightly differently and end up with messed up pages.
All your post has done is to show WHY opensource is so essential. Frankly if this is the best attack you can muster against GNU, then we can sit back and relax, we won.
Re:easy answer (Score:5, Insightful)
If your compiler won't compile something but gcc will, you can easily work out what the gcc-specific extensions do either from documentation or source code, and implement them yourself.
By contrast, microsoft often keep as much detail about their extensions private as they can, to make it difficult for anyone else to implement.
Aside from that, gcc places far less other restrictions on you than microsoft products, you can run gcc on almost any platform, you can install it on as many systems as you want for no cost, you can modify it to suit your needs, you can redistribute it with very few restrictions.
GCC then and now (Score:4, Informative)
The current maintainers have quite a different view on them, they only add extensions for things that can't be expressed in the language (mostly stuff close to hardware, or sometimes optimization hints), and they give them __unwieldy_names__. And they are slowly removing the convenience features.
If you don't get a warning from an extension (rather than a "quality of implementation" issue) with -ansi -pedantic it is a bug.
There probably are such bugs (GCC is big and complex, and there are stuff in the language that can't really be tested) but I guess you can't actually mention any, since you are most likely just a troll making stuff up as you go. So I challenge you to mention one such issue that can not be found in the bug database to prove you are not a troll. And if you can mention two such issues, I'm willing to believe that you are not a kook either. In either case, please submit a bug report when done
Re:easy answer (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft represents a small number of the community as well. The analogy is pretty sound. I don't think the point to be taken is that GNU is evil, though. It's that extension is how software evolution works, and a significant number of people will migrate to the most refined and feature-rich solution, sometimes causing the previous generation of product to die.
The problem with Microsoft isn't really the embrace/extend part. It's the extinguish part. While bash pretty much replaces sh, you can pretty much count on bash to always be around until something replaces it. The FSF isn't going to just kill it one day so it can cannibalize the market.
Re:easy answer (Score:4, Informative)
Kerberos
Java
HTML
RSS
MAPI
Etc, etc...
Re:easy answer (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:easy answer (Score:5, Insightful)
"refreshingly simple" answer (Score:2, Insightful)
M$ licenses are simple because they are a lie. They don't have any intention to do anything but what they've always done: suck up your work and and screw you in court, the market place and public opinion.
The GPL is like good science, no more complicated than it must be for it's purpose. The goal of science is to understand truth. The goal of the GPL it to protect user freedom. If M$'s license is simpler than the GPL it's because they have other purposes for their licenses.
It's about patents (Score:3, Interesting)
From the license:
(B) If you bring a patent claim against any contributor over patents that you claim are infringed by the software, your patent license from such contributor
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Now the correct answer.. (Score:2)
Legal immunity. In a legal battle the carnage of the ex-Windows programs would be the end of Microsoft. They don't dare enter battle. It's like the global nuke arms race. They don't dare pull the trigger as the destruction to themselves would be swift and complete.
They are getting a little body armor out o
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Well, I am pretty sure this is not a CRC error this time. Sounds more like they are applying quantum computing to their business model. Now, they can make all claims simultaneously, claim they are anything and everything and never have to settle on state of existence. As a bonus, their PR dept can claim the company has working knowledge with successful quantum engine development (and maybe hint that it is a current part of their OS)
InnerWeb
Not OSL. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm dissapointed in the OSI.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You mean like GPLv3? "You can't use this code to build a TiVo." (My paraphrase.)
Re:Not OSL. (Score:4, Informative)
Why do people find this so hard to understand? Its a simple concept.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why do people find this so hard to understand? "
Because GPL is overly complicated.
As said by Russ Nelson (quoting him from the summary): "These [Microsoft's] licenses are refreshingly short and clean, compared to, say, the GPLv3 and the Sun CDDL.
Re:Not OSL. (Score:5, Informative)
Doesn't that defeat the purpose of OSS? (Score:2)
That's actually -worse-. At least if you have a copy of Word or Windows, you can, when the DMCA lawyers aren't looking, go and tinker with both and sorta figure out how things work. You can control the installatio
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I mean, yeah, whatever, that's great, that, Google can distribute Linux from one department to another, but, doesn't that defeat the whole purpose? If you believe that this is ok, then, what you are really doing is creating a defacto subsidization of service providers over software distributors.
No. For distribution to take place, yo have to give or sell the software to someone outside the company. Each employee doesn't rent space in the office and supply their own hardware, so the software, or in this case, the modifications are still the property of Google.
If they sold the modified software, or gave it to a different company, then they would be breaking the GPL, and would get a call from the FSF just like anybody else.
That's actually -worse-. At least if you have a copy of Word or Windows, you can, when the DMCA lawyers aren't looking, go and tinker with both and sorta figure out how things work. You can control the installation of the software, and, above all, you can at least get some kind of clue to see if they violated the GPL.
So in other words, you can only find out if they are breaking the GPL by brea
Re: (Score:2)
You make a lot of arguments, but, at the end of the day, you have described a situation where it is perfectly permissable to have a closed system. You can argue the letter of the GPL as much as you want, but, that leaves me, asking, if it is ok for you to have a closed system in your world of a proprietary web service based company, or a system
Re: (Score:2)
A company can use all GPL software it wants to create a web-app, distribute that app for use by the public, but not have to release their own code. But another company uses GPL code to make a similar app, but distributes it as a local binary rather than a web-app, and they *must* release their own code. Yeah, that's fair.
Why should creators of web-apps for use by the public be able to use GPL code without releasing their own code but not creators of compiled binaries?
I bet if Mi
Re: (Score:2)
more than that (Score:2)
A lot of people are surprised by this. What I find more surprising are all the cases where you *are* required to contribute source back, if say you build anything on top of a GPL'd library (of which there are many).
Personally, as a user and a developer I don't find the GPL compelling compared to the BSD style licenses.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Companies get open source packages and heavily modify them all the time, often without distributing them.
Many people develop software for the sake of it without distributing it.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. Many companies are service companies, who build very expensive pieces of software in house and sell the services of analysis. Software never leaves the corporate headquarters. For example, a company I used to work for did modeling and simulation of missiles. We wrote software in house (yes, utilizing open source code along with other code) and our 'product' was the numbers output fr
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
s/paraphrase/misstatement/
GPLv3 does not restrict anyone from using covered code to build a TiVo.
It does, however, refuse to grant permission to distribute such code in a TiVo.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Anything for an easier dollar, right?
Re: (Score:2)
I *guarantee* you that the judge will disagree.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If there were word Nazis, you'd have been in the 'Do not allow to procreate' section of the eugenics program.
You mean like the apache license? (Score:5, Informative)
1. Definitions.
"License" shall mean the terms and conditions for use, reproduction, and distribution as defined by Sections 1 through 9 of this document.
Re:You mean like the apache license? (Score:5, Insightful)
The MS licenses puts conditions on use - for instance, granting MS permission to use your patents.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh wait, there isn't a "Wrong" moderation, you're supposed to reply if something is wrong not just mod it down.
Re:You mean like the apache license? (Score:4, Informative)
Now that you got me thinking though, Section 3B may be a restriction on use, and can apply even if you don't distribute the work. However, one could argue that if you are suing someone about a patent, it is because you don't consider it to be valid. Thus you aren't forced to stop using the software, and if you win the court case you will have done nothing illegal by continuing to use it. Furthermore, recent supreme court rulings state that continuing to allegedly infringe upon a patent while you are challenging it is not grounds for willfull infringement. Regardless section 3B is practically identical to the patent litigation clause in section 3 of the Apache License (v2).
Granted, the wording of the introduction to the MS license(s) is much more forcefull than the Apache License, and its similarity to an EULA did give me pause at first. But after reading it, I don't think it restricts use anymore that the Apache License (if at all). If you are simply using the software, then the license merely requires you to agree to not distribute contrary to the license, which you aren't doing anyway. If you are going to redistribute it, what difference does it make whether you agree to follow the license when you start using it or when you start distributing it?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
-molo
The GPL v3 governs use too (Score:2)
THat is one thing I really like about the GPL v2
Re: (Score:2)
vi foo.c
and
gcc foo.c -o foo
Isn't compilation of source just "looking" at that source in a highly automated way?
Re: (Score:2)
There is the reciprocal public license that the FSF considers to be non-Free but only because of a very minor technicality.
However, I can't think of any substantive instance where there is a real disagreement.
Interesting Years Ahead (Score:3, Interesting)
How? Simple (Score:4, Insightful)
They have more than one bit in their brains to make decisions. Hence "open source" is not a knee jerk reaction to them, in a way that "Microsoft" is a knee jerk reaction to certain people in the community.
Open Source is a model, it's a tool, to achieve a purpose. A serious company doesn't shy to use the tools at its disposal, even if some simpler folk might find this contradictory upon first sight.
Re: (Score:2)
It's the strategy behind them picking it up now that has us wondering.
I have no problem with someone learning to use a hammer. I DO have a problem with it if the only reason they're learning to use a hammer is to beat me senseless with it.
Re: (Score:2)
]{
Re:How? Simple (Score:4, Interesting)
Dang literalists. /me sighs. Fine. Take 2, for Skippy here.
Old and broke:
New hotness:
It's {arguably} laudable that Microsoft would create these licenses. However, given their present demeanor towards FOSS, the timing of such work in this area could be construed as somewhat suspect.
Howzat?
Re: (Score:2)
It's also a difficult competitor they'd like to destroy.
Those of us familiar with decades of Microsoft dirty tricks have good reason to be suspicious of their motives.
Re: (Score:2)
How could this get approved? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is contrary to any Open Source license I know of. The whole point of Open Source is that you can use the software in any way you want. You have to agree to the license only when you distribute. Microsoft is attempting to subvert OSI, just like it has already subverted ISO.
Re:How could this get approved? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:How could this get approved? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As opposed to the FSF pushing licenses that restrict developer freedom?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because "open source" software licenses don't guarantee certain freedoms, while they may have some commercial value (precisely because it allows companies to restrict their users' freedom), for people who care about freedom---freedom of use, freedom to modify and improve, and freedom to help others---free software is much better than "open source" software.
I am not sure what gave you that impression. (Score:5, Informative)
The lineage goes from the FSF to Debian (and the Debian Free Software Guidelines) to the OSI's Open Source Definition (which were mostly copied from the DFSG).
If you read the MS-Reciprical License and the MS-PL, you will see that they don't provide any restrictions on use, so this distinction doesn't really matter anyway.
I would also note that the FSF (Score:4, Insightful)
Ever wonder why the GFDL has the invariant sections clause? According to Stallman himself (in a post to debian-legal), it was because he wanted to *force* the distribution of the GNU Manifesto with the Emacs manual. This essentially turns the ideal of free speech on its head by creating a situation where forced advocacy is accepted. When the then-main-architect of HURD criticized the decision, Stallman asked him to resign. If this is the sort of Stallmanist "Free Speech" we are to associate with Free Software, I want nothing to do with it.
Debian did the right thing and to this day considers any GFDL work containing invariant sections to be non-Free.
Note that I am not a Debina Developer, and I think that at the end we should think for ourselves and not be groupies of RMS or anyone else.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I dont see anything in this license that would restrict you to use it as you see fit. Granted you have to accept the license before you use, but I have no problem with that if what i have to agree to amount to nothing unless I distribute...
Damn, they actually look reasonable (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
2) This license was written by MS lawyers. It may look innocuous, but that doesn't mean that a court would find it so. IANAL, so I don't accept that lawyers working for someone else have my best interests at heart, and I also don't presume that a court would interpret clear English in the same way that I would.
3)
Re:Damn, they actually look reasonable (Score:5, Insightful)
2) There's a risk in writing a succinct license in that you might not cover each and every case in detail. Yes, by being so succinct, Microsoft is taking a risk that the judge might not accept the facial meaning of each clause.
3) Among other things, they're short and readable. Specifically, they don't name a jurisdiction. This is VERY GOOD for international projects. How would you like to have to sue somebody in Santa Clara simply because you contributed to an MPL-licensed code and they infringed it?
4) Why do you think you can't trust us? If you think the licenses don't comply with the Open Source Definition, you should say exactly why, rather than attempt to raise FUD. As postmaster@opensource.org I can definitively state that your email address above is not on the license-discuss mailing list -- if you don't participate in the process, why should anybody believe your criticism of the result?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You ARE normally allowed to use software you have bought, so you can do NOT have to agree to a license to do so. (EULA)
This license seamingly falls inbetween because the products probably ends up being free, but whether you buy something or get it as a gift doesn't really matter for contract laws.
This license is a troll, in that it is a EULA, exactly like Microsoft accuses GPL of
Market control, but the possibility for change (Score:4, Interesting)
Microsoft is also a follower. They typically are behind the bleeding edge of technology but always attempt to buy up as much as possible and claim they "innovated" it. Microsoft research is a big exception, and I wouldn't doubt that it's people from Microsoft Research driving the new licenses as well.
Microsoft is also not entirely stupid; they intend to attract developers with their licenses not to release any Microsoft products under them, but to bring open source development onto Microsoft platforms. That, ultimately, is a war that open source can only win by having a fundamentally better product. If Microsoft opens its documentation and internals to developers, most of them will see fewer advantages in pure open source/free software systems. All Microsoft has to do to keep making money is keep Windows shipping on every PC shipped in the world. Even if they're forced by the market to open source all of Windows, they will still own the trademarks (and patents) and probably still ship Windows on a significant number of PCs. Most home users don't give a shit what they run and will happily buy Microsoft, especially if their formerly Linux-enthusiast friends now see Microsoft as an open source company.
In the end, cooperation really is the goal of free software/open source anyway. Destroying Microsoft would be a net loss for everyone. Microsoft slowly converting to an open/free development model is a scenario in which everyone wins. Who will care if they run Linux or Windows if both support Posix and Win32 environments using the best elements from each kernel? To be honest I don't think this is very likely; it's much more likely that the Next Big Thing will push the operating system question into the realm of questions like which general purpose sorting algorithm is the best.
Re: (Score:2)
In the end, cooperation really is the goal of free software/open source anyway. Destroying Microsoft would be a net loss for everyone. Microsoft slowly converting to an open/free development model is a scenario in which everyone wins.
Wrong! Conan, what is best in life?
To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women.
"They" is rarely a single viewpoint. (Score:5, Insightful)
If many of the old guard senior execs feel one way - and a newer junior VP who has his senior VP's protection feels another - then it's entirely possible for two parts of a large organization to act in two apparently conflicting ways.
That's simply the nature of large organizations. Once you clear a certain size, you can't have every decision cross your CEO's desk or they'll get nothing done.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
OSI sez "We were just joking about trimming..." (Score:2, Redundant)
"... the list of OSI-compatible licenses."
Why trim, when you can grow!
Attribution clause (Score:4, Informative)
So, now that they have these licenses... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It'd be neat if they released the source of MS-DOS 6.22; it might give the FreeDOS people some help. Maybe their old DOS compilers (masm, whatever their C compiler was).
Xenix? Probably have to wait until SCO is finally dismantled, but it might be interesting.
Re: (Score:2)
So yes, they have already been using these licenses.
They have also released works under other licneses (WiX, under the CPL, for example).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
definitions (Score:3, Interesting)
Ms-RL: GPL(2?)-like
It'll be interesting to see what the FSF has to say on these.
Re: (Score:2)
Two new licences... what to use them for? (Score:2)
M$ Gates & Gangs want a sloped field of parity (Score:2)
M$, OSI
More proof M$ & Gangs torture "Open" to death (Score:2)
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/16/207205&from=rss [slashdot.org]
Posted by kdawson on 2007.10.16 16:42 Not a single ballot has passed since the OOXML vote closed. In the chairman's words, the committee has 'ground to a halt.' Sad to say, there's no end in sight for this (formerly) very busy and influential standards committee."
The M$ and global corporatist (not capitalist) intent is Kill "Open" AFAP (As Fast As Possible, AKA: AFAFP)!
Re: (Score:2)
Trademark Obscurity of "Open" "Open Source" "Open Standards"
Microsoft may be guilty of trademark obscurity, but do any of these have any real trademarks attached as relate to software? (Excluding Amex's trademark on "Open").
"Open Source" is somethng the OSI wants to try to suggest they can enforce but it has 10 years or so of generic use now and given that only a tiny fraction of open source licenses are OSI-approved, I somehow doubt that one couldn't argue well that the trademark had been diluted to the point of being worthless. IANAL, though.
Open Standards is c
Because Microsoft is not a person (Score:4, Insightful)
Not even MS knows why... (Score:5, Insightful)
They should know why (Score:2)
At the micro level you're correct, but Open Source strategy and OSI are pretty macro-level issues and Ballmer should be fully aware of what that strategy is. If someone has acted on their own accord, then expect them to be confused with a chair and thrown around a bit. If Ballmer truely is clueless about this then that is gross mismanagement on his part and you can expect a lynching at the next shareholder's meeting.
Just what the world needed... (Score:2)
From a practical point of view, a license that isn't compatible with some version of the GPL causes problems. Did OSI really need to approve two new licenses that seem deliberately designed to be incompatible with any version of the GPL?
Open Source / Closed Source (Score:2)
Open Source is good if you are a student, or if you are a company that develops software to fulfill business needs, then other companies can join in on the development, adding the features they need.
Re: (Score:2)
My simple guess... (Score:2)
clean... or simplistic? (Score:3)
You may prefer a "refreshingly short and clean" library, but only until you have a disturbingly lengthy and messy debate with a lawyer or a court about what the intent and meaning of that license is and the court decides that people could reasonably interpret the license differently from the way you intended. The appearance of simplicity and actual simplicity are two different things, in licenses as much as in software.
I think it's unlikely that Microsoft's licenses contain a deliberate legal backdoor. And OSI approval is a good first step. But those licenses are unproven in practice, have no history behind them, and haven't been analyzed carefully by a lot of people. Maybe they'll eventually turn out to be reasonable and sound, but for now, I'd stick with one of the proven open source licenses.
Ms-PL: The trap here seems obvious... (Score:3, Insightful)
This limits non-copyright rights by tying usage to acceptance of the copyright and patent right parts of the license. I wouldn't use it for that reason alone.
Here's an example: Ms-PL Product A is a flower shop management tool. OL (Other License) Product B is my solely-developed tool that controls plastic forming robots in my flowerpot factory. There's no code commonality between them, including no shared patent technology.
I don't add ANYTHING AT ALL to product A, but I use it and sell it to my customers. MS finds a way to apply product B's patented tech to product A. So MS steals product B's patented tech, and adds it to product A. I sue MS for infringing Product B's patents. MS automatically has the right to countersue me for ALL of MS's patents in product A and any A-derived product, including legal MS patents I'm otherwise in compliance with. I can't just stick to the pre-infringement version of product A; I must use a version of product A that has NO MS technology in it either, or not use product A at all.
This allows MS to shut down competitors whose only "violation" against MS's legal patents is a dispute over the competitor's patents in other products. This multiplies the patent snarl that's already threatening the industry.
Furthermore,"2. Grant of Rights (B) Patent Grant-... each contributor grants you a...license..to
It also seems to mean that anywhere a patent goes, this license applies.
If MS takes its legally patented tech from product A and adds it to product C, then the patent snarl described above will also deprive you of product C. A few carefully crafted patents, spread around like paint, and MS destroys all competitors once and for all.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you, but all it takes is one sentence with tricky wording to cause a bunch of trouble. My guess would be that this is where they're going with it.
Re: I agree, M$ pays karma drones on /. & .... (Score:2)
Reread them (Score:2)
The MS-PL applies only to the code you licensed. It is designed to be similar to the BSDL, requiring you to sublicense that code only under the terms of the original license, while you can license your *own code* under any terms you want. It is unclear whether or not this is GPL v3 compatible (there is some limited compatibility of both licenses with the GPL v2 provided that they are not
A one page, understandable OS Licence? (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps the challenge should be to find an even short and simpler OSI compliant licence.
The licence is there, anyone can use it. I wonder how much barrier ther