A Microsoft Shared Source license was submitted to the Open Source Initiative for official approval as an open-source license – but it wasn’t Microsoft who submitted it. “Someone submitted the Microsoft Community License, one of our Shared Source licenses, to the OSI without our knowledge or approval, but the OSI contacted us and asked if we wanted them to proceed with that,” said Bill Hilf, Microsoft’s director for platform technology strategy. “We told them that we did not want to be reactive and needed time to think about it.”
What the hell was this guy thinking ? No matter if he did it with the intention of embaressing MS or hoping to actually see the license approved, he should have contacted the license creator first.
Pretty dumb stunt.
I’ve seen the same reaction to this story on other sites, and it puzzles me. Cowan was not claiming to represent Microsoft. It sounds like the license in question just might qualify for approval. The reason given by Cowan: that MS should be encouraged when they take a step in the right direction, seems reasonable.
I agree that the right thing for the OSI to do was to contact MS for approval. I also agree that we don’t need yet another OSS license.
But it hardly seems a “dumb stunt” to me.
I feel just the opposite. It was not in Cowan’s best interest to submit this and to me this put a tarnish on OSS’s reputation. Anyone else with an open/shared license will now have to fear that their own licenses will be submitted by others instead of going through the proper channels at the company.
When Microsoft wants to submit the license to the OSI they will do it. I’m sure they will revise the license a little bit before then. If Cowan wants to encourage Microsoft then there are better means to do it. He can start a rally or a petition or a website and spread the word that way. Eventually Microsoft will take notice.
“””I feel just the opposite. It was not in Cowan’s best interest to submit this and to me this put a tarnish on OSS’s reputation. Anyone else with an open/shared license will now have to fear that their own licenses will be submitted by others instead of going through the proper channels at the company.”””
Nothing in the above paragraph makes sense. Could you clarify, please?
1. Why are you concerned with Cowan’s best interest?
2. How can one person submitting a license to the OSI for possible approval tarish the reputation of a collection of software?
3. Why should anyone have anything to fear as a consequence of OSI contacting Microsoft to inquire as to their wishes?
yea sure they did…
Any press is good pressright microsoft. Sure someone else did that and now that “they” did that you guys are going to be the good guy and go ahead with it…
sure…
i have to disagree with the comments.
If i wan’t to know if a license is an Open Source license than for me it’s a logical step to ask the OSI to check the license whether it’s an Open Source license or not.
Why should someone ask Microsoft or enyone else for permission if he just want to know if the license meets the terms of a definition (in this case the Open Source definition).
PS: The FSF has also reviewed a Microsoft license and i’m sure they hadn’t asked Microsoft for permission. (http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses)
Edited 2006-08-23 21:52