Submitted by “Acting on the advice of the License Approval Chair, the OSI Board today approved the Microsoft Public License and the Microsoft Reciprocal License. The decision to approve was informed by the overwhelming (though not unanimous) consensus from the open source community that these licenses satisfied the 10 criteria of the Open Source definition, and should therefore be approved.”
Congratulations to Microsoft for taking the first step towards a better way of building software.
I hope they do, but to me there’s a difference between developing an open source license and then licensing software underneath it.
They’ve already licensed core parts of Silverlight and many other projects with their (now) open source licenses.
This was not just for show. For example mono project was able to make a port (Moonlight) in a short time, and now it will be supported by Microsoft when mature enough (some parts like VC1 codec are problem).
This is a good decision for OSI, the license text, not the author should be evaluated.
Edited 2007-10-16 21:08
The VC1 codec is supported already via ffmpeg project – given Novells licencing with Microsoft, it should mean that Moonlight will support VC1 (along with Theora/ogg) out of the box.
Microsoft has also said they would provide a codec package on MS Downloads for Moonlight users.
With the CODEC, is it native format or is it written in C#? this has to do with whether it would be possible to run Moonlight on OpenSolaris/Indiana.
The VC1 codec is supported already via ffmpeg project – given Novells licencing with Microsoft, it should mean that Moonlight will support VC1 (along with Theora/ogg) out of the box.
I do not see the need at all to ‘license’ something from someone to read a particular format. Yes that means some reverse engineering, but that has never been explicitly illegal and has never required any sort of deal in the past.
But of course, Moonlight’s existence, should Silverlight gain some critical mass, is entirely in the hands of these closed additional formats.
This is a good decision for OSI, the license text, not the author should be evaluated
Exactly.
Please don’t take me the wrong way. I agree with your statements. I’d just like to see more from Microsoft being licensed under these before I truly believe in their open source change of heart.
This is a good decision for OSI, the license text, not the author should be evaluated.
Alas, Microsoft has not given the same consideration in return to things like ODF, where arguments against it have boiled down to personal attacks and IBM conspiracies.
Give that the OSI is a loosely knit body of interested parties, I fail to see why anyone would think that someone could just wander in and get a license approved regardless of their track record.
No license leads to software built with either good or bad quality: it only sets out the license for its use. The best software could be completely closed-source or open-source and completely free to outside review, and the worst software can also have exactly the same licensing: it isn’t the license that determines the quality of the software, but rather the experience, knowledge and dedication of the developers and whomever manages the project and sets the goals.
I think this is very true. Some of the worst software I’ve seen has come under an open source license. There are plenty of open source software examples which have horrible user interfaces, disjointed workflow and barely usable functionality. The same can be said for commercial software as well.
I don’t think the license determines the quality of the software in any significant way.
between overwhelming and unanimous? And could someone explain to me why Microsoft needed to go out and get thier own OSI licenses.
unanimous means everyone, absolutely everyone, agreed.
Overwhelming means a good majority agreed.
I agree, I don’t understand why MICROS~1 doesn’t license some of its software under the BSD or GPL terms. Why yet another license? And why is MICROS~1 attracted by the open-source philosophy and at the same time sues RedHat for patent infringement? This is a contradiction: either you want to share your stuff, and share your software, and throw away your patents, or you stay a closed-source company and leave your code closed and patent more and more stuff such as mouse-clicking.
Ignoring your childish jabs (“MICROS~1”) for a moment…
Why MS-RL and not GPL? Probably because they disagree with Mr Stallman’s goals, and want a code-for-code license, similar to Linus Torvalds. For example, one problematic issue could be Tivoization. The MS-RL also defines some details a bit different (I guess the NIH syndrome exists for lawyers too…)
Why MS-PL and not BSDL? The MS-PL includes a patent license, something I missed in the BSDL right the first time I read the MS-PL, since the BSDL leaves the patent situation unclear. This makes me think if the MS-PL would be a better choice for developers who would otherwise choose the BSDL (or the MITL etc). And I guess the NIH syndrome kicks in here too.
> And why is MICROS~1 attracted by the open-source philosophy and
> at the same time sues RedHat for patent infringement?
MS sued them too? Sources?
> This is a contradiction: either you want to share your stuff, and share
> your software, and throw away your patents, or you stay a closed-
> source company and leave your code closed and patent more and
> more stuff such as mouse-clicking.
Really, this kind of black-or-white thinking isn’t even funny anymore.
And why need Micros^$ proprietary OSI approved license and not GPL3 or QPL or Apache License or Mozilla Public License or any other license from long list http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical ???
How the hell is a license proprietary? Have you read over Ms-Pl / Ms-Rl? Have you noted differences between the BSD/Apache licenses?
I’m guessing no to both counts.
Microsoft does not agree with GPL, it’s absurd to expect them to collaborate in any sort of meaningful way with the license.
Then again, the GPL is hardly the defacto Open Source license. It’s the “my way or the highway”, “your open source is not open enough” mentality that fuels my dislike for the GPL.
Not that I don’t believe it shouldn’t be there though, the GPL like all licenses has it’s uses and when licensing a product you need to look at the circumstances under which it will be used.
Let’s look passed the politics and get back to the code.
Nelson: “Let’s look passed the politics and get back to the code.”
You’re couple decades too late for that. Computers affect people’s lives and they will not just take whatever it is and shut up. Nor will I code for or buy stuff from a fat man trying to lock me up.
I agree with you childish jabs do not go far enough with Microsoft’s post <insert monopolistic abuse here> or <insert bribe here> or <you get the gist> the latest being the breakdown of ISO post Microsoft’s involvement.
I loved your example which actually made no sense in reference to his question “Why MS-RL and not GPL? Probably because they disagree with Mr Stallman’s goals, and want a code-for-code license, similar to Linus Torvalds.” Linus chose the FSF License…he chose GPL, and *disagrees* with the goals(sic) of the FSF.
I also loved your nitpick at Microscum(giggle like schoolgirl) suing redhat, when they are publicly threating them directly, and attacking them allegedly (sic) indirectly, and I believe it is quite big news.
I believe the thinking that open-source+mixed with closed source doesn’t work is valid. The idea that Microsoft is well not open-sourcing…say office is a valid point. If Microsoft is promoting a license why not use it for their stuff.
In reality though mixing closed and Open-source is often problematic, look at flash on GNU, Binary blobs in the kernel…or the recent failure of company to successfully move their vector drawing package to open source.
In reality I suspect these licenses are just another way of moving software in the predominantly one-way stream to Microsoft. Like Apple does with BSD now. With the additional benefits of controlling certain formats.
Edited 2007-10-17 03:29
> I agree with you childish jabs do not go far enough
Childish jabs are one big sign of despair if you can’t back them up.
> I loved your example which actually made no sense in
> reference to his question “Why MS-RL and not GPL?
> Probably because they disagree with Mr Stallman’s
> goals, and want a code-for-code license, similar to
> Linus Torvalds.” Linus chose the FSF License…he
> chose GPL, and *disagrees* with the goals(sic) of
> the FSF.
Linus doesn’t have the resources to pull out a water-tight license on his own. Nor does he have to worry to appear as a supporter of the FSF, because he doesn’t care what “Joe Developer” thinks of him. This is different for MS.
> I also loved your nitpick at Microscum(giggle like
> schoolgirl) suing redhat, when they are publicly
> threating them directly, and attacking them
> allegedly (sic) indirectly, and I believe it is
> quite big news.
My “nitpicking” was nothing else than that MS did not sue Redhat, which you claimed they did. Being sued by MS or not doesn’t seem to be a minor issue from my POV.
> I believe the thinking that open-source+mixed with
> closed source doesn’t work is valid. The idea that
> Microsoft is well not open-sourcing…say office is
> a valid point. If Microsoft is promoting a license
> why not use it for their stuff.
You still fail to explain why MS can’t open-source some but not all of their products.
> In reality though mixing closed and Open-source is
> often problematic, look at flash on GNU, Binary
> blobs in the kernel…or the recent failure of
> company to successfully move their vector drawing
> package to open source.
That’s mixing OSS and proprietary *in the same product* which is a completely different issue. You don’t seem to distinguish clear between the two.
Thank you for your reply. I actually think the admin abuse issue is far more serious than any childish jab at Microsoft. I am happy to back up any of my comments.
I’m surprised that on your comments on Linus. I suspect that one of the *many* companies that contribute to the *kernel* are able to provide a license. The kernel itself is rolling with money. This is ignoring all the comments about him being happy with his tainted GPL2 license.
I’m not sure where you get the FSF vs Microsoft point from. I just don’t understand the licenses, but they are not *free* licenses. In fact when Microsoft make *unsubstituted* claims they are pretty much leveled at Linux and OpenOffice both with little to nothing to do with the FSF.
I never claimed anything. I *never* said the Microsoft sued Red hat. I will repeat what I said then. Microsoft publicly threating Red Hat directly, and attacking them allegedly (sic) indirectly, and I believe it is quite big news.
If you do not understand that, Microsoft can do as it pleases with its software…and does, but if we are talking about *license* adoption by third parties, as we are doing, or using their code, then this is important. Microsoft has the two big moneymakers Office+OS it won’t open-source either, like Apple keep all the good stuff to themselves. I suspect its a leech license.
Sorry I am talking about *in the same product* and should have included *linked products* which is one of the points I repeatedly bring up about compatible licenses. Why try and hide this. I actually bring up closed source products like that of Flash a major problem on Linux, but then I don’t understand these licenses. In fact judging by the comments nobody does.
I think calling the MS nicknames childish is childish. These nicknames exist for a reason, with a meaning.
You don’t happen to work in management, or do you
Microsoft, you are always trying hard to impress us the open source community, please keep trying, you may make it a possibility one day. I just doubt you will stop Linux progress one day so you’ll have to accomodate to the fact you’ll have to work with us for the years to come. Maybe one day you’ll be a Gentoo repository mirror.
Microsoft shouldn’t be trusted. OSI enters a mine field here. I hope they know what they are doing and overall I hope no bribe infected the decision. They runs the risk of being totally discredited and looking foolish when the abuses arise.
“Microsoft shouldn’t be trusted. OSI enters a mine field here.”
You know, as opposed to all the “trustworthy” (IBM, Apple, Sun etc) companies whose license they approved.
Exactly.
I can trust Sun, which has contributes to free software more than any other company, often under the GPL or their own license, and IBM fine. They are service oriented and genuinely benefit from open source and rfee software.
I’d be more cautious with Apple, but Microsoft should not be trusted. They will stab in the back, as soon as they can.
“than any other company” is certainly questionable and if you think their intentions are anything but self-interest you’re somewhat gullible.
If you think you can trust IBM, the company that created the very concept of FUD, I have a bridge to sell. I guess it’s good for IBM that no-one seems to remember the 80’s.
Wow. How unique for a big multinational company. What dimension do you people live in that you think you can trust some huge companies (with a shady past) while others (with a shady past) are to be scorned.
MS is not to be trusted but neither is anyone else. It’s not like IBM would sustain financial loss to keep Linux alive.
Also, none of this has ANYTHING do with with if the MS license should have been approved or not.
It’s precisely self-interest that make IBM and Sun contribute to open source.
Msft’s self interest goes against open source, therefore their license is trapped somewhere; therefore they shouldn’t be trusted by the OSI
And what happens when OSS is no longer of use for their self-interests?
They loose trust from the OSS community. Until then, they continue to be useful. Msft is useless and dangerous for the OSS community.
It’s not who you can trust, because trust is not something a mortal should feel towards a company by default. It’s more about the market behavior and history combined with the current steps they make that can lead to a feeling of trust/distrust towards the intentions of a particular company. A serial killer might express its love for humanity, although it might have a certain different interpretation of the word’s meaning.
Talking about trust… maybe there is not such a difference between OSI and MS as it is between OSI and FSF. For MS OSI sure is an entry into new era of fooling people. And a nice chance for Linus to get a license he deserves.
Just because OSI agrees that a license meets their stated criteria does not mean that an entity using that license will behave appropriately. This is, I have no doubt, just a publicity and marketing ploy by Microsoft. Their licenses meet the letter of the law, so to speak, but the spirit of OSI is not something Microsoft agrees with and I seriously doubt that we will see Microsoft doing anything truly Open Source with their software.
This is all just so Microsoft can go to its [potential[ customers and say “If you want open source that’s okay because we do that, too. See, even OSI agrees.” This will not lead to more code that the OSS community can use. It will certainly not lead to less evil tactics by Microsoft.
These licenses will merely allow Microsofties, who previously worked in isolation, greater collaboration. Maybe that’s not a bad thing, but it’s not good for Linux, it’s not good for the Free Software movement and it does not help Open Source businesses which do not directly depend on Microsoft products.
“These licenses will merely allow Microsofties, who previously worked in isolation, greater collaboration. Maybe that’s not a bad thing, but it’s not good for Linux, it’s not good for the Free Software movement and it does not help Open Source businesses which do not directly depend on Microsoft products.”
None of those issues are relevant. If OSI had rejected these licenses for reasons such as you provide, they would’ve been regarded as nothing more than shills for anti-Microsoft peanut gallery, and rightly so.
So, if they would’ve rejected, it would be right to call them anti-MS shills. Meaning they accept = they are not, or what. If you don’t trust the body to be objective enough, it’s your right to feel so, but this is stupid.
None of those issues are relevant.
How not? I am trying to warn Open Source fans against believing Microsoft to be somehow good now because its licenses have been approved. All I am saying is: nothing has changed. OSI did not and should not have rejected the licenses, but being OSI-approved does not validate anything Microsoft does.
None of those issues are relevant. If OSI had rejected these licenses for reasons such as you provide, they would’ve been regarded as nothing more than shills for anti-Microsoft peanut gallery, and rightly so.
Where did I say I thought OSI should have rejected the licenses?
OSI must act in accordance with the rules it sets for itself and therefore must accept a license which meets those rules such as these from Microsoft. However: all of the above, let the open source community beware, do not assume that this means MS is any more pro-Open-Source than they were five or ten years ago.
Edited 2007-10-16 23:41
I believe the free software community has a sentiment against this event. Is it really what OSI planned and wanted? What about the open software guys who feel betrayed about this? Is it a wrong choice of parameters or what? Look at Theo de Radt or Linus for example how they made their choice of licenses and are only whining against it since.
This will sadly widen the divide between FSF and OSI but I hope make clearer who is who and who should take the highway
Really? The only ones I hear complaining are the hanger-ons. I haven’t heard a single OSS developer of any stature that has had a problem with it.
What about the ones who would feel betrayed if it hadn’t been approved?
There’s always someone who’s going to be unhappy with a decision.
Whining against what? I’ve never heard Theo whining about choosing the BSD license or Linus being unhappy with choosing the GPL. He may not be interested in v3 but he seems to be pretty at peace with picking v2.
It looks like you do not understand the goals of OSI and FSF and sentiments of their supporters. Just visit their sites someday.
And about Theo and Linus: I’m not arguing about their whining but trying to show into what denial people can fall after making an unfortunate public decision
Few, if any, commercial companies do. Come on, stop pretending that IBM or Sun or Google etc is any better or more interested in “the spirit of OSS” than MS. Wake up and smell the coffee, they’re all in it for the money.
“Few, if any, commercial companies do. Come on, stop pretending that IBM or Sun or Google” are in it for the money, but the *funny* thing is the spirit(sic) of OSS and more so free software is *customer* friendly. Which is an added benefit, as well as having many other side effects *trust* being the major one, although I’m talking about copyleft not permissive licenses.
Why was parent voted down? Seems a perfectly reasonable comment, to me.
Few, if any, commercial companies do. Come on, stop pretending that IBM or Sun or Google etc is any better or more interested in “the spirit of OSS” than MS. Wake up and smell the coffee, they’re all in it for the money.
Quite frankly, very few of the licenses OSI has approved should have been – especially those by people like Computer Associates. However, companies like IBM, Sun and even Apple have at least some track record of contributing to existing open source projects and a track record of interaction.
Microsoft doesn’t, and quite frankly, has been nothing but derogatory and a massive hindrance to the open source movement at every turn. Considering that the OSI’s logo will be used by Microsoft for credibility that it does not deserve, I would find that a huge concern.
Watch Microsoft start a new spread the FUD campaign in which they claim that they have been blessed by the OSI and that they are huge supporters of open source now.
If you want open source, get it from us, they will say to clueless managers. In the end, that is why, even though, the term open source served a historically valid purpose in getting mainstream support for free software, I think it should be phased out to avoid confusion and to force proprietary vendors to show their true colors.
I doubt that Microsoft will soon be telling us that they are into Free Software, let alone that the FSF would bless any license of theirs as Free Software.
Along with the strategic issues that should have been considered by the OSI in the granting of its “seal of approval”, OSI should have also thought about the very serious and key issue of license proliferation.
More code sharing is the goal and we only get to that goal with compatible licenses.
”
I doubt that Microsoft will soon be telling us that they are into Free Software, let alone that the FSF would bless any license of theirs as Free Software. ”
On the contrary, I see no reason why FSF wouldn’t consider these licenses as Free software licenses too. They seem to fit the definition of what Free software is quite well to me.
The FSF is more politically driven. RMS speaks his mind. He would say no, and that would be the end of the matter.
The OSI is a certification process, not what side of the bed a guy gets up on in the morning.
/sarc
“””
“””
While I agree that a word from the Monarch of the FSF would would settle the matter. I do wonder what that word would be.
Richard is more reasonable, level headed, and strategy minded than many of his more vocal followers.
I would be interested in seeing these licenses submitted to the FSF.
>While I agree that a word from the Monarch of the FSF would would settle the matter. I do wonder what that word would be.
Richard is more reasonable, level headed, and strategy minded than many of his more vocal followers.
i’m confident that the FSF would call the license a Free Software license if it meets the Free Software definition.
Neither RMS nor the FSF’s are against MS or any other company they only for Free Software and if something is Free Software they have no problem calling it Free Software.
Look at: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/microsoft.html
and at the first comment of FSF Europe to the MS licenses: http://mailman.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/press-release/2005q4/000120….
>I would be interested in seeing these licenses submitted to the FSF.
Than just do it. The FSF doesn’t has such a formal way of approving licenses like the OSI. Just send a mail to icensing(at)fsf.org and you will get an answer.
The problem isn’t with MS license but that there are clueless managers.
Who cares? It’s irrelevant for the license.
OSI != FSF.
I guess we can expect you to advocate the revocation of the other approved company licenses, right? You know, Sun’s CCDL, Apple’s APSL, IBM’s Public License and the licenses from Nokia, Sybase, Vovida, CA etc.
I see my prediction that Microsoft would change the name of MS-PL from “Permissive” to “Public” was prescient.
Though I still would’ve preferred that they go with the nonsensical name “Microsoft Chocolate License”. :p
Anyway, this is good for two reasons:
A. There is already lots of MS-PL code out there, and very significant pieces of code, such as the DLR, and it’s good to have this code formally under the OSI umbrella.
B. OSI retains credibility. If they had caved into the Microsoft haters (both within OSI (like ESR and Google’s Cris DiBona(sp?)) and without), and rejected the licenses for political purposes, then OSI would’ve ceased to be relevant, so large the credibility hit would’ve been.
Edited 2007-10-16 22:11
I doubt losing OSI at this stage would be such a large blow to FLOSS as the term open source software has served it’s purpose, i.e. the large scale adoption of free software in the commercial and public sectors.
It remains to be seen if MS can actually take what has been offered and run with it. FLOSS is about so much more than just the code being open, It’s about building and nurturing community as well, something MS is going to have to get good at fast for them to truly reap all the benefits of the FLOSS model.
Then again, it remains to be seen if MS are even interested in a true FLOSS development model and not just paying lip service in order to capitulate on some unfortunates naive believe that one necessarily follows the other.
Microsoft already has projects on SourceForge.
Microsoft and others in the MS “community” have lots of open source projects at CodePlex too.
http://www.codeplex.com/
The DLR was “open sourced” (I can now use that term *formally*
) this summer. IronPython is open source. IronRuby is open source and Microsoft even moved it from a Microsoft site (I think it was either at CodePlex or GetDotNet) to RubyForge. IronRuby is only in alpha-type stage, but non-Microsoft people have already fixed bugs and implemented “not yet implemented” functionality, and Microsoft accepted the corresponding code to IronRuby’s source tree.
Microsoft is funding an ODF/OOXML converter that is open source (hosted on SourceForge). And there is plenty of open source code at http://www.openxmldeveloper.org.
In fact, I’d guess that Microsoft has released more “open source” code than most companies, and more significant code than most. And it is nurturing a community. The most vehemently anti-Microsoft folk will turn a blind eye to Microsoft’s efforts, but that’s their loss.
No, I don’t expect Windows or Office to be open sourced nor do I expect Microsoft to have anything to do with GPL, but I don’t think you’re giving Microsoft enough credit for what they’ve already done in this area.
To be perfectly honest, I don’t know enough about IronPython or IronRuby to really comment on them. I did read an article by a web designer finding it easier creating his website when he regressed from IronPython (or IronRuby, I can’t remember which) to PHP, but as that’s an isolated instance I’ll treat it that way.
I think you are missing the point of my post, as I probably failed to express myself properly, but what I haven’t seen coming from these MS opens source projects is the kind of tight nit, independent community that I see everywhere else in the open source world. I know that MS has released allot of code, but as I have said before, code does not equal community.
For example: Sun released the code for OpenSolaris using their own license, the CDDL. In a very short space of time, multiple ‘distributions’ sprang up around the code base, it attracted some serious developers from outside the ranks of Sun employees and nurtured a community that has grown exponentially ever since.
From MS, the only such instances that I have heard of are projects that where started by Miguel de Icaza, mostly without any start up help from MS. Yet even those projects seem to be run and contributed to almost entirely by Novell engineers.
That’s not a community that’s going to help foster the real and tangible results that open source can offer.
I don’t know all the reasons for why people would have a phobia of joining MS opens source projects but I do get the impression much of it has to do with not trusting MS. One fear I have heard repeated several times is that MS might change the license of the code at some stage in the future, using it for a commercial project without releasing any changes MS might have made back into the community.
As I haven’t really studied the licenses, I don’t know if any of them make previsions for those fears mentioned above. My not knowing is not going to make any difference, though. It’s the fear of developers that will be the greatest detriment to the fostering of such communities.
What I’m trying to say is that, unless MS can foster the kind of trust needed to rally a community of open source engineers around a project, they will never get the kind of benefits the BSDs and Linux gets.
Hey Molly. We often find ourselves on different sides of the fence. But this is a day on which we can both celebrate. If we are going to claim the moral high ground, we need to walk the high ground. The OSI did the right thing.
This does not mean that I am not suspicious of MS’s motives. It does not mean that I do not think that this might be part of a new and conniving strategy of theirs.
But I know, for sure, that compromising one’s principles, for the sake of strategy, is a sure way to become the enemy. Or, at least, become as bad as the enemy.
There is already lots of MS-PL code out there
That’s news to me, and probably a lot of other people as well.
OSI retains credibility. If they had caved into the Microsoft haters (both within OSI (like ESR and Google’s Cris DiBona(sp?)) and without), and rejected the licenses for political purposes, then OSI would’ve ceased to be relevant, so large the credibility hit would’ve been.
Let’s get this perfectly clear here – the OSI are not the organisation who needs credibility sweetheart. Like it or lump it, an organisation like the OSI is an organisation of interested parties that seeks to further the open source movement and is perfectly entitled to reject anyone who isn’t in tune with that movement. Talking about strict licensing criteria does not apply.
The OSI owes Microsoft nothing, so let’s be clear.
People who object cannot just be labelled ‘Microsoft haters’. Microsoft has stated very publicly and very clearly its dislike, irritation and sometimes outright hatred of open source software. They have decided to do that. Like it or lump it, that is and should be a concern for the OSI because Microsoft are going to start using the OSI logo everywhere for credibility they simply do not deserve in the open source world.
How much do you want to bet that Microsoft employees will now disappear from the OSI mailing lists now they’ve got what they wanted, in just the fashion that the ISO cannot pass anything because all the new members who voted on OOXML are now suddenly disinterested?
As usual for MICROS~1, all these softwares will run only in windows and using a lot of MS-only proprietary technologies. Where are the freedom to run where we want ?!
I cannot understand how can they talk about freedom when to use these “free softwares” you have to use a proprietary OS and APIs/technologies to run. For me it is not freedom, but lock-in.
The traditional and really free software that we use in linux, *nix, MacOS X and even in windows generally are also multiplatform and don’t have any or a very few proprietary dependencies.
Edited 2007-10-17 00:06
What makes their source code under these licenses Windows-only that can’t be fixed by extending support libraries in other systems to support it, or rewriting the platform-specific portions?
One could as easily state that the Linux kernel isn’t really free because it doesn’t run under Windows as native software using that line of reasoning.
Steve would say IP infringement.
“As usual for MICROS~1, all these softwares will run only in windows and using a lot of MS-only proprietary technologies. Where are the freedom to run where we want ?! “
Your premise is absurd. You’re saying that any open source project that relies on particular functionality of a platform isn’t free as in “freedom”? With an open source project, so you have the “freedom” to port the project to whatever platform you want.
BTW, you’re wrong on the facts, as Microsoft has released code that runs on multiple platforms. IronPython, for example, runs on Linux.
Edited 2007-10-17 00:34
“””
[q]BTW, you’re wrong on the facts, as Microsoft has released code that runs on multiple platforms. IronPython, for example, runs on Linux.[q]
“””
Well… “has released” is a different animal than “usually releases”. You have to admit that while the OSS world is virtually obsessed with cross-platform, Microsoft’s general nature has been to tie things to Windows. Sure there are exceptions. IronPython… MS Office on Mac. But they *are* exceptions to the general rule.
But who knows? Maybe MS is getting ready to turn over a new leaf.
BTW, you’re wrong on the facts, as Microsoft has released code that runs on multiple platforms. IronPython, for example, runs on Linux.
It runs on Mono, simply because Microsoft has not and will not release a .Net platform that runs on anything other than Windows.
If you’re wondering if many people are seriously questioning Microsoft’s open source credentials here, yes, we are. Get used to it.
And? The CLI is an open specification. Mono is an implementation of that specification.
.NET is another implementation.
The languages implemented in both instances are CLI compliant which is why they are able to be run on both platforms.
You’re thinking of .NET as a Microsoft abomination, it’s an implementation of a specification that you can download right now if you so please.
Furthermore, I think there is a bigger issue here.
Microsoft does not (and should not) have to conform to what the FSF defines as “Open Source”.
Not having the blessing of an organization with a mutual hatred with Microsoft doesn’t seem like it’d cause Microsoft any sleepless nights.
I mainly see the Ms-Pl/Ms-Rl as a convenience license for when they release samples, or even portions of their own platforms.
It’s perfectly sound to take Microsoft’s stance with a grain of salt, it’d also be smart to look passed the name of the corporaion and to the (positive) strides taken by said company to make the life of it’s developers more convenient.
I really doubt Microsoft cares much about open source “as you see it”, more like it does find the Open Source distribution model attractive and sees it as a viable method of working with it’s own developer community.
0.2c
And? The CLI is an open specification. Mono is an implementation of that specification. .NET is another implementation.
No it isn’t. The absolute bare minimum is specified to get a minimal CLR up and running like Rotor. To get anything close to something useful Mono had to implement a lot of classes that aren’t specified.
You’re thinking of .NET as a Microsoft abomination, it’s an implementation of a specification that you can download right now if you so please.
No it isn’t.
This retarded spelling of Microsoft is becoming just as old and tired as “Micro\$oft” and “M\$”.
You can run it wherever it compiles and where the OS support the features it needs. You know, just like how you cant really run iptables on anything but Linux. Where’s my freedom to run it on Windows?
It’s a good thing then that the OSI does not really give a damn what you think.
Being multiplatform or not has nothing to do with freedom or free software. It’s also wonderfully ironic that you listed OSX.
Edited 2007-10-17 04:26
This retarded spelling of Microsoft is becoming just as old and tired as “Micro$oft” and “M$”.
I think retarded goes a tad too far. Just because something is old its actually *more* relevant today. It doesn’t really express things like how they forked out 180million to push content exclusively onto their platform. To be fair I’m shocked that people don’t play with it more like Microcorrupt; Microabuser; Microlastgen etc etc its more fun.
“how you cant really run iptables on anything but Linux. Where’s my freedom to run it on Windows?”
Now I know you know the answer to do with this one ignoring all the patent nonsense, Microsoft by using a *compatable* open source license could *share* code with exactly something like iptables.
“Being multiplatform or not has nothing to do with freedom or free software.” I agree with you 100% but it is a major advantage of Free software over open-source, as if future-proofing etc etc.
Probably because most are cheap and not very funny. “M$” was clever and a bit funny back in the day but now it’s just tired and boring. Same goes for “MICROS~1”, it’s just not witty or clever anymore.
Sure, but my point was that whether software X only run on Windows or not is irrelevant for the MS license.
“Sure, but my point was that whether software X only run on Windows or not is irrelevant for the MS license.” No its *very* relevant when that license is an Open-source license and has to *play nice* with other software licenses esp. considering one the main concerns raised about these very licenses. It becomes more so, when regardless of how Vista Users say this should not be about politics, they seem to pretend that this license is created for business(sic) reasons in *direct response* to licenses created and used by competing businesses and organizations for business and *political* reasons.
If you are trying to argue that code tied to a Microsoft platform/Products/Code or any Microsoft Patents; Trademarks ; Copyrights is unimportant, or more importantly incompatibilities with *others* Patents; Trademarks ; Copyrights is unimportant. Then I strongly disagree with you.
The bottom line is though these are incredible hard licenses to understand, and after the lies about “Permissive” I’d need a lawyer present.
Off-topic bit
=============
“Probably because most are cheap and not very funny. “MS” was clever and a bit funny back in the day but now it’s just tired and boring. Same goes for “MICROS~1″, it’s just not witty or clever anymore.”
As much as I agree, I think any relevance to it, whatever you views is irrelevant. It doesn’t strengthen any argument. Unfortunately the reference is still relevant, FAT is still awful and very popular. I possess 3 devices that still only display the 8.3. I curse linus for his anti-customer stance, and Microsoft for creating, and enforcing such a dumb de-facto standard.
Edited 2007-10-17 06:54
Obviously OSI think it does play well enough with other licenses.
I’m not saying it’s unimportant but it has no relevance for the MS OSI compatible license. If it’s open enough then it’s open enough. Period. There shouldnt be different criteria if you’re Microsoft (or IBM or whatever).
If this was relevant for OSI approval OSI should then revoke the approval of, say, IBM’s license then since IBM has more patents and copyrights (and shadier past) than anyone else. Sure, they’ve *said* they wont use them but I’m still to see a legally binding document where they state they’ll never sue.
The GPL is also incredibly hard to understand for a layman.
Oh for sure FAT is horrible but that doesn’t make spelling Microsoft as “MICROS~1” funny or witty.
It’s about as funny as “Guano” Reeves.
Edited 2007-10-17 07:52
Thanks for wasting my time. The second you compared these Licenses to GPL you removed all doubt. The motives for GPL were layed down for forever, there is an *obvious* agenda, compatibility lists; and a clear explanation of every point on the license.
Whats more clear is your repeated insistences on talking about *other* companies licenses, when instances in question is that of *Microsoft*, which is in direct contrast with your points, about the license being taken on its own merits. Its a poor argument that if other people doing wrong justifies another’s wrongdoing. Its nice to see Apple not used as an example.
Like I say if your not amused, I can’t make it funny for you. I treat your comments on it like yours as I do spelling and grammar corrections(unless they are as bad as mine), as a bit sad with nothing real to say, like I say it doesn’t stress the important things in the right way, you need warning on products from Microsoft like those for Cigarettes like “Don’t let this anywhere near your computer” or “your supporting Sick, abusive; corrupt; anti-capitalist Monopolist”, “This product permanently damages the natural evolution of the computing industry”, “spyware”
…but like I say I’ve wasted my time.
I didn’t. I said the GPL is also difficult to understand for a layman which is true. It doesn’t matter if you like the GPl or not, it’s a long legal document that requires a lawyer to fully comprehend.
It’s quite common to make references and comparison to what others have done and do. If one license has been approved and passed the criteria then another license that also passes must be approved. A standards organization that wishes to be takes seriously can’t change their criteria on a whim. MS business practices must not matter if it didn’t matter for other businesses.
Just like I’ve wasted mine but that’s what we do here at osnews.
This retarded spelling of Microsoft is becoming just as old and tired as “Micro$oft” and “M$”.
Just as retarded as implying that a group of people are communists, or that everyone is a Microsoft basher. Microsoft, quire frankly, deserve this treatment. If they want to change peoples’ perceptions, that’s entirely up to them.
Yep.
Perhaps but it is still incredibly lame, tired and unfunny to spell that way and I’m tired of reading it every damn time there’s a discussion about MS.
Really, the name is Microsoft, shortened to MS, and it’s ok to write it. It’s not some ancient evil spell of doom that will cause the destruction of the world if spoken (or spelled) out loud.
Changing the name of the MS-PL resolved the main issue I had with it. Kudos to OSI for not letting political bias get in the way of doing their job. That job being to evaluate licenses and let us know which ones meet the Open Source definition. As Butters has pointed out in the past, some licenses, like the GPL, may not actually meet the requirements of the definition. But at least the OSI is pretty consistent in their decisions.
I applaud them for disregarding all those people who wanted to reject the licenses because the author was unpopular. I applaud them for showing fairness and integrity.
But I still think that their founder is a pompous, self-important, conceited, windbag.
No joke. Aside from Linus, the self-proclaimed leaders of OSS really aren’t worthy of the developers who currently do the actual work that goes into OSS. And Linus doesn’t really proclaim himself to be the leader of anything but the kernel project, AFAICT, so he doesn’t really count as a prophet of Open Source.
Even if much of the MSPL code is targeted first towards Windows, it is still useful as a source of algorithms and ideas that can be more widely applied. And if it’s in .NET, it is really not so painful to port to Mono. Windows is a pretty popular platform for OSS software, as well, so unless you’re a pure black-and-white thinker, the growth of a stronger OSS ecosystem on Windows is also a positive for the world. It sure beats the grudgingly-ported-from-*nix OSS apps of yore.
I wouldn’t use the word leaders for most of them. Advocates? Activists? Well, RMS is a leader of sorts, whatever one might think of his cause.
To be a leader, you have to lead. And it doesn’t hurt to have followers. Bruce doesn’t do a lot of leading, and it’s hard to find followers of Perens. ESR mainly struts around acting self-important, and any followers he might have are strongly urged to seek help immediately. Linus would rather be left alone to code and merge patches, but if you badger him enough, he *will* provide some choice quotes, suitable for plastering the pages of internet news sites, not to mention Forbes, for the next week.
To find a solid and effective OSS leader, one could do worse than to look to Andrew Morton. He, too, would rather be left alone to code and merge patches. But if you badger him enough for a quote… he will continue to code and merge patches, leaving Forbes, et. al. in the lurch. I like that.
Now, this isn’t a direct reaction to the OSI approval so a bit off topic, but could any of you Microsoft defenders (directly from these comments here) please explain one thing to me?
1. If you knew one guy was a child molester, woman killer and grave robber convicted and released, would you trust him if he applied for the local kindergarden teacher’s position?
2. If you knew someone already lied about everything else would you trust them if they made up a petition for new local law which “looks good” on the surface? Especially if you knew he’s paying big dough to get elected no matter what the public vote?
I mean COME F*** ON! You guys are the most naive (or stupid, I outright call you stupid) people on the face of the earth. Microsoft is a convicted criminal, and as such CAN NOT be trusted. No matter how “good” their acts might seem at some point they ALWAYS proved to be just for personal gain. Why the hell do you think it’s different this time huh?
I bet if it was one person he’d be stoned to death by now, no matter how much money he got. But companies, oh they are saints!
I’m not one of them but I’ll bite anyway.
This is the dumbest comparison in this thread. Seriously. I’m not even going to try to refute it since it falls on its face all by itself.
If it’s a good petition then it’s a good petition. You shouldnt shoot it down just because of who made it. Granted, you should look more careful at it but that is exactly what has happened.
Btw, nice try pretending your post is not about the OSI approval of the MS license.
I don’t know what to make of this statement. Of course there have been lawsuits against them that they have lost but so has pretty much every big corporation. I’m pretty sure that most, if not all, of them has been civil lawsuits anyway, not criminal ones, and losing a civil lawsuit does not make you a criminal.
Of course they can’t be trusted. That’s not the point.
All these rabid anti-MS shenanigans are pretty funny though. It’s much like one of these crazy old men who spout a lot of insane ideas and implausible stories that you wouldn’t take seriously even for a second but you still listen because, face it, it’s damn entertaining.
Edited 2007-10-17 09:55
All these rabid anti-MS shenanigans are pretty funny though. It’s much like one of these crazy old men who spout a lot of insane ideas and implausible stories that you wouldn’t take seriously even for a second but you still listen because, face it, it’s damn entertaining.
Well I just had a laugh on you but ok
The “convicted criminal” might not be 100% true in legal sense although I think certain issues in Denmark might come close to being “criminal-like” wouldn’t you agree?
In any case they are convicted of law-breaking, that’s enough for me or any employer to not give a job.
But all this aside, if you consider a “entity” which on one side just got OSI licence approved, and on the other shouts “PATENT WAR ON OSS” (yeah I know, “just linux” but let’s wait…) then how could you support it or even think it’s aiming for “greater good” ?
How can you expect them to go positive on OSS with this kind of backstabbing? Seriously.. some people.
Edited 2007-10-17 10:04
I honestly wouldn’t know. I guess dylansmrjones can enlighten us on that.
Well, obviously a lot of employers have no problem with MS’s law-breaking, contract-breaking or copyright/patent infringements.
I have no delusions of MS aiming for some greater good (I’m pretty sure they’re not) but that is of no relevance for whether their license meet OSI criteria or not. The OSI criteries does not include anything like “you must not be a bad guy” or “if we dont like you we can refuse”.
I find it somewhat hypocritical that those opposed to this (like ESR) had apparently no problem with approving the OSI licenses of CA or Sybase etc.
I have no expectation of them “going positive” on OSS (whatever that really means) but again that does not matter.
Also note that OSI have no affiliation with FSF and does not have to comply with FSF’s “moral” guidelines or ideals.
Ah now I understand you. You’re not the intended audience here. My original message was for people who say “this is a step in the right direction” etc. who somehow still “want to believe” that MS will become an OSS supporter (in the proper “we do some things too” way, not just “milk the cow” way).
BTW I never said a word about GNU or Free Software, please don’t pull out the wildcards.
I also never said I disagree with the license being accepted by OSI. In fact, my first statement was that the whole comment was sort of off-topic commenter-question for other commenters.
A lot of people here think that now MS will jump the OSS bangwagon and do the greater good just because they submitted an OSI license. I can’t really know what their plan is, but I’ll shoot in the wild and claim (blindly) that it’s analogical to their OOXML format standardization. Time will tell, I’m quite curious myself, but anyone who thinks they do this for good, or that good things will come out of this is seriously naive.
PS: I demand you un-censor “M.$” (try to write without the “.”)
Edited 2007-10-17 17:52
Oh yeah, I dont think MS will become a big OSS supporter anytime in the foreseeable future and that’s fine with me. I dont mind commercial, closed-source software (although I hardly use any myself either privately or professionally) and I dont think all software must be OSS.
Oh. Hmmm, I guess that was someone else then. Sorry about that.
I would certainly hope no-one would be that gullible. On the other hand it’s not impossible that they would open source some interesting stuff, stuff that isn’t critical for their revenue stream (I dont think they’ll opensource MS Office, for example).
It is in the end, just as with all the other commercial companies “supporting” OSS, just a matter if they’ll see it as an advantage (in terms of goodwill, market share or whatever) or not.
For all conspiracy theorists here.
What is wrong with their licenses? They are as they should be for OSS. Free is taken into consideration, patents too (but I wouldn’t need that either), no sue (covering only the parts software covers) agreement is there. It’s perfectly reasonable license.
Nah, hold your horses. MS bowed down with these licenses for completely different reason.Probably best described as dialog
PR1: WTF, this “open source” is getting popular more and more.
PR2..1000: Yeah.
PR1: And customers are asking for it. You can’t even make a presentation without being asked about it. It’s like universal shut’em up question.
PR2..1000: Yeah.
Steve (while gently throwing chairs all over the room): Then f*ckin get something done. I don’t care how. Make a f*ckin license that f*ckin hippies will approve and contribute something of ours, f*ckin whatever, as long as it is not f*ckin relevant. Anything to shut those f*ckin questions. We can always talk how we’re in preparations to open source more and do nothing.
This is not a conspiracy theory; it’s pretty clear to me that this is 99% of the motivation for these licenses. The next time a customer says “I’ve heard that Open Source is the next big thing; I want to get some of that,” the MS rep can say “We do open source, too. No need to go to another company.” And then sell the customer all kinds of not-open-source code, because the open source stuff doesn’t do much for customers.
This does several things: First, it prevents MS from losing some sales. Second, it muddies the waters… someone who gets nothing special from MS after being told that MS does OSS too is less likely to understand why switching to OSS would be a benefit. Third, it serves as a PR plus for MS who get to look more benevolent. Fourth, it probably helps MS legally in the monopoly department (don’t ask how, they’re lawyers will find a way).
Well, they could do this even if they used the BSD, GPL or any other of the existing licenses. They could still use the OSI logo and still pretend to be more OSS friendly than they actually are.
These licenses were actually pretty good; simple and straight forward. They are not long and complicated like GPLv3. And still they manage to maintain the freedom I prefer. I may even consider using these myself when writing code.
That “microsoft cant be trusted” is at least BS in this case; if you doubt their motives then just read the license yourself and see that its just a license and not some contract to sign over your soul. The license is just a few clicks away…so go read it before ranting on about evil motives and such.
Me for once will at least consider these licenses for what they are, and NOT for who made them.
Edited 2007-10-17 17:18
There is no issue of trust with Microsoft, their agenda is the same as any another company.
It turns out to be commercially sensible for them to copy the only model that has succeeded against them.
If I was a shareholder I would want to know what took them so long..
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071016-microsoft-gets-offici…
“OSI’s decision to approve the Ms-PL and Ms-CL (also known as the Microsoft Reciprocal License) is unsurprising, since the Free Software Foundation’s European branch has already voiced support for the licenses, publicly congratulated Microsoft for creating them, and expressed appreciation for the similarities between the Ms-CL and the FSF’s own GPL license.”
(Some commentators here seem to have very little to say about the actual license texts in question…)
The US software patent situation being the mess it is nowadays, and also when even the whole concept of intellectual property is still very much in dispute all over the world – and for a good reasons – it is no wonder that many new software licenses put so much emphasis on patent-related legal issues. The same with these new (MS) licenses.
To me the most interesting parts in the license texts are those related to patents, like the limitation to the Patent Grant:
“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 to the software ends automatically.”
What could that mean in various legal situations? How free is Ms-PL licensed software really from software patents and related legal threats? It would be interesting to read more comments on such matters related to the actual license texts.
I think it comes to when nobody apart from one person is a addressing what Microanalrapists license is compatible with, how it can be used and why Microminges are supporting *another* license. I see posts asking why simply being modded down with no explanation when Micronastydrippingflange is actually spending so much time attacking open source and its large projects. I wonder why Microtards are spending so much time talking about haters(sic) but not mentioning the fact that those people spoke out regarding abuse by Microweepinganus on certification and large scale abuse. Although the breakdown of ISO post Microcurruptvag is not mentioned its like a dirty secret…perhaps it is here.
Edited 2007-10-18 01:32