Slashdot Mirror

The term "Open Source" was coined by the Open Source Initiative. In order to be considered "Open Source" you must meet these criteria. Microsoft have submitted two licenses for approval, but not the one they are using for Open.NET

I still think it's bullshit that the term "Open Source" was rejected as a trademark.

The term "Open Source" was coined by the Open Source Initiative. In order to be considered "Open Source" you must meet these criteria. Microsoft have submitted two licenses for approval, but not the one they are using for Open.NET

I still think it's bullshit that the term "Open Source" was rejected as a trademark.

The term "Open Source" was coined by the Open Source Initiative. In order to be considered "Open Source" you must meet these criteria. Microsoft have submitted two licenses for approval, but not the one they are using for Open.NET

I still think it's bullshit that the term "Open Source" was rejected as a trademark.

So you aren't going to try to get OSI to certify this? Even after Michael Tiemann's "If it's not OSI, then it's not 'open source'" rant?
http://www.opensource.org/node/163
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/06/21/1146259

I find that hard to believe.

6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor

The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.

Rationale: The major intention of this clause is to prohibit license traps that prevent open source from being used commercially. We want commercial users to join our community, not feel excluded from it.

Actually we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can. If this seems surprising to you, please read on.

The word "free" has two legitimate general meanings; it can refer either to freedom or to price. When we speak of "free software", we're talking about freedom, not price. (Think of "free speech", not "free beer".) Specifically, it means that a user is free to run the program, change the program, and redistribute the program with or without changes.

Software can be both free software (or "open source" as you used) and commericial software at the same time. There is nothing exclusive about either. For examples, see Red Hat, Sun, IBM, and many more.

Looks like I just fed a troll.

Normally I'd say the parent AC is engaging in flamebait:

OSI is looking for any excuse to reject this license.

especially with the usual digs at the GPL (funny how the second oldest free software in common use is the one everyone blames for incompatibility with the new licenses that came out in the last five to ten years.)

However, in this case, the "any excuse to reject this license" claim may well be right. Eric S. Raymond, on the OSI Board's blog, has somewhat unhelpfully suggested that he's leaning towards wanting the licenses rejected for reasons other than their compliance with the open source definition, namely Microsoft's entirely unrelated OOXML activities.

I'm not sure the OSI is being smart in associating itself with that view.

here's a link for you The BSD License

Did you actually read the license? I don't think so. "# Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
# Neither the name of the nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission." http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php So you can use it freely, but you cannot strip the license. Why is this so hard to understand for Linux people? Isn't it enough just to use it? No they want the GPL mark on top of it too. And furthermore: http://openbsd.org/policy.html So just leaving the license intact isn't freedom anymore? According to this reasoning, the GPL is pure slavery :-)

Actually, that's not the BSD license. It's the ISC license, which is now used by OpenBSD for all new code. It's even freer than the BSD license.

http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php

You can't remove the copyright notice. That's clear from the license text, for anyone who can read English:

Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.

> Is the attribution requirement of the BSD license really a GPL killer?

There is no attribution requirement, at least none more than the GPL has (GPLv2, section 1). The advertisement clause was removed some time ago.

http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/gpl-license.php

> Is the attribution requirement of the BSD license really a GPL killer?

There is no attribution requirement, at least none more than the GPL has (GPLv2, section 1). The advertisement clause was removed some time ago.

http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/gpl-license.php

Sorry, but mods, please read the BSD license before modding parent.

Sorry, but the BSD License SPECIFICALLY states that the copyright license/notice and diclaimers must be kept with any binary or source redistribution of the code.

Now the code in question was dual licensed, with "either" being the join, not "both", so they may theoretically be able to chuck the BSD license. However, straight BSD does not allow removal of the license like you suggest.

Oh, and the BSD License for the curious. Occasionally clause 3 and 4 can be removed, but clause 1, which is the relevant portion here, is always kept. BSD License

People redefining words to fit their agenda (for good or bad) is nothing new. And like it or not, the English language is ambiguous, and one word or phrase may mean different things to different people. And just because they use a definition that doesn't jive with the one you prefer, that doesn't mean they're `wrong'.

To many, `open source' simply means the source is available.

"Open source" is a term of art with a very specific meaning.

Anyone in the software field, or any related field, who thinks that "open source simply means the source is available" is dangerously ignorant.

Eric S. Raymond (ESR) commented on Microsoft's OOXML tactics as they relate to their proposed open source licenses in a OSI blog entry.

I agree pretty much with his position. If the playing field were anything near to level, I would have no issue in evaluating Microsoft's license submissions purely on their merits, just like any other license. However, I have difficulty in reconciling Microsoft wanting to be treated fairly by OSI with Microsoft's tactics in their attempts to ram OOXML through ISO. If Microsoft can game the ISO approval process, shouldn't it be fair for us to game the OSI approval process?

Why didn't you count?

http://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical has 59 licenses, a couple of which are "not recommended" anymore (at least "Historical Permission Notice and Disclaimer", "SISSL" and "X.Net"). Some of them are pretty much identical to each other (near public domain), some are "version two".

So it would make around fifty different "alive and well" licenses.

How do you license instructions for a computer?
Oh, wait, like this: http://opensource.org/licenses/apache2.0.php
If you can license code, you can license instructions for humans as well

So "Open Source" now means it has to compile and run on all platforms?!?!?

Microsoft's Limited Permissive license states that:

(F) Platform Limitation- The licenses granted in sections 2(A) & 2(B) extend only to the software or derivative works that you create that run on a Microsoft Windows operating system product.

Whereas the Open Source Definition states that:

8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product
The rights attached to the program must not depend on the program's being part of a particular software distribution. If the program is extracted from that distribution and used or distributed within the terms of the program's license, all parties to whom the program is redistributed should have the same rights as those that are granted in conjunction with the original software distribution.

And...

10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral
No provision of the license may be predicated on any individual technology or style of interface.

So, in other words, yes. If someone wants to compile, run, and distribute Open Source software on some other operating system, the license must allow it. And the MS-LPL is therefore not compatible with the Open Source Definition.

http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.html#6 says that an Open Source license cannot discriminate against any "field of endeavor". Running stuff on non-Windows could potentially be seen as a field of endeavor, which would disqualify the "limited" license.

Reading Ms-PL (Microsoft Permissive License) I see nothing that requires the source code of the software to be distributed, as such Ms-PL is not an open source license.

I have read Ms-PL and OSD (Open Source Definition http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd) and also I've read the MPL (Mozilla Public License) just to compare it with.
OSD say: "2) The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form..."
Ms-PL only mention of the source code is: "If you distribute any portion of the software in source code form..."

So one possible scenario: Ms-PL gets approved. Microsoft creates a program (they say under Ms-PL, so they get Open Source tag on it), then they distribute only binary form (no link or method to get access to the source code). Yes, the binary form is under Ms-PL so you can distribute it and all that but you don't get the source code.

Why is this a problem you say, if they don't provide the code then nobody else will contribute code.
Problem is that they will be able to tag some products as "Open Source".
The very meaning of the word "open source" suggest that you have access to the source code of the software.

One thing that I agree with the submitter (Jon Rosenberg) is that Ms-PL is indeed short (compared with GPL or MPL).

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

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

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

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

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

The OSI should also consider if yet another open source license is really needed.

There are already 59 different Open Source licenses listed at OSI's site! The Open Source Licenses by Category page shows that some of those are non-reusable, superseded, retired or redundant. Nevertheless, one would think that if Microsoft is really trying to live up to the "Open Source" criteria, one of the numerous other, already-approved licenses would suffice.

We already have very liberal licenses, like the BSD, MIT and zlib/libpng licenses. Likewise, we have very restrictive licenses, like the GPL and the MPL. And we have some in the middle, like the Artistic license and the Apache License, 2.0. And then there are always the more corporate-esque licenses, like the CDDL and the Eclipse Public License.

If they're truly serious about release their software as Open Source software, then at least one of just those licenses should be sufficient. Otherwise, it would seem that they're just trying to be shit disturbers.

The OSI should also consider if yet another open source license is really needed.

There are already 59 different Open Source licenses listed at OSI's site! The Open Source Licenses by Category page shows that some of those are non-reusable, superseded, retired or redundant. Nevertheless, one would think that if Microsoft is really trying to live up to the "Open Source" criteria, one of the numerous other, already-approved licenses would suffice.

We already have very liberal licenses, like the BSD, MIT and zlib/libpng licenses. Likewise, we have very restrictive licenses, like the GPL and the MPL. And we have some in the middle, like the Artistic license and the Apache License, 2.0. And then there are always the more corporate-esque licenses, like the CDDL and the Eclipse Public License.

If they're truly serious about release their software as Open Source software, then at least one of just those licenses should be sufficient. Otherwise, it would seem that they're just trying to be shit disturbers.

UNIX has been replaced by GNU and BSD, and Bell Labs works on something quite new with regards to UNIX known as Plan 9 from Bell Labs. I don't really think there is any reason to use old UNIX code when Plan 9 is already open source.

I think I missed the part where you demonstrated that "least restrictive" equals "best". Could you back up and go over that again, please?

I count 60 licenses. Qmail is NOT OSI certified. Affero is not approved either, or at least I can't find a single reference claiming it to be. So out of the 60 OSI-certified licenses, GPL stands to be the worst, you agree with me?

And BSD-style licenses are pretty damn close to public domain, wouldn't you say?

Public domain is public domain. Open source is open source. They are not equivalent. BSD-style licenses just happen to fall close to the intersection of open source and public domain.

Think of it this way: imagine you have some public domain software. If you have the source code, then it's also open source. But if you only have the binary, it's not open source even though it's public domain. Or, imagine you have some "open source" software. It could be public domain, it could be GPL, or it could even be Microsoft "shared source" (which is about as far from public domain as you could get!).

So unless you meant e.g. rather than i.e. I'm going to have to disagree with categorization of open source.

Hey, don't blame me; I prefer to avoid that term (in favor of "Free Software") anyway. Take it up with OSI.

Indeed, just as we have gone through every other license with a fine-toothed comb[1] I invite you to join the process and subscribe to the license-discuss mailing list.

[1] Well, there was the APSL 1.0, but that was the impetus for making the license approval process a formal community effort.

"(F) Platform Limitation- The licenses granted in sections 2(A) & 2(B) extend only to the software or derivative works that you create that run on a Microsoft Windows operating system product."

"10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral. No provision of the license may be predicated on any individual technology or style of interface."

Nope, I mean the two clause BSD licence. Of course it is basically the same as the MIT licence, but is different from three clause BSD and of course the four clause BSD. The Free BSD licence is two clause as well.

Of course, if an OS has a decent driver system, then having a GPL driver shouldn't limit anyone from using it. As well (an I am not an expert in the field at all...), if people can write proprietary drivers using DRI, why can't people use GPLed DRI drivers on software such as FreeBSD? Or do you just mean that people won't distribute it?

And of course, it wasn't me saying "GPL or nothing".

Richard Stallman doesn't agree with being called an "open source software figure" or with being considered part of the "open source movement". The "open source" movement is a fork of the "free software" movement started by Richard Stallman. Although "open source software" is practically identical to "free software" for just about all practical purposes, the fundamental philosophy of the Open Source Initiative differs significantly enough from the viewpoint of Stallman's Free Software Foundation (FSF) that the FSF will, if participating at all at "open source" events, put up a big "we're not part of the open source movement!" banner. A good discussion of the difference between "open source" and "free software" from the FSF's perspective is here.

I've looked this up and here is the OSI post you're probably thinking of, by their president, Michael Tiemann.

The OSI (who I should make clear I definitely don't support) were not, as you say, complaining because SugarCRM hadn't payed them money but because the old license clearly didn't follow the OSI open source definition, the FSF free software definition, or the Debian Free Software Guidelines (due to various issues including an advertising clause that was worse than the old BSD one).

OSI were also not claiming a legal right to stop this, but, I think, more that the industry and customers should deem it unacceptable (and maybe even, although he doesn't say it, pursuing a case for false advertising).