Slashdot Mirror

Pay Me License violates point 1 of OSI's Open Source Definition.

How do you describe a license that lets you run, modify, fork, and redistribute the code and do virtually anything other than offer a competing SaaS offering of the product?

I describe it as "not open source."

And of course, it's right there in the open source definition. Item 6 is, "no discrimination against fields of endeavor". The definitions of "free software" and "open source" are practically identical, and what these people are doing doesn't meet either one.

The open source companies are realizing that the open source model contributes to this whole freeloading situation and want to put a stop to it. I like free software as much as the next guy, but somebody has to pay the bills.

So in other words, these companies want to put restrictions on the use of the source. That's fine, but it's not F/OSS.

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.

https://opensource.org/osd-ann...

Seems a bit shady though that you put your stuff out for free that someone else can pick it up, package it and sell it on.

If that's the case then don't pick an open source license. Let me quote from the Open Source Definition:

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.

https://opensource.org/osd-ann...

Except here, the principles should have been these.

Except that violates a fundamental reason behind the philosophy.

Freedom #0 of the Four Freedoms of the Free Software Definition:

The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).

Item #6 of the Open Source Definition:

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.

This is an unusual recognition that free software isn't actually free. I love free and open source software, I use it regularly, and have contributed to open source efforts. But one thing the FOSS community sometimes forgets is that creating software costs time and money, lots of it...at least, for anything that's any good. SOMEBODY has to pay for it. If somebody is motivated to pay for it, great! We ALL benefit! But if nobody wants to pay for it, maybe it isn't worth so much, or maybe it needs to be...sold...as commercial software. If nobody wants to buy it, clearly, its value isn't as high as the author would like to think it is.

Tell that to these people.
OSD

But the open source movement is about choice.

No it isn't. I see this statement often and it's fundamentally incorrect. One has a choice insofar as to use F/OSS or not, but there's no movement to provide you with a plethora of alternatives to software that one doesn't like. In fact, the F/OSS movement is entirely about software development.

Example 1: The Open Source Initiative's mission statement

Mission

The Open Source Initiative (OSI) is a non-profit corporation with global scope formed to educate about and advocate for the benefits of open source and to build bridges among different constituencies in the open source community.

Open source enables a development method for software that harnesses the power of distributed peer review and transparency of process. The promise of open source is higher quality, better reliability, greater flexibility, lower cost, and an end to predatory vendor lock-in.

One of our most important activities is as a standards body, maintaining the Open Source Definition for the good of the community. The Open Source Initiative Approved License trademark and program creates a nexus of trust around which developers, users, corporations and governments can organize open source cooperation.

Nothing about enabling choice, here.

Example 2: The GNU Project philosophy page

Free software means that the software's users have freedom. (The issue is not about price.) We developed the GNU operating system so that users can have freedom in their computing.

Specifically, free software means users have the four essential freedoms: (0) to run the program, (1) to study and change the program in source code form, (2) to redistribute exact copies, and (3) to distribute modified versions.

GNU doesn't have a mission page, but the site talks about the Free Software philosophy and goes on to describe the 4 user freedoms that we all know and love. Nothing about providing users with choice.

So, please, stop perpetuating this myth. The whole F/OSS ethos is about software development, distribution and user rights. Nothing more.

The OSI has a whole section devoted to the "Coining" claim. It seems pretty important to them. You should ask them why.

https://opensource.org/history

https://opensource.org/history

Look at the "Coining Open Source" section.

I'm afraid you have to work on your understanding of licensing.

All copyright holders can bring suit. Thus, if some company modifies your GPL software to which you own the copyright, you can still bring suit regarding the part you wrote.

Also, the word "proprietary" in this context is referring to licenses that do not give the rights required in Open Source licenses.

Absent explanation, the term "open" in computing means interoperable. Since the eighties, Unix systems have been described as "open" due to their conformance to published standards.

Few think that "open" means "open standard". Proprietary software that's interoperable because one can interface with a published API certainly isn't called "open".

The term "open source" on face value only implies "source available".

Yep. And that's all it means.

Uncapitalized and on face value yes. But the OSI definition includes the full libre criteria, and most developers now associate the uncapitalized term with this definition (even in this article).

But I believe the most important feature of open software is that it allows people to create and distribute modified versions.

Nope. All it means is source code access. It doesn't imply the freedom to redistribute changed binaries, only patches.

I'm not talking about terms and definitions here, but calling out what I see as the most important aspect of Free Software.

"Open Source", as defined by OSI, should be capitalized, which it isn't in this summary.

The OSI does not get to define the phrase Open Source, because they did not invent it (not even, as they claim, pertaining solely to software!)

OSI did invent the term "open source" as a more descriptive term than "free software" for MIT- and GPL-type licences. The article to which you linked found an earlier use of "open source" that only meant "source available". As I said above, "open source" now means more than this in most people's minds.

Yes, the term "Free Software" on face value only implies that one can use it without payment,

That's only if you hear "free" and automatically think "I don't have to pay". Some people hear "free" and think "not in bondage". In some countries, Free Software is called Software Libre, which suggests freedom. But "Open Source" is, frankly, an even worse term. You can construe that to mean basically anything — and the OSI is trying.

The ambiguity of "free" in English was a major reason for the introduction of the "Open Source" term by the OSI.

Some of the open-source software I wrote ...

You may consider it "open-source", but it's not really "open source" in the sense that most people think of the term. That is, your license does not conform to the Open Source Initiative's definition of "open source" (in particular, it fails Point 5: "No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups".) Such "crayon licenses"* severely hamper other people using and building on your work. Anyone who wants to use your work can't do so in any environment where it needs to be Open Source or Free Software.

That may be okay with you. You might not care that people can't use it that way. That's fine: it's your software, and you're free to license it however you wish. -- Just be honest with yourself and others. It's not really "open source". It's a proprietary license which just happens to permit people to redistribute the source ("source available" rather than "open source"). Attempting to grab some of the Open Source/Free Software movement's laurels by claiming it's "open source", though, is a bit too much.

* And yes, a "modified BSD-license with some additional restrictions" is no longer a BSD license - it's a crayon license

You're wrong. Go check the license. Go look up what "open source" means.

Okay, here's the definition. Please point to anything in that definition that contradicts what I've said.

Receiving rights from your contractors is something that everybody always gets.

If only that were true. A huge amount of code is written on contract but then received with a proprietary license that locks the customer into the vendor for any support.

All closed source software written by contractors comes with an implicit license

It comes with a license to use (typically within an organisation), it usually doesn't permit modification or redistribution.

Earlier this week security-hardened Android build CopperheadOS temporarily blocked Nexus updates on its servers after finding out that other companies have been flashing the ROM onto Nexus phones and selling them commercially in violation of the CopperheadOS licensing terms. The incident highlights an inherent problem in getting open source to be used by the masses

This is FUD. If CopperheadOS prohibits selling it commercially, then they are not using an open-source license. By definition, open-source licenses cannot prevent others from selling the software commercially or otherwise prohibit redistribution or discriminate against fields of endeavor (including business use).

And, indeed, most sources (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...) call the Copperhead license "source available" rather than "open source" because of these non-open-source restrictions.

See https://opensource.org/osd

1. Free Redistribution
The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale. ...
2. 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.

And flashing it onto a ROM would constitute a derived work covered under section 3 of the OSD.

Choosing to support Open Source is not the same as using a Free Software license. And by "support" I did not mean "legally required to release source", if I did I wouldn't have used the word support. (the press release used the word support)

There are already OSI approved licenses from Microsoft such as Ms-PL and Ms-RL. With the Ms-RL (Reciprocal License) being like GPL in that it is a Free Software license, but unfortunately incompatible with GPL according to GNU

Choosing to support Open Source is not the same as using a Free Software license. And by "support" I did not mean "legally required to release source", if I did I wouldn't have used the word support. (the press release used the word support)

There are already OSI approved licenses from Microsoft such as Ms-PL and Ms-RL. With the Ms-RL (Reciprocal License) being like GPL in that it is a Free Software license, but unfortunately incompatible with GPL according to GNU

https://opensource.org/history

The “open source” label was created at a strategy session held on February 3rd, 1998 in Palo Alto, California, shortly after the announcement of the release of the Netscape source code.

Dries Buytaert "ask[ed] Larry [Garfield] not to participate in the Drupal project" and Buytaert said his choice Buytaert said was based in part on "confidential information that I've received" about "omissions in Larry's blog post" concerning Garfield's sex life leading Buytaert to "[suffer] from varying degrees of shock and concern". Yet open source long prided itself on being a developmental methodology which eschews certain outside considerations, most notably software freedom. Software freedom is not relevant for consideration on its own merit, and a user's software freedom is an issue that needlessly drives away open source's principal audience—businesses. Therefore it was understandable, even if one disagreed, when an open source advocate would chastise the free software movement along the lines of including such foreign concerns like ethics into what makes software free and how one ought to treat others with regard to computers and software. Apparently other outside concerns are more acceptable and open source (a developmental methodology) values more than just development released under an OSI-approved license to make software which "drive[s] innovation" resulting in a promised "higher quality, greater reliability, more flexibility, lower cost, and an end to predatory vendor lock-in".

In an update to his blog post, Buytaert also says that Garfield will be deplatformed (as the neologism goes), "the Drupal Association made a decision not to invite Larry to speak at DrupalCon Baltimore or serve as a track chair for it" presumably for the same secret reasons that so shocked and concerned Buytaert—Buytaert "can't get past the fundamental misalignment of values" wherein "Larry has entwined his private and professional online identities". So there's no room for someone who believes in "The Gorean philosophy promoted by Larry [which] is based on the principle that women are evolutionarily predisposed to serve men and that the natural order is for men to dominate and lead.". And this decision comes from the man who is described as "the [Drupal] project's dictator for life, the CTO of a company with powerful influence on the open source project, the president of the Board of Directors".

When the University of Berkeley wanted to release its Unix distribution, they also had the problem of finding a suitable permissible license, without falling into the extreme of Public Domain, which, as others have rightfully observed, isn't always recognized internationally. So they invented the beautiful BSD license. This license had a couple of clauses, that ultimately went down to just two now. How about the DoD releasing their stuff under the 2-Clause BSD License as well? Short, sweet, crisp, neutral, developer-friendly, and free of all ideology and cruft. I know, that's taking side in an open debate, and opening a can of worms, but seriously, for government-funded work, that may really be like U. Berkeley's code the best option.

Open source means that the source code is available and you can modify it and redistribute it with minimal conditions.

It does not mean "portable", which already had a word describing the concept, namely "portable"!

Most open source software ends up ported to other platforms, because as the source is available, it's relatively easy for someone to do it if the original maintainer doesn't want to, but that doesn't make them the same thing.

You can read more about open source here. The related concept of Free Software (mostly a matter of emphasis - open source advocates tend to focus on the benefits of a community driven development matter, while free software advocates tend to focus on the right to have and to share knowledge) is described fairly well here. While the two philosophies are frequently considered rivals, software categorized as free software is virtually always also open source, and vice versa.

You are wrong. The OSI definition of open source software is basically the same as the free software definition:
https://opensource.org/osd

The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.

The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.

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.

etc.

The parent is probably referring to the fact that CDDL is NOT compatible with the GPL.

https://lists.debian.org/debia...

Unfortunately Sun then developed the CDDL[1] and JÃrg Schilling
released parts of recent versions of cdrtools under this license.
The CDDL is incompatible with the GPL. The FSF itself says that this
is the case as do people who helped draft the CDDL. One current and
one former Sun employee visited the annual Debian conference in Mexico
in 2006. Danese Cooper clearly stated there that the CDDL was
intentionally modelled on the MPL in order to make it GPL-
incompatible. For everyone who wants to hear this first-hand, we have
video from that talk available at [2].

You can read the FSF position about the CDDL at [3]. The thread behind
[4] contains statements on the issue made by Debian people; for more
context also see the other mails in that thread.
In short - the CDDL has extra restrictions, which the GPL does not
allow. JÃrg has a different opinion about this and has repeatedly
stated that the CDDL is not incompatible, interpreting a facial
expression in the above-mentioned video, calling us liars and generally
appearing unwilling to consider our concerns (he never replied to the
parts where we explained why it is incompatible). As he has basically
ignored what we have said, we have no choice but to fork. While the CDDL
*may* be a free license, we never questioned if it is free or not, as it
is not our place to decide this as the Debian cdrtools
maintainers. However, having been approved by OSI doesn't mean it's ok
for any usage, as JÃrg unfortunately seems to assume. There are several
OSI-approved licenses that are GPL-incompatible and CDDL is one of
them. That is and always was our point.

[1] http://www.opensource.org/lice...
[2] http://meetings-archive.debian...
[3] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/li...
[4] http://lists.debian.org/debian...

Part of the reason Microsoft is moving this project to github and the MIT license is because people have gotten wise to their old tricks.

Take for example, the Singularity RDK. The license for Singularity RDK can be found here: https://singularity.codeplex.com/license. Microsoft played the game that if they posted it on a site that is titled "Project Hosting for Open Source Software" then it must be open source. However, even the second line of the license of "Non-Commercial Academic Use Only" is a violation of the Open Source Definition.

Microsoft employees had told me that the license issue was still a work in progress and Singularity RDK would eventually be released under a real open source license. However, it has been nearly 8 years now so my guess is the Microsoft will never release Singularity RDK into the open source and is satisfied with using Codeplex to misconstrue their fake licenses as "open source." So, for any project they want to make clear to everyone that they really truly intend to open source, they have stopped using the tainted Codeplex and MS-PL family of licenses.

Bottom line question is, why would we trust a company that hasn't lived up to it previous commitments?

That's a blatant lie. The BSD license does NOT say "All Rights Reserved."

The license is very simple, especially when compared to ANY of the GPL licenses: Preamble - not part of the license, just a template for applying your own copyright.

The following is a BSD 2-Clause license template. To generate your own license, change the values of OWNER and YEAR from their original values as given here, and substitute your own.

OWNER = Regents of the University of California
YEAR = 1998

• Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
• 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
• 2. 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.

That's it. You get the code, you can do anything you want with it, including customizing it and charging per copy without giving the source. Unlike the GPL, you decide the conditions of redistribution of your work. If the user doesn't like that, let them write their own code. Nobody's forcing them to pay for software.

Open source software is not always free software.

I'm aware of philosophical differences between users of the two terms. But I wonder what substantial difference you're seeing between the terms with respect to the software itself, as the Open Source Definition published by Open Source Initiative is nearly word-for-word identical to the Debian Free Software Guidelines.

I thought that "open source" as pitched by Perens and Raymond, was mainly distinguished from Stallman's Free Software

The Open Source Definition published by Mr. Raymond's organization is nearly word-for-word identical to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Each item in the DFSG expounds on an item in FSF's definition of free software: DFSG 1 is FSF 2, DFSG 2 is FSF 1, DFSG 3 and 8 and OSD 10 are FSF 3, DFSG 4 explains how Debian applied FSF 3 to the QPL, DFSG 5 and 6 are FSF 0, DFSG 7 ensures FSF 3 applies even on a desert island, and DFSG 9 explains how Debian applies FSF 2 to collective works.

by the former's lack of restrictions on what the licensee could do with the software.

It depends on what exactly you mean by "what the licensee could do with the software." Copyleft licenses, such as the GNU General Public License, qualify under the definition. A license that bans use by a "group of persons" or in a "specific field of endeavor" would not.

If it's not GPL'ed, it's not open source. And we all know what abhorrence MS harbors for GPL...

The Open Source Initiative has certified the MIT license as a valid open source license. Look I'm not a huge MS fan either, but they are using a real OSS license here. Just because MIT isn't copyleft doesn't mean its not OSS.

What exactly does Open Source have to do w/ something being locked down? Are we entering the 'TiVoization' argument again? Open Source simply means that the source code should be made available to the person who has the executables. Nowhere is there the requirement that the customer has to have the capability to actually modify the in-system code.

The ignorance, it burns!

In fact, the ignorance is so appalling I am inclined to think it's deliberate, but that doesn't matter.

Here's the actual, no kidding, definition of "Open Source" with respect to right-to-modify:

2. Source Code

The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form. Where some form of a product is not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost preferably, downloading via the Internet without charge. The source code must be the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program. Deliberately obfuscated source code is not allowed. Intermediate forms such as the output of a preprocessor or translator are not allowed.

Rationale: We require access to un-obfuscated source code because you can't evolve programs without modifying them. Since our purpose is to make evolution easy, we require that modification be made easy.

I'll try to buck the trend here by skipping the derision and offering constructive advice. ;-)

A single license that gives users access to the code but limits the ability to redistribute the code and distribute patches to the "core" is what we'd prefer.

In this case, the closest match I can come up with off the top of my head is to apply the Microsoft Reference Source License to the source code.

This is not a Free/Libre or Open source license, because the constraints you are looking for are in direct conflict with the Open Source Definition, clauses 1 and 3; the Copyfree Standard Definition, clauses 1 and 3; and the Free Software Definition, freedoms 2 and 3.

Do you expect that if you were to permit redistribution of the core and modifications to it that others in the community would completely take over the project and continue its development without your business's involvement (a 'fork', in development jargon)? That would be the primary reason I can think of for such a restriction.

Most open source licenses, by definition, must allow distribution. There are outfits that provide source code for other reasons. Microsoft and Apple are good examples. Microsoft often provides code examples that are intended to illustrate the use of a particular feature. I am not sure if that is the kind of license you want or not.

Another option is to examine how nVidia handles their Linux driver. They basically provide large chunks of source code for interfacing the driver, but also distribute a core binary object that must be linked into the driver. That binary object implements the proprietary magic while the remaining files are mostly glue. Of course, there is a community out there looking to obsolete the need for that proprietary magic. Note that the NVidia license is not considered "open source" either (by definition).

Usually one would involve lawyers for an endeavor involving the production of legally binding documents. Your company should consider doing so in this case.

As much as I find it distasteful to recommend a license that is Open Source but NOT Free Software, you may want to check out the Reciprocal Public License: http://opensource.org/licenses...

It basically says that anyone who makes any changes to the software, whether they're "just internal" or distributed to a third party, must share those changes back to the community.

It would allow your company to release your software under Copyleft terms similar to the GPL, but with an added *restriction* that prevents companies (and individuals) from modifying your code to suit their purposes and then not distributing the code to you.

Of course, people are free to violate your license and never tell you; enforcement of the license in the case of non-distribution would be difficult to impossible without unauthorized trespassing on their property to obtain evidence (and then you have fruit of the poisonous tree).

The RPL tries to write into the license what many (most?) developers do anyway: if you're going to make any enhancements, give them back to the "mothership" so they can include them in the main product, thus making the main product better.

You'd have the following situation, thus:

(1) Individuals are so unlikely to be caught that, unless they are very careful and deliberately ethical, they will probably not respect the wishes of the RPL.

(2) Companies are less likely to knowingly violate the license because of the risk of possible damage to their reputation in court, but you may find employees within a company who choose to "risk it" and not inform their management about the risks of not distributing their changes to RPL'ed code. So you'd have a certain group of companies that WOULD contribute back (to comply with the letter of the license), and a certain group that WOULDN'T contribute back (and risk the consequences if it's ever discovered).

Funnily enough, you wind up with a very similar situation with the GNU General Public License or Affero General Public License 3.0, except that:

(1) Not distributing their code is *legal*, unless they distribute binary copies to someone who is considered not to be a member of the organization. So an employee can legally hand his coworker a binary-only copy of your product, but if he gives it to his neighbor or posts it on a mailing list, he would be obligated to include the source code, or at least an offer to provide the source code upon request (possibly with a monetary fee attached to the distribution medium; the fee does not have to be reasonable or cheap).

(2) Some third party who (legally) gets a copy of the binaries from them could go through the process of obtaining the source code, as they'd be entitled to, and they would then be free to hand you a copy for free (or not, as they please). Basically anyone willing to pay the distribution fee / ransom would be able to "liberate" the code by posting it on Github, and that would be 100% legal.

(3) You'd *still* have companies and individuals in both the "not sharing with you" and "sharing with you" camps, except that those who choose *not* to share with you are not necessarily violating the license of the code (unless they give you binaries only, and then cackle maniacally and refuse to hand over the source).

Enforcement concerns make the *expected outcome* of licensing under either the GPL3/AGPL3 or the RPL1.5 almost identical, except that you would be technically entitled to sue anyone you happen to witness as having made modifications to the original source without sharing those modifications with the original developers (you). But the likelihood of you actually finding someone foolish enough to violate your license, and then willingly share that fact with you, is pretty low.

This doesn't sound like open source is your real desire. It's totally possible to have a proprietary license with source provided to the customer.

You could gain some mindshare by using one of the more restrictive Creative Commons licenses, like Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs
(CC BY-NC-ND) or Attribution-NoDerivs
(CC BY-ND).

You could use something very similar to the pre-2007 qmail license. It allows people to download and use it. They can make any changes locally. They can redistribute the pristine sources or binaries made from them to others. They can't distribute their alterations. They can distribute patches against the pristine sources, but they can't call those part of the product.

The OSI has a whole list of licenses. I'd bet not one of these meets your requirements. You really shouldn't be saying it's "open source" unless you're using an OSI-approved license.

Software licensing is a legal issue. The people you really want to be talking to about what license language meets your exact needs in light of the laws where you operate are lawyers. More specifically, you want probably want people versed in both copyright and contract law to look into this.

The fundamental misunderstanding people have is that the GPL is a distribution license, not a use license. That's why it's called a "copyleft" and not an "end user freedom agreement." The GPL is exactly not an end user license agreement. There are no terms of use for GPL software, and the OSI's definition of Open Source explicitly prohibits that.

Technically, all those GPL Windows programs that make you click "I agree with these terms" during install for the GPL are wrong to do so. The GPL requires that the user be notified of his or her rights and obligations with the GPL, but users are not required to accept the terms of the GPL because the GPL only applies to persons distributing the software. The installers should require no agreement checkbox, and the button should say "Next" and never "I Agree".

You can do whatever the hell you want with GPL software -- or, indeed, any OSI approved license, AFAIK -- and if you don't try to give it to a third party you don't have to publish squat. It's perfectly legal to have proprietary modifications to GPL code. You just can't distribute that software to anybody else without giving them the ability to get your code modifications.

This is how Google is able to run a custom version of MySQL for their search engine and they don't have to show the code to anybody. They don't have to do that because they're not distributing Google Custom MySQL to anybody in any form.

I generally agree with the provided links and add more...
http://opensource.org/licenses provides a good overview of licenses.
http://www.openfoundry.org/en/compatibility-of-licenses addresses the specific issues described in the question.
http://www.openfoundry.org/en/license-wizard/licensewizardv33 provides a question and answer style of interaction that will help select an appropriate license for your goals.

Open source as a development model promotes a universal access via a free license to a product's design or blueprint

The term Open Source was invented to describe software licenses in the face of copyright law. Hardware in general is "protected" by patents, not by copyright. Those are two completely different mechanisms, and talking about them like they are somehow the same makes no sense at all.

This isn''t the first time Microsoft has contributed to "Open Source." It starts each time with Microsoft contributing code which is actually under an OSI approved license. Over time, Microsoft then attempts to gray the lines between what is Open Source and what is not. Take for example Microsoft CodePlex which they misrepresent as "Project Hosting for Open Source Software." Shortly after it's creation, a Microsoft controlled project called Singularity RDK was added which redefines Open Source as being for only "non-commercial academic purpose" which of course violates the Open Source Definition #6 which "prohibit license traps that prevent open source from being used commercially."

Some people have pointed out that SourceForge also has projects that don't honor the open source definition. However, no one has been able to point to such a project where SourceForge itself is the author of the project. Microsoft has both set the rules and breaks the rules for CodePlex.

Microsoft is still following embrace, extend and extinguish. The latest contributions are back at phase 1 but it won't be long until Microsoft is back again at phase 3.

You sir, are a great astroturfer and deserve a raise from MS.

Well, just recently a very interesting article covering Microsoft "open source .NET" license, you should read up on that, especially MS requiring a license to the patents in the code you contribute, but refusing to grant you license for their code, instead, providing a promise not to sue.

Um... Mono is released under an MIT license, which is less restrictive than the Microsoft Public License. But here, take a look what Microsoft's Open Source license says in terms of them licensing you their patents on their code:

2. Grant of Rights (A) Copyright Grant- Subject to the terms of this license, including the license conditions and limitations in section 3, each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free copyright license to reproduce its contribution, prepare derivative works of its contribution, and distribute its contribution or any derivative works that you create.

(B) Patent Grant- Subject to the terms of this license, including the license conditions and limitations in section 3, each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free license under its licensed patents to make, have made, use, sell, offer for sale, import, and/or otherwise dispose of its contribution in the software or derivative works of the contribution in the software.

I'm not going to reproduce Section 3, but the restrictions are: You don't get a trademark license or a warranty, you're not allowed to sue other licensees over your patents, you have to retain copyright notices that appear in source code, and you can't re-license MSPL code under viral licenses (e.g. the GPL).

If you want to see the full license, check out the OSI's site on the MS-PL

It predicates a patent safety provision on being a .NET project.

That is your interpretation. Your whole argument is based on that assumption. You have no evidence whatsoever that your interpretation is correct. Nothing backs up your assumption.

while they say it "is aimed specifically", they don't say it's aimed exclusively at that one problem.

One of the synonyms for specifically is "exclusively".

You're completely ignoring the section itself

Where in section 10 does it say and words like code, implementations, package, etc? It specifically states the license and not what the license covers.

But, hypothetically, let's say we agree that your "exclusivity" interpretation of of the section 10 annotation is correct and that you are correct that the intention trumps the wording.

You are again assuming that your interpretation of the wording is correct.

I think we'll agree that the OSI never intended to let developers call their software "open source" and reserve the right to sue people if they don't like technical choices of how they use the code.

Actually no we don't as I have no idea what is in the minds of the OSI and neither do you. In fact there are many "technical choices" that could get somone sued under open source. For example in GPL v2.0 you are required to show a copyright notice when accessing the package by command line. Make a "technical choice" not to display it and you could get sued. Open source licenses set out how people can get sued.

If we agree on that, then your insistence on intention leads again to me being right about Microsoft's terms being in conflict with the OSD.

If it is so out of compliance with OSD then why did OSI certify them and why are they still certified? What make you more of an expert on OSD than the people who run the organization?

If we agree on that, then your insistence on intention leads again to me being right about Microsoft's terms being in conflict with the OSD.

So you can not back up your arguments so go fall back on the "I may be wrong in the details but I am still right". Sorry we are talking about the details and you are still wrong.

Bruce, to clarify: are you saying that, since the code in question is released under the MIT license, which is OSI approved, there is an implicit patent grant there that renders the separate explicit one basically redundant, and this whole thing is a non-story?

section 10 that "No provision of the license may be predicated on any individual technology or style of interface."

They should look at the annotated definition.

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

Rationale: This provision is aimed specifically at licenses which require an explicit gesture of assent in order to establish a contract between licensor and licensee. Provisions mandating so-called "click-wrap" may conflict with important methods of software distribution such as FTP download, CD-ROM anthologies, and web mirroring; such provisions may also hinder code re-use. Conformant licenses must allow for the possibility that (a) redistribution of the software will take place over non-Web channels that do not support click-wrapping of the download, and that (b) the covered code (or re-used portions of covered code) may run in a non-GUI environment that cannot support popup dialogues.

Section 10 deals with how the license is signed and not the technology used in the code.

If you can't give it to anyone else then it's absolutely not open source. Free redistribution is even the first criteria in the Open Source Definition, which most people, organizations and governments use when defining open source. Simplifying open source to mean just that I can look at the source code therefore it's open source is taking away the very thing that is the core of what open source is.

This is the top of the superfish.js listing. Not that I understand Javascript very well (where are the line numbers?) but it seems fairly innocuous...

*
  * Superfish v1.4.8 - jQuery menu widget
  * Copyright (c) 2008 Joel Birch
  *
  * Dual licensed under the MIT and GPL licenses:
  * http://www.opensource.org/lice...
  * http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gp...
  *
  * CHANGELOG: http://users.tpg.com.au/j_birc...
  */ ;(function($){
        $.fn.superfish = function(op){

                var sf = $.fn.superfish,
                        c = sf.c,
                        $arrow = $([' '].join('')),
                        over = function(){
                                var $$ = $(this), menu = getMenu($$);
                                clearTimeout(menu.sfTimer);
                                $$.showSuperfishUl().siblings().hideSuperfishUl();
                        }, .....

Requiring fees based on the deployment platform used does not constitute "free" software under any open source definition I have ever read.

So you have not read any, and have no idea what you are talking about. Start with the open source definition (opensource.org) and the Free Software Foundation (gnu.org).
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy...
http://opensource.org/faq#free...

You are making, unintentionally, an excellent point that one should refer to gratis software and libre software.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
GCompris is always libre software, but sometimes not gratis. That is OK with both the FSF/GNU and OSI.

Requiring fees based on the deployment platform used does not constitute "free" software under any open source definition I have ever read.

The software is licensed under the GNU GPL 3, and is thus certainly free software. It follows all four freedoms in the free software definition. It is also open source, under the offical Open Source Definition. In fact, being able to sell the software is integral to it being free software. From the GNU licence FAQ:

Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money?

Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The right to sell copies is part of the definition of free software. Except in one special situation, there is no limit on what price you can charge. (The one exception is the required written offer to provide source code that must accompany binary-only release.)

And, of course, the source for GCompris Qt is available, at both a KDE Git repository and a GitHub mirror. You’re welcome to compile it yourself, and play it for free, on either a Linux system or an Android system (or any other system you wish to port it to).

Yes, it is Free Software, but it is Open Source too.

GNU Wget is licensed under GPL 3 or above, and GPL 3 is an OSI-approved Open Source licence.

Contract law

But the source is free to the public, there's no terms and conditions I have to agree to. Indeed, it would no longer be Free Software, or at least it wouldn't be Open Source Software according to the Open Source Definition.

There are, as is pointed out in the link you provided, terms and conditions attached to the use of the software; which do not make it any less free. in fact they keep it free.

Contract law

But the source is free to the public, there's no terms and conditions I have to agree to. Indeed, it would no longer be Free Software, or at least it wouldn't be Open Source Software according to the Open Source Definition.

free to use unless you intend to kill people.

Would violate clause six of the Open Source Definition (and the Debian Free Software Guidelines): No discrimination against fields of endeavor.