A Slightly-Softer Microsoft Shared Source License

RadBlock writes "Microsoft Watch has a story on a recent change in Microsoft's shared-source licensing... I guess the main difference is that programmers do not have to send back any changes made to the source code. But they can't combine any of the Microsoft code with other software. Here's the full text of their new license agreement." The article claims that Microsoft is "inching closer -- at least in spirit -- to the GNU GPL" with these license tweaks, but it doesn't look that way to me.

Comments

Re:Microsoft?

[agentZ]

I don't know about the exact text per se, but the Microsoft speaker today at the Open Source in eGovernment conference in Washington DC did refer to the ASP license, that it was less than one page, and did allow user's more freedom with the code, specifically the ability to use the ASP licensed code in their own projects.

Re:Closer to GPL

[ryants]

You are under no obligation to send your changes back to the community under the GPL.

Please see the GPL FAQ.

An inch.

[DarkVein]

The article claims that Microsoft is "inching closer -- at least in spirit -- to the GNU GPL" with these license tweaks, but it doesn't look that way to me.

An inch is how much of a stride? How many strides is Shared Source Initiative/License from GNU/GPL?

This is a pretty big step for Microsoft. They are, to a legal extent, relinquishing complete control of the source. Now you can maintain a private fork of the SSL source. (isn't that a nice abbreviation?) You won't have to report every little tweak you make to Microsoft.

On the other hand, MS could be bowing to simple reality: they don't have or want the resources to administer 900,000,000 variations on patches, developers keep private trees anyway, companies do not like dishing out their private modifications to potential competitors. Even so, they've bowed to reality. If they keep bowing to reality, they'll eventually hit something near the BSD license, and do a lot of good when they start getting close.

Re:Closer to GPL

[Flamerule]

You are under no obligation to send your changes back to the community under the GPL.

However, if you base your product on or incorporate GPL-licensed code, and you release that product to anyone through any channel, you are required to give a machine-readable copy of your source code at no charge to anybody who asks for it. Which is effectively the same thing.

This is wrong. I believe you're referring to option (b) of the following GPL section:

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

• a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
• b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
• c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

Note the "or"s. If you release your product "to anyone through any channel", as you say, then you could use option (a) and accompany the product with its source. You need not do anything more than that, for anyone else.

Re:Microsoft would never consider a GPL-like appro

[Fnkmaster]

Aha, my friend, you've forgotten one very important example. Why do I think it's important? Because they've made a model that's worth following. That company is TrollTech, better known as the authors of the Qt toolkit. They seem to be quite well with their model, which basically amounts to releasing their library code under the GPL, and making it available as a standard commercial library for a fee. That means if you want to write Free Software (err or rather, anything GPL-compatible and Free, I guess) you can use their library under the terms of the GPL. If you want to write commercial software, you can write commercial closed-source (or whatever other commercial model you are using) software, you just have to pay for developer seat licenses. Makes perfect sense.

I don't know what their bottom line looks like, but they seem to have been rapidly expanding and releasing new and improved products over the last few years, so it seems to be working well for them. I also think this is a pretty reasonable model for developers of library software - the benefits of Open Source, and the ability to actually profit off of your labor too. So while I agree that in general the GPL is probably too restrictive for businesses to feel comfortable with (they tend to feel more comfortable with BSD licenses - it's free, use it as you please, give us a nod for giving it to you), there are cases where it has been used successfully by profitable businesses.

Re:Absolutely one step closer!

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Eh? If the GPL is viral, then MSOffice is too.

What the hell is this supposed to be? Argument by search-and-replace? I really don't mind if people disagree with me; I wouldn't bother posting these things if I did. But at least have the common courtesy to read and understand what is said before attempting to refute it. It's really the least you could do.

The GPL is viral, as everyone knows by now, because introducing it into a project as part of a linked component means that the entire project must carry the GPL; it is not possible to use the GPL for library X and use some other license, or indeed no source code license at all, for the body of your program. The GPL itself prohibits this. So when the GPL is introduced to a project, it spreads to encompass the entire project. Ergo, viral.

If I were to send you a document in Microsoft Word format, nothing at all would happen to any of the other documents on your computer. You would still be free to use SurfWriter or what-have-you to create other documents. Saying that Microsoft Word is a viral format because you have to use it as a common medium of exchange is equivalent to saying that the English language is viral because you have to use it to communicate when that is the only language spoken by another party.

Does that clear it up? GPL: viral. Microsoft Office file formats: not viral.

Re:Closer to GPL

[skillet-thief]

People never get this, and it is mostly the fault of the mainstream press coverage of the GPL. They get to the part where they explain that "you can modify the source code as long as you give the changes back to the community." Is it really too complicated to say "you can modify and distribute the source code, if ..."?

No, I guess that is really just too complicated...

Download the ASP.NET Starter Kits and Take A Look

[Carnage4Life]

Why not download one of the ASP.NET Starter Kits and check it out yourself?

Disclaimer: I work at Microsoft but this is not an official endorsement nor rebuttal of the claims in the article. I'm simply pointing people to where they can verify the claims in the article for themselves

Re:The problem with the "spirit of the GPL"...

[Yokaze]

How about just posting a link to the source (The GPL Analysis FAQ original [WORD])?
By this mean, you would also attribute the text to the creator.

It _is_ free software

[Ed Avis]

Hang on a minute, it looks to me like this new MS licence is in fact a free software licence! Not a very good one but free software nonetheless.

The clauses about not using Microsoft trademarks, marking modified versions as such, and not suing people over software patents are entirely reasonable. Requiring that the user indemnify Microsoft against lawsuits from third parties relating to the user's distribution of the Microsoft code is a bit iffy (RMS says 'requiring indemnities is highly obnoxious') but again, it just has the general aim of avoiding harassment by lawyers and probably isn't that big a deal.

The only unusual clause is the one that says you may not distribute the software 'with other software other software that is licensed under terms that seek to require that the Software (or any intellectual property in it) be provided in source code form, licensed to others to allow the creation or distribution of derivative works, or distributed without charge'. Now does this 'with' refer to derivative works, or does it include mere aggregation?

If the 'with' refers to creating derivative works, then it isn't really any worse than the GNU GPL, which excludes all other licences except itself.
It's a bit obnoxious and stupid, sure, but not enough to make the software non-free. After all a strong copyleft licence other than the GPL, call it the Stupid Public Licence or SPL, is considered a free software licence, and it doesn't allow combining with _any_ other software unless it happens to also be SPL-licenced. Microsoft's licence is no worse than the putative SPL.

If the 'with' is attempting to restrict mere aggregation, then it probably is enough to make the software non-free. You could not put Microsoft's code and gcc on the same CD. Interestingly, since it forbids distributing 'with' software whose licence requires it to be 'distributed without charge', you might not be able to put the software on the same CD as other code from Microsoft - since I'm sure that many of their programs like Internet Explorer have terms which say you may distribute, but only without charging a fee.

Microsoft should clarify whether clause 2 in their licence refers to creating derivative works, or attempts to restrict distribution that is even within smelling distance of GPLed code.