Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Reduces Shared Source Licenses
UltimaGuy writes to tell us eWeek is reporting that Microsoft will be reducing the number of licenses that it will use for its Shared Source Initiative. Instead of more than 10 different licenses they are aiming for just three core licenses. The first license format, Ms-PL (Microsoft Permissive License), is similar to the BSD license while the second, Ms-CL (Microsoft Community License), is based on the Mozilla Public License. The third format, Ms-RL (Microsoft Reference License), "has no open-source alternative and is a reference-only license that allows licensees to view source code in order to gain a deeper understanding of the inner workings of Microsoft technology."
From TFW:
"Microsoft has created a limited version, the Microsoft Limited Permissive License (Ms-LPL), of this license to be used for restricting usage to the Windows platform only. The platform restriction is a measure that Microsoft, as a commercial software provider, may choose for a particular source code release in order to enable positive interaction with Windows-based developers. This version of the license will be employed on a case-by-case basis based upon commercial considerations."
Limited but Permissive. Insert 1984 newspeak reference here.
And they add this limitation as a benefit! Whee.
I'm so jaded I'm not even going to read the terms--I'm just going to stay far far away from them. Not even interested.
then I look forward to seeing entries for them on GNU's list of "GPL-Compatible, Free Software Licenses".
Let's take every chance we have to attempt and
We need to reduce number of open source licenses as well. It is becoming harder and harder to answer questions about what licenses are cross-compatible. For example, the Sakai Project, a major undertaking from UMich, Indiana, Stanford, MIT, et al uses a new Educational Community License. Why?! Have we not defined the BSD space well enough with modified BSD and MIT licenses? Now, you see people asking questions about GPL compatability with this new license and no one has answers...
I have a license that allows you to give me donations for my software project. I call it a Give Me Money license. Open Source Projects have no license like this one either.
the day will come
Coding projects blog - Code Slim
Well if you have RTFA, you'd have seen the suggestion, you were looking for - "Microsoft has no open-source alternative and is a reference-only license that allows licensees to view source code in order to gain a deeper understanding of the inner workings of Microsoft technology.". Bottom line - RTFM.
Okay, actually there are 5. There's a Limited Community License too: "Microsoft has created a limited version, the Microsoft Limited Community License (Ms-LCL), of this license to be used for restricting usage to the Windows platform only. The platform restriction is a measure that Microsoft, as a commercial software provider, may choose for a particular source code release in order to enable positive interaction with Windows-based developers. This version of the license will be employed on a case-by-case basis based upon commercial considerations." Which is the same boilerplate platform-restrictive non-free legal mire as the Ms. LPL in the parent post.
On the one hand, these licenses are a good thing. For example, Internet Explorer has a mysterious "hasLayout" feature that screws with CSS development. For years it went undocumented apart from a couple of obscure references in MSDN documentation. If Internet Explorer had been released under one of these "look but don't touch" licenses, we would at least have been able to figure it out for ourselves.
On the other hand, this type of license reduces the pressure for real openness and shared code. This type of license will undoubtedly be seen as an alternative to a real open-source license, and offers an easy way out to organisations that might otherwise have opened up their source.
In any case, the BSD-style license sounds decent enough, it's just the "look but don't touch" licenses I'm wary of.
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
...most Microsoft products will continue to be distributed under the MSBOL, the Microsoft Bend Over License.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
A tech support question on slashdot...
/. is like sleeping with a dirty whore. Yeah, you may feel better once you've done it, but you really have no idea what you're gonna walk away with. All you know for certain is, you're probably gonna get screwed.
I mean, asking a tech support question on
Notice of any changes or modifications to the Original Work, including the date the changes were made.
Any modifications of the Original Work must be distributed in such a manner as to avoid any confusion with the Original Work of the copyright holders.
A software licensed under the GPL does not have to provide notice of any changes made from the original work. SO this makes it non-compatable.
As for the second clause, it i so vague I don't even know how it could be enforced.
To study MS source code if they release any programs' source code under the Ms-RL.
"Money is the barometer of a society's virtue." - Ayn Rand Atlas Shrugged
"Our new 'look but don't touch' license has no open source equivalent!" Yeah. That's because if any equivalent to this license existed, it wouldn't be open source. Idiot.
Free Software Foundation Europe has already released an early comment on the issue, cautiously welcomming some of the new licenses:
http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/press-releaseThat's an odd one. But on face value it seems MS is willing to share some more of source code without actually allowing people to modify/use them. That will help in a sense of compatibility - make more 3rd parties compatible with MS, but not MS compatible with 3rd parties/standards.
But doesn't limiting your open source licenses seem kind of counter productive? It seems Microsoft's initiative is more of a way to get their name out there as "Those guys that did that" rather than to actually commit a change in the way things are done.
Just your everyday corporate code monkey.
It looks like they're trying to be able to say that (any FLOSS project) contains unauthorized MS code. Don't contaminate your brain. Litigation ensues.
That's easy: just don't use projects with licenses you don't understand.
Generally, if it isn't covered by GPL, LGPL, X11, BSD, or Artistic, I don't use it.
We would, but they have Akamai distribute their load across thousands of linux servers to avoid DDOS attacks. Ironic...
Developers: We can use your help.
Secondly they need to go through a massive code review for two reasons primarily because the legal team knows Microsoft is everyone's favorite (easiest??) target for a lawsuit (this doesn't mean a victory... just to initiate). They need to know where every single line of code came from and what are their rights to that code before they can open the code up. Because you know the first thing the lawyers will do is try to find someway to sue them for stealing source code. They need to guard themselves against "SCO vs IBM" type lawsuits.
The other reason they need to complete this code review is because they need to track down and fix as many of the security holes in their software that they can do in a reasonable amount of time. Otherwise this code will be used to ferret out security holes and we will see a new wave of security issues like no one has seen before, because admit it, Microsft products do run on the majority of machines today. The media will portray this as Microsoft handed the hackers the tools and Microsoft will see a lot of their business dry up because companies won't know if they are safe if they go with Microsoft. Once they release this cleaned up code, they will be able to smuggly throw it in everyone's face saying "See we're not so bad after all."
I'm up for a laugh, Where can I download the Windows Vista source?
I'm a little surprised that Microsoft is giving in here. I know they're somewhat cautious of letting too many "under the hood" details out the door due to the high cost of supporting hacks into calls/code that isn't guaranteed to exist in future releases. It seems like the "look but don't touch" license will only increase the temptation for developers to plug into these hackish solutions, since there will be no support for source modification to incorporate a real solution.
The limited version of the licenses (Ms-LPL, and Ms-LCL) are definitely not free software as the limit their use to a single operating system, and of course the Ms-RL isn't even close to being free software, so it won't be on there.
As for GPL compatibility, that is a more difficult question, and is more dependent on legal details than differences in philosophy. IANAL, but I'd guess that they are not GPL compatible because of the Patent Litigation Clause:
This is a restriction that is not in the GPL, and the GPL has a clause that you cannot place any restrictions on the user beyond what is listed in the GPL. It should be noted that the Free Software Foundation is not opposed to a clause like this, and are in fact considering adding one to the next version of the GPL.
So, by my interpretation, they have technical incompatibilities with the GPL which may go away with the next version of the GPL.
MS's look but don't touch liscences are textbook "embrace-extend" moves though.
How can they limit the number of licenses when I'm still reading the EULA and all the links to the legal exceptions that have me promise my first-born son to Bill G if I don't walk widdershins around the source code and genuflect to Redmond three times a day?
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
There are many OS licenses, but the only ones that count are the BSD, GPL and possibly LGPL. There's no general one for "patches-only" that I know of, so possibly the QPL deserves its own category. Projects that choose their own license, unless there's a very pressing reason to take notice I'll simply ignore their code. If there's a real improvement in the license I'll look at it, but I don't have the time or inclination to work out why everyone's GPL-like license is supposed to be better and what it allows me to do with the code.
I am trolling
Depending upon which source code you see:
1) You are Bill Gates' bitch forever.
2) You are Steve Ballmer's bitch forever.
3) You are Steve Ballmer's bitch forever and you have to watch him do the monkey dance.
"is similar to the BSD license while the second, Ms-CL (Microsoft Community License), is based on the Mozilla Public License"
.NET is similar to Java, MS Active Directory is similar to Novell Directory except not really ldap compliant, MS Java is similar to java etc.
:)
Yes, just like MS Html is similar to html, MS
About time they started making similar licenses too
What it says:
Microsoft Reference License (Ms-RL) -- The Ms-RL is a reference-only license that allows licensees to view source code in order to gain a deeper understanding of the inner workings of a Microsoft technology. It does not allow for modification or redistribution. This license is used primarily for technologies such as development libraries.
What it means:
Microsoft Reference License (Ms-RL) -- The Ms-RL is an open invitation to a future lawsuit. You get to look at our code, and we get to sue your ass when you create something that does a similar function. Since we will have proof of who has viewed our code from user registrations, we'll start scanning open source community websites for names of those users here in a few years. If you can't pay us, it's okay, we'll just take over your project for you.
What? I can't believed they dropped the Ms-WI (Microsoft Wife Licnense)
Restrictive license for Wives/Girlfriends that only allows online purchases from Victorias Secret, Flora Lee, and Think Geek!
The Nerve!!
One thing in particular that I was glad to see was the absence of any unbalanced vendor rights that exist in many open source licenses created for commercial use. For example, the Netscape Public License requires you to give any changes that you make back to Netscape, regardless of whether you redistribute the changes. Furthermore, it requires that you give Netscape permission to use the changes in proprietary, binary-only products for which they don't release the source.
However the Ms-PL and Ms-CL do not grant Microsoft any special priveledges.
Sounds like the so called "Microsoft Reference License" is merely a way to show source code to people, let them write software that iteroperates with or replaces some microsoft software, and then to sue them for breach of license.
MS: you copied our code, you were only allowed to look at it, not copy it.
Dev: I didn't copy your code.
MS: we released it under MRL, you must have looked at it and copied it, even though you werent allowed to
Dev: I made every effort to develop my project in a "clean room" environment
MS: thats impossible, our code is out there under MRL, you can't expect us to take your word for it
Dev: actually I do
MS: tell that to our lawyers
-d
"Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
The danger with the reference license is it then let's Microsoft say that an alleged copyright infringer had the access to see their code and copy it. As far as my knowledege of copyright goes, it seems that the alleged need only have a similar product and access to the original, whether they copied it or not, to prove infringement. Infringement does not have to be line for line copying either, even if you change lines here and there, copyright ownership assigns the copyright on the original as well as any derivatives. Where I a code monkey on an OSS project, I would definitely stay away from any code that Microsoft might throw out there to avoid any issue.
Ms-RL (Microsoft Reference License), "has no open-source alternative and is a reference-only license"
However, it does have a strip-club alternative of "look but don't touch".
personaly i don't care that much about looking at windows source.. i just want to read the comments // this damn thing never worked to start with - didn't fix it.. just wanted to note it
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
I don't understand how this is modded TROLL.
It can be unfunny or redundant or something else if the moderator didn't like it.
The TROLL moderation is trollish itself, making people like me post statements that this post isn't TROLL.
Oh, never mind...
AFAIK, any university can receive the source code to MS Windows under a restrive, look but don't talk, touch, or take license / NDA like the Ms-RL. Here is a list of colleges that do. But, I wouldn't touch that code with a 15 foot stick. I don't want to know what their source does in case they ever decide that something I am doing was "inspired" by it.
Look but don't touch could be enough to really screw them though.
If you are allowed to look, and fully document in plain text then someone else could come along and implement your description... Under the GPL...
That could be enough to really annoy Microsoft.
Z.
-- Under/Overrated is meta-moderation, and therefore is Redundant.
are fear, uncertainty, doubt, and an almost fanatical devotion to to Bill Gates.
We can create a micro-license which people can load modules to add more clauses to it.
These are just three more text files unless they are used to release source code. Obviously the last one isn't of interest - will they ever use the other two for anything non-trivial?
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
MS-PL says: "(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." It doesn't say that only run on Windows. Can the code therefore be included in cross-platform solutions?
"Ahh! I see you're in that indeterminate Schrodinger state where - oh, uh
The MS-PL and MS-CL seem like good stuff to me. Not GPL-compatible, but the incompatibility is in patent grants, which gives hope that these licenses may turn out to be GPL3-compatible.
see creative commons
"has no open-source alternative..." You have all really missed the boat by not having a restrictive "read-only" type license. You bunch of lazy jerks.
Unless those licenses include the right to sublicense, they're not compatible with Free (libre) software licenses like the GPL. Then again, let's take a look at each of them in turn and see if that's really still the case--the answer may surprise you:
First up, the Microsoft Limited Permissive License grants these rights:
However, these nasty little restrictions stand out in section 3, which limit the rights granted above:
So no, that doesn't look GPL compatible to me. The platform limitation is a deal-breaker. Perhaps the software developed on it would only be of use on Windows [TM], anyhow, but the restriction certainly isn't GPL-compatible by my reading. There are other restrictions, too, of course, but they're fairly normal things like terminating your license if you sue Microsoft [TM] and not granting you the use of Microsoft [TM] trademarks.
Next, we have the Microsoft Limited Community License.
It seems to have the same grant of rights as in the first one, so that's good. But there are limitations. More limitations than the last one, apparently. Not so good.
Ballmer: Give it up for me woooooooooooooo!!
You: Must not... watch... monkey dance... aaaarrrrggghhhh!!!!
The Ms-PL does *not* have a platform restriction. See: http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/li censingbasics/permissivelicense.mspx
i censingbasics/limitedpermissivelicense.mspx
The Ms-LPL *does* have a platform restriction. See: http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/l
Your comments seem to confuse the Ms-PL and Ms-LPL. "L" means "Limited," ie. platform restriction.
The Ms-LPL is the Ms-PL with the addition of a Microsoft platform restriction. The Ms-PL doesn't have any such restriction.
Daniel Robbins
Then, given the business model presented to us by the sages bushed of redmond; I would be most interested in 'evaluating' the 'Ms-PL (Microsoft Permissive License)' for enjoying my Porn?
In news just to hand, a further Microsoft meeting has determined that the new licenses will collectively be known as Revised Microsoft Licenses, or RMS Licenses for short...
TFA says:
The first new license, the Ms-PL (Microsoft Permissive License), follows the lines of the open-source BSD license.
ScuttleMonkey repeats this:
The first license format, Ms-PL (Microsoft Permissive License), is similar to the BSD license
However, the comparison is misleading. One key aspect of the BSD license is that it does not restrict under what licenses the software or derivative works may be redistributed. By contrast, section 3(D) of the Ms-PL begins:
If you distribute the software or derivative works in source code form you may do so only under this license...
This is a copyleft license, at least so far as source code distribution is concerned, so it is not a BSD-style license.
Now it will be even easier for the script kiddies and botherders to wreck my online experience and steal my identity. Wheeee.
Seriously though, while this type of under-the-sheets view may make it easier for the rest of us to engineer solutions to fix glaring security holes, won't it also make it easier for those driven to leverage those insufficiencies for evil?
This sig is exempt from disclosure under the privacy Act of 1974.
What was the DHCP problem? Do you have a link or reference? It sounds interesting.
Yeah, Microsoft is the kind of company that would fuck a person in the ass and not even have the god damn common courtesy to give him a reach around.
...to zero.
I want to core-dump on your face.
Hi,
we do not need them and should not touch any of the MS source stuff in any way regardless if its free or not.
my 0.02 cent
My windows box keeps failing to get an IP number, I think I
may have to move it again.
Um...It looks like it worked. You know you just posted a question to the Internet about not being able to connect to the Internet, right?
Oh, the other type of IP number? Here, you're 753 in our list. Please hold while we finish suing the other 752 people in line before you for infringing our IP.
> You know you just posted a question to the Internet about not being able to connect to the Internet, right?
:)
Um, you know he posted a question to the Internet about not being able to connect to the Internet with his Windows box, right? I know it may be hard for some people to believe or understand, but not every machine that connects to the Internet is running Windows! In fact, much of the core technology that makes the Internet run predates Windows!
Heck, I'm posting to the Internet, and I don't even HAVE a Windows box!
What does "...distributed in such a manner as to avoid any confusion with the Original Work of the copyright holders" mean?
I'm pretty sure that the GNU GPL's requirement of "caus[ing] the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change" would probably count, although you'll have to get Dr. Moglen's opinion.
I guess there's a fourth license, although the article says they're limiting it to three? So I don't know where this one fits in; I didn't read it all carefully enough.
:) Again, IANAL, so get the advice of one if you need legal advice.
Anyhow, you can read the Microsoft Community License here. Basically, it looks like the Limited Community License without the platform restriction clause, and appears to have the same grant of rights! So it's a lot like the MPL. Yes, the patent termination clause probably keeps it incompatible with the GPL v2, although it may be harmonized with in GPL v3 (that remains to be seen), and it appears that even the FSF thinks it's a Free (libre) software license!
So at least one of the four I've read is good
Or even better, use any software you want, and only give a shit about the license if you're releasing your own version of it :-)
WHO NEEDS SHIFT WHEN YOU HAVE CAPSLOCK/ DAMN1
Umm, duh! Because what you describe is the exact opposite of the definition of "open," so how could there possibly be an open source equivelant to such an ass-backwards, harmful concept?
Help us build a better map!
a hot corel
WHO NEEDS SHIFT WHEN YOU HAVE CAPSLOCK/ DAMN1
If they want to push their licenses without questions on the code pedigree, maybe they should open up a project from scratch so it's "Shared Source" from the beginning. No question who wrote the code or which company they licensed/bought/stole it from.
This is probably why it's the Visual Studio 2005 starter kits that's being offered - basically demo code that can just as easily be written by a Microsoft MVP not employed by them.
Yes, I know. I thought I had made sure the text was dripping with sarcasm when I posted it, but perhaps the lameness filter absorbed some of it.
yeah, i wonder why Microsoft would be interested in doing that...
Besides, having seen code that does something, then writing code to do that thing does not put you on the losing end of a copyright suit.
Really? The standard for illicit copying in an infringement case is the defendant's "access" to the plaintiff's work plus "probative similarity" of the works (based on expert testimony) plus "substantial similarity" of the works (based on lay impression). George Harrison got burned about this.
I've been wondering what those wierd '** Microsoft Corp. **' files are that appear on the local harddrives ($C, $D) inside my computer all the time that don't seem to be doing anything but take up space.
When I open them into a Notepad, they're always chock full of ASCII characters and the only readable English they contain reference C++ RunTime Library error(s) copyrighted by Microsoft Corporation and corrections provided by some (about:blank: Companyname, Inc.)or University of Somewhere Board of Regents.
Always have been amazed by Bill Gates and Company were able to hornswoggle the entire planet just by adding 0011 us 0022 to everything their computers managed to capture from the Internet and re-distributing it with their logo plastered all over it.
The court [in Bright Tunes] concluded (most believe wrongly) the song was a copy of one that it in fact sounds a lot like. We're presumably talking about MS trying to prove source code is a copy of code it doesn't look much like.
The issue here is merger of idea and expression, as sometimes there's only one obvious way to express a given algorithm. Such a merger is a defense to the copyrightability of what was copied, but if the plaintiff is orders of magnitude richer than you, you're not likely to walk away with an easy or inexpensive summary judgment on grounds of merger.
All of which sounds like an awfully elaborate and unlikely to work trap for MS to be attempting
Every time FUD has failed, Microsoft has resorted to its typical Three E's: