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."

Comments

We need to reduce number of open source licenses

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

Would Be Interesting...

[The Stars Look Down]

To study MS source code if they release any programs' source code under the Ms-RL.

Re:DHCP Lease renewal fail's again

[LaminatorX]

If that reference had been available 5 years ago, millions of people with DOCSIS compliant cable modems wouldn't have had to suffer through MS's bass-ackwards DHCP handshaking. Especially if it's NT4 back-end + Cisco/Arris DOCSIS. No IP for you!

MS's look but don't touch liscences are textbook "embrace-extend" moves though.

Re:I get it!

[2short]

I can understand your concern, but actually the Reference license makes a lot of sense for things like development libraries. If I'm getting some unexpected behavior from some MS lib, it's nice to be able to debug into it and see what's going on. I can't modify it, but I wasn't going to anyway; I've got to make my code work with the unmodified lib that will be on my users machines.

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. The "gotcha" you fear would not really work. At the least, it hasn't; The RL license is not new, there's a ton of code out there under it, and has been for a while. If the lawsuits you fear were happening, they'd certainly be making news on slashdot.

Re:Except that there are 4 licenses...

[VStrider]

You're obviously trolling but I'll bite. GPL software is free as in freedom. You can do anything you want with it, including modifying and redistributing the source as long as you release your modifications under the same GPL licence for the benefit of the whole community. There is also commercial open source software out there that is GPL'd and it's free as in freedom but not free as in beer.

And what exactly doesn't inter-operate with other licences and why does it have to? If the GPL was compatible with MS licences or other closed source licenses you'd lose your freedom on the software. And vice-versa. If MS were to make their licences compatible with the GPL, they would have to abandon their control over the source and give all the freedom the GPL provides. They'd never do that.

R.Stallman can change what at will? If you release your software under the GPLv2 and GPL is revised to v3, you can still continue to release your software under GPLv2. I don't see your point. Or maybe I do, you intended to mislead and spread disinformation.