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...
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
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-releaseWe 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."
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.
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.
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.
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".
The've been having the users beta test their software for years. It's the next logical step to have the users do the actual bug hunt as well.
Simple Machines in Higher Dimensions
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
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...