Microsoft, OSI Discuss Shared Source Licenses

linumax writes "While Microsoft Corp. has publicly said it has no immediate plans to submit its newest Shared Source licenses to the Open Source Initiative for approval, the company met with the OSI board this week to discuss the matter. Ronald Mann, a law professor at the University of Texas in Austin, said two of the new licenses, the Microsoft Permissive License, which is modeled on the existing BSD license, and the Microsoft Community License, based on the Mozilla Public License, appeared to satisfy the Open Source Definition administered by the OSI."

Comments

Oh?

[Nimrangul]

And what ever happened to trimming down the number of licences that the OSI backs? I thought they were trying to trim it down to the GPL, BSD and MPL?

Re:Oh?

[Russ Nelson]

That's just not going to happen. We need to defend the trademark that we license to people whose software is using an approved license. In order to do that, we can't let people use the trademark without approval. If we were to withdraw approval (NOT a possibility!) we would end up with people innocently misusing the trademark. It wouldn't be their fault; it would be our fault. We would be diluting our own trademark. Not a happy-making situation to be in, so we're not going to withdraw approval.

Instead, the current plan is to provide advice to developers when they want to pick a license. I expect that we will have three lists: Recommended, Recommended Specialty, and Not Recommended. Typical possible ranking: Recommended: GPL, Recommended Specialty: NOSA, Not Recommended: any license of the form "Copyright (C) Foo Bar, Inc., purveyors of find liquor-vending software."

Re:Oh?

[bug1]

"If we were to withdraw approval (NOT a possibility!) we would end up with people innocently misusing the trademark."

You could create a derivative tradmark just for what you think are the core licences, like "GPL, BSD etc" and keep the other hundred in the same more general category.

Call it "OSI core" or something, i think "core" is trendy these days.

Re:Oh?

[NutscrapeSucks]

"Defend" is the wrong term here. OSI has no trademark on the term "Open Source" (and you've admitted that), so what you are really trying to do is claim the term so that you are able to trademark it in the future. In order to take possession of the term, you need to be universally accepted as the arbiter of Open Source certification, and that means treating MS & Sun on an equal basis as the FSF.

Regardless, Open Source was intended to be an ideological program, so I'm unclear on why the market implications of too many licences is even a consideration.

Re:Oh?

[arkanes]

The trademark he's talking about is the OSI certified symbol, not just the phrase "open source".

Re:Oh?

[NutscrapeSucks]

No, that does not compute. Why would Microsoft use "OSI-Approved" or the logo if wasn't actually true? However, they can use the term "open source", with or without OSI.

Also, if you've followed Russ' previous posts, he is very intent on maintaining an illusion (or a lie) that OSI holds a trademark on the term "open source".

Re:Oh?

[arkanes]

He doesn't seem to be saying that here, and the official OSI position is quite clear (search the OSI site for "trademark").

Whether you approve or not, OSI certainly is *a* authority on what "open source" means, and the OSI certified logo is respected for that reason. Maybe not by you, but you don't have to respect that if you don't want to. As for why someone might want to use the logo without approval, you might as well ask why someone would want to put the UL logo on thier product.

Re:Oh?

[NutscrapeSucks]

If Russ Nelson wants to clarify what he was saying, that's fine. However the idea that MS would use the OSI logo without approval is silly.

(BTW, I have no problem with OSI, but judging by previous posts, I don't think Russ necessarily reflects their legal position.)

Re:Oh?

[arkanes]

However the idea that MS would use the OSI logo without approval is silly.

It's not just MS. And in any case, the whole point of trademark law and associated things is that it's not a winning proposition to rely on people to act correctly. If there were no legal consequences from using the OSI mark without permission, would you still dismiss the possibility offhand?

Re:Oh?

[NutscrapeSucks]

Seems like you are arguing that Russ Nelson is a paranoid idiot, rather than a propagandist or a delusional liar (I'm not sure which). Rock on.

Re:Oh?

[Fuzzle]

Show some reading comprehension. He's saying that there are people out there using the OSI approved liscences already. Those are the sticky situations. If they recall the approval on these other liscences, then people out there will be still using the OSI Approved banner, because when they got the liscence it was approved, even if it's not now. Which makes things...sticky.

Re:Oh?

[ISayWeOnlyToBePolite]

We need to defend the trademark that we license to people whose software is using an approved license.

What was the point of approving licences in the first place? Is it not the specific software that's marketed by the OSI trademark that really matters. Grant the trademark to all software that use an approved licence and you could in practice revoke the trademark by dropping an approved licence, only the specific version of the software made before the drop could use the trademark. This might even have the nice side effect of gravitating people to those licences that OSI could hardly distance themself from (like let's say, the GPL).

Re:Oh?

[rtb61]

Microsoft is just trying a new "we have changed" marketing campaign (create the appearance only of course). If those licenses are so close to existing licenses why create new ones and try for OSI approval and branding when they are free to use those existing licences.

I can only think of one reason, somewhere not so far down the track start, they will alter those licenses to a more microsoft monopoly friendly license whilst retaining the OSI logo and then fighting it out in court i.e exploit the trademark to the maximum extent possible while damaging it's value for future use.

A history of experiences with microsoft has shown everyone how any kind of agreement with them quickly sours, they get wine, you get vinegar.

Has Microsoft learned something?

[Raphael Bosshard]

Now that's news. Next they'll start releasing software under the terms and conditions of the GPL. Is Microsoft finaly starting to learn?

Re:Has Microsoft learned something?

[lokedhs]

They could support any license they want. Let's just wait until we see anything significant released under that license.

Re: Has Microsoft learned something?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd be happy enough if they just released an updated version of Rotor under one of those two potentially OSI compatible licenses.

Think about it.

Re:Has Microsoft learned something?

[Russ Nelson]

They already use the GPL. Yes, they're starting to learn. IBM used to be pretty evil, in their time. I noticed that I had forgiven when I looked around my office and saw four IBM PCs of one stripe or another. Now, IBM is one of the biggest promoters of open source. Yeay for them, and maybe yeay for Microsoft in the future.
-russ

Re:Has Microsoft learned something?

[lakerdonald]

This shared sources license really isn't much to be excited about. If it was truly open source, they wouldn't have any qualms about submitting to the OSI.

Re:Has Microsoft learned something?

[schon]

They already use the GPL.

Excuse my incredulity, but can you provide some references?

I know they distribute GPL'ed software that others have written, but I really doubt that they have anything they wrote themselves (or that they own the copyright to) that they release under the GPL.

To me, using GPL'ed software is not really the same as using the GPL.

Can you provide some references?

Re:Has Microsoft learned something?

[arkanes]

IBM has contribued a signifigant amount of code to the Linux kernel, thats all under the GPL. They've contributed to several other projects, that code is under the license of the project its donated to. They've open sourced several projects whole sale, although I'm not sure how many if any of those are under the GPL (but they are under OSI approved OSS licenses). IBM is one of the major contributors to Eclipse.

See http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/views/openso urce/projects.jsp for a list of some of the projects they're actively involved with. This list doesn't seem to include projects that they have released to the community, such as Cloudscape.

Re:Has Microsoft learned something?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's true, Microsoft uses the GPL

http://www.thestandard.com/article/0,1902,27511,00 .html

Their "tools for Unix" is under the GPL. Interix and other migration tools are under the GPL, the intent is to make it easy to move to Microsoft products. I believe they got the idea from DCon Roach motels.

Re:Has Microsoft learned something?

[FidelCatsro]

Well hopefully MS will suffer the same fate as IBM and be forced to change it ways. It has been a long time coming .

Re:Has Microsoft learned something?

[Fuzzle]

He meant MS, not IBM.

Re:Has Microsoft learned something?

[penix1]

The major difference between MS and IBM is one has something other than code to sell. Although MS does have some periphial hardware they sell, it still servives solely on the programs it sells. Going GPL is orders of magnatude harder for them than it was for IBM.

B.

can I be the first to say

[Anonymous Coward]

WtF!?

and next:

PR stunt!!!

and then:

google would have done it better.

thankyou try the veal and/or profit!

MS

[Anonymous Coward]

Bill Gates Speaks Out Against Next-Gen DVDs

Microsoft Becomes Wembley Stadium's Backer

Microsoft, OSI Discuss Shared Source Licenses

Has Slashdot had a tiff with Google and started seeing Microsoft instead?

That's enough

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, thats enough of M$ today.

Danese Cooper's blog entry

[Russ Nelson]

Danese Cooper's blog entry is our official statement on this matter.
-russ

Re:Danese Cooper's blog entry

[The Cydonian]

From the blog:

We voted unanimously as a board in April 2005 to move historical materials such as Eric Raymond's "the Halloween Documents" and Michael Tiemann's "A Case for Open Source" to the authors' sites for maintenance and to re-focus our efforts on increasing professionalism and credibility for both OSI and for open source worldwide.

HAHAHAHAHA! Got to give it to you guys, that's one heck of a way to spin things. :-D

Woah o_o;

[Hikaru79]

In other news, Hell is reporting temperatures are at a record low. Also, Pork Airlines closes the quarter with 60% revenue increase.

Re:Woah o_o;

[Cheapy]

You know, one of the circles of Hell (Part of Circle 8 IIRC), is frozen solid.

still incompatible with the GPL

[User 956]

It is pretty obvious that this license is not GPL compatable, and I am no lawyer. All you have to do is read it. These two provisions make it impossible:

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.

I would probably say MS-PL's philosophy is: "You can do anything you want with this, as long as it does not dilute our empire"

Re:still incompatible with the GPL

[Nimrangul]

Who cares if it's compatible with the GPL? The GPL isn't the only open source licence. And who cares if the OSI supports these new licences? The OSI doesn't actually hold any power or significance. All the OSI does is state their opinion, just like the FSF, they tell people that something agrees with them, hardly a big deal. They don't actually have any authority over what is or isn't open source.

Re:still incompatible with the GPL

[Russ Nelson]

If they submit their licenses for approval, please express this opinion on the license-discuss mailing list. Without meaning to differ with you myself, I would note that the earlier /. discussion of this pointed to several terms of the GPL which require the same action. Please remember that terms may have different text, but if they require the same actions, they don't conflict.
-russ

Re:still incompatible with the GPL

[Russ Nelson]

They don't actually have any authority over what is or isn't open source.

We only have the authority that people grant us. A few nutcases think that open source shouldn't mean anything, or that it should mean everything, or only the things THEY say it means. Enough people trust us to do the right thing that they're willing to rely on our definition of open source. You're welcome to try to convince them that they're wrong, but in my book, you're one of the aforementioned nutcases. Anybody wanna peanut?
-russ
p.s. any reply must have an obligatory Princess Bride reference to be considered authoritative.

Re:still incompatible with the GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

This is such a trivial objection it makes it look like you GNU/Hippies are grasping at straws.

The GPL does require that all source code changes be documented, it requires copyright information to be presented, and it was never the intent of the GPL to allow people to pass off modified works as the original. There is no impact on "sofware freedom", so if this is truely a legal incompatiblity, they should just fucking fix it for GPLv3.

Re:still incompatible with the GPL

[Hope Thelps]

in my book, you're one of the aforementioned nutcases.

Is this a kissing book?

Re:still incompatible with the GPL

[cerelib]

I think those clauses are perfectly reasonable. It basically does not allow for changing the product and distributing it as the original. I am not sure what the GPL world does, but imagine if somebody started distributing sabotaged binaries or source of GNOME and did not notify users that this is not the original source. The OSS world is comfortable because they usually know who is legit for distributing software. This is not the same for the Windows world. A corporation has to protect its interests at all costs and clauses like this are how they do it. I am not a fan of the GPL and am glad that Microsoft is leaning more towards the side of the BSD lisence for their most open one.

Re:still incompatible with the GPL

[geminidomino]

That looks a lot like the Perl Artistic license...

Re:still incompatible with the GPL

[Nimrangul]

You're just trying to redefine something that is much broader, your nonsense about being able to make derivatives is just as bad as the Free Software Foundation trying to redefine the meaning of Freedom.

Open source, in it's purest meaning, is something that allows you to see the source, nothing more. If I make a licence that doesn't allow anything, not even the compilation of binaries, but release the source under it, it's still open source.

You people are just nutcases trying to make your own opinion a fact, which rubs me so very, very wrong.

It's madness, like you're trying to take things away from other people, take away the meaning of a word, so that you alone possess that word. Have you ever considered piracy? You'd make a wonderful Dread Pirate Roberts.

Re:still incompatible with the GPL

[Daniel Dvorkin]

You're just trying to redefine something that is much broader, your nonsense about being able to make derivatives is just as bad as the Free Software Foundation trying to redefine the meaning of Freedom.

Open source, in it's purest meaning, is something that allows you to see the source, nothing more. If I make a licence that doesn't allow anything, not even the compilation of binaries, but release the source under it, it's still open source.

Now you're the one trying to redefine things to suit your own purposes; pretty much everyone understands "open source" to mean that you can not only see the code, but also (perhaps subject to some restrictions) use the code in your own work. I mean, you can claim otherwise if you want, but you're igoring the way the phrase is actually used.

Re:still incompatible with the GPL

[m50d]

How about clause 2a of the GPL, "You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change."? That certainly seems to satisfy the first and possibly the second requirements you list (particularly if the original program name is trademarked, as most "big name" open source programs are). Certainly this license is less GPL-incompatible than the licenses of many trumpeted open source projects (Eclipse, Apache...)

Re:still incompatible with the GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

You sir are in a state of misinformation. Look to the meanings of those words; it refers to only the open availablity of source code. There is no implied right to copy my stuff. Open source means the source is open.

I don't give things out randomly, but I do like letting people read what I have done and learn from it. That you can do, not use what I have done directly, but draw from it as a learning tool.

Re:still incompatible with the GPL

[Some Random Username]

"A few nutcases think that open source shouldn't mean anything, or that it should mean everything, or only the things THEY say it means."

So, by your own definition you are one of those nutcases then? OSI is all about trying to say they get to define what is and is not open source. I don't think the poster you replied to is one of those nutcases, since he thinks open source should mean what the dictionary definition says it does. Source, that is open. Not "whatever the OSI decides suits their agenda", which is what you somehow think is right.

Re:still incompatible with the GPL

[NutscrapeSucks]

The term "open source" was copped from the intelligence world, where it meant roughly "things you can read in publicly published materials such as a newspaper". There was no implication that there was any copyright license to it.

Your definition of "open source" was pretty much invented from whole cloth by ESR and OSI as an attempt to counter-balance the FSF's influence in approving licenses; and so that companies like Netscape and Apple could be brought into the fold. Previous to that the term "open source software" was applied generally to a lot of things that would never be considered "OSI-compliant" (specifically AT&T-encumbered BSD Unix).

Re:still incompatible with the GPL

[Russ Nelson]

What did I say?? Weren't you paying attention?? I said "We only have the authority that people give us." If we're nutters, then so is just about everybody else. But if you think that everybody else needs psychiatric treatment, chances are that it's YOU who is insane. GASP! What's that over there?

Also, I said that any authoritative follow-up MUST have an obligatory reference to The Princess Bride, so clearly not even you believe your own posting.
-russ

Re:still incompatible with the GPL

[Russ Nelson]

So ... tell me, does an open door mean that you can only see through the door? That it's not possible to actually pass through the door? Open Source means what most people think it means, and most people think that you can not only see the source, but modify it and share it. You keep using hthat word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
-russ

Re:still incompatible with the GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually the OSS world routinely distributes "Gnome" when they really mean "Gnome as modified by RedHat" or possibly "Gnome as modified by malware hackers". The only real protection against malevolant packaging is trademark enforcement (see Firefox), so it is a wise provision to add to a licence.

Re:still incompatible with the GPL

[Nimrangul]

If the open door has a sign saying, "do not enter." Then yes, it's not possible to pass through the door. That would be the wrong thing to do. That doesn't say you cannot see through the door, you just can't go in. Are you saying that an open door with a half dozen locks suddenly is good to go through then? What if the window is broken, does that mean the door is good to go through?

An open door does not mean an open building.

Go away or I'll call the brutesquad.

Re:still incompatible with the GPL

[Some Random Username]

No, you have the authority of the legal system from registering trademarks. This has nothing to do with what people give you. And trying to say you are right because you feel the majority of people accept your nonsense is retarded. The majority is not always right, in fact they are often very uninformed and dumb.

And I don't care about your retarded princess bride bullshit. No follow-up is "authoritative", its an opinion. I do believe that you need to see a mental health professional though.

Re:still incompatible with the GPL

[Russ Nelson]

The meaning of a word comes from the way people use it. If you use "open source" to mean "flibberty-flobberty", then all of the other people who use it to mean "software distributed under a license that complies with the open source definition" will wonder about your sanity.

And I don't care about your retarded princess bride bullshit.

It was a trap for the humorless. You fell into it headfirst.
-russ

Re:still incompatible with the GPL

[Russ Nelson]

I agree with you: some open doors are not invitations to enter. Some are, though. From the cultural context, people understand that some doors you may walk through (e.g. stores) and others you may not (private residences). Thus, you cannot claim that "open source" only means that you may just examine the source. From the cultural context of software, "open source" means all the rights granted by the Open Source Definition. I also agree with you that people may not understand that immediately. Once they look into the issue more, they will. Further research will not lead them into thinking it has the meaning you claim it does.

For people to think open source means what you say, they must be and remain ignorant of most people's opinions. That's not something humans do very well.

I *am* the brutesquad (Fezzick gets all the best lines.)
-russ

Re:still incompatible with the GPL

[Nimrangul]

Ah, but it is you who are incorrect. Once people truly do look around they realise that your "Open Source" is a very small niche section of an already small group of people that support varying levels of openness and restriction on the release of source code for programmes and operating systems. Your crusade to gain control of a general term for a specific usage is foolhardy and I cannot see any reason why your organisation even bothers to do it.

It's like Eric Raymond and his idiotic bazaar/cathedral nonsense, he's a complete loon that some people listen to for Lord knows what reason and think that what he says has some sort of power behind it.

He's diluted too. Like your organization, of which he is associated so it explains a fair bit, Eric could do with a good leukotomy, because the bits in charge are really messed up.

And you, friendless, brainless, helpless, hopeless! Do you want me to send you back to where you were? Unemployed! In Greenland!

Re:still incompatible with the GPL

[Russ Nelson]

I think we're going to have to disagree. People reading this can figure out on their own that you are trying to fly a tattered flag.

Oh, you mean this gate key?
-russ

Re:still incompatible with the GPL

[FST777]

I certainly do not hope that the OSI's requirement for a license is 100% compatibility with the GPL?!?

Re:still incompatible with the GPL

[Some Random Username]

Have you considered a career in politics? You seem pretty good at dodging questions and trying to shift the focus to suit your self.

Tim O'Reilly's Thoughts on the Matter

[theGreater]

O'Reilly Radar Entry
http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2005/10/new_sour ce_licenses_from_micro.html

-theGreater.

Re:INTELLIGENT DESIGN: THE REAL SCIENCE OPTION?

[Anonymous Coward]

tl;dr

Have you ever heard of the story about

[zappepcs]

The frog and the scorpion?
With much pleading and swearing of oaths of non-agression, a scorpion convinces a frog to take him across a river on the frogs back. As they reach the shore, the scorpion thanks the frog, then promptly stings the frog. As the frog lays dying and twitching, he asks the scorpion why he stung him.

The scorpion simply replies: I'm a scorpion, what did you expect me to do?

I really am weary of anything that Microsoft does now. They just got caught with a bad license arrangement for music players!! WTF, I wouldn't trust that scorpion for any amount of money or good will.

I don't even care if there is no viable business alternative, I'd just like to see Microsoft die and wither! We've seen and suffered their monopolistic business practices long enough. In the words of a fairly well liked First Lady: JUST SAY NO! to Microsoft !!!!

Re:Have you ever heard of the story about

[Russ Nelson]

I really am weary of anything that Microsoft does now.

IMHO, you are correct to not trust Microsoft. On the other hand, Microsoft is a big company with lots of conflicting internal opinions. If we constantly expect Microsoft to be evil, they WILL be evil. If we support open source advocates inside Microsoft, they will not have their asses kicked with "We told you those open source advocates were nutjobs; they can't be trusted."

If you extend an olive branch and it gets bitten off, you know you acted too soon. We'll see what happens.
-russ

Re:Have you ever heard of the story about

[schon]

Microsoft is a big company with lots of conflicting internal opinions.

Yes, and unfortunately, the two largest, anti-FOSS opinions are in control of the company, and weild that control with iron, chair-flinging grips.

Gates has talked about this before: he doesn't believe that he's won unless everybody else has lost, and (as anyone who's ever known him will tell you) he *HAS* to win. Every time.

I don't expect any real change until the current management is no longer at the helm.

Re:Have you ever heard of the story about

[Red Alastor]

The frog and the scorpion? With much pleading and swearing of oaths of non-agression, a scorpion convinces a frog to take him across a river on the frogs back. As they reach the shore, the scorpion thanks the frog, then promptly stings the frog. As the frog lays dying and twitching, he asks the scorpion why he stung him. The scorpion simply replies: I'm a scorpion, what did you expect me to do?

It's a bit different from the version I knew. In my version, the frog refuse to take the scorpion across the river because he says the scorpion will stung him. The scorpion answers "that's impossible, if I stung you while crossing the river, I'd die too". So the frog agrees. When they are in the middle of the river, the scorpion sting the frog. The frog ask "Why did you do that ? You will die too." The scorpion answers "It's part of my nature".

And I think it's a much better analogy for Microsoft wanting to "play nice".

Re:Have you ever heard of the story about

[marcosdumay]

"I don't even care if there is no viable business alternative, I'd just like to see Microsoft die and wither!"

I can't resist to ask: Who is the scorpion of your history, and who is the frog?

Re:Have you ever heard of the story about

[CableModemSniper]

Hello, I'm here as a representative of ASADL (The American Scorpion Anti-Defamation League) and I'm here to inform you that that story is slanderous. I have here a court order preventing you from repeating that story at any future date. Have a nice day.

Re:Have you ever heard of the story about

[Red Alastor]

I don't care. I'm Canadian :-P

Re:Have you ever heard of the story about

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm here to inform you that that story is slanderous.

Not really, it has already been proved in the future to be a real story by Captain Kathryn Janeway.

License madness

[Johann]

Why is it necessary for every podunk company to create their own freakin' 'open source' license. There are already many to choose from, just use an existing one? Why reinvent the wheel and make it even more confusing for people to use your lame-ass software.

People are worried about Linux 'forking' into multiple incompatible systems (like UNIX supposedly did). I'm more worried about the assinine growth in 'OSL-compliant' licenses.

Can't we all just use the GPL or LGPL?

Re:License madness

[RAMMS EIN]

``Can't we all just use the GPL or LGPL?''

We could, but there are legitimate reasons for not wanting to do so. Many people view the GPL and the LGPL as too restrictive, because they don't allow the creation of non-free forks (yes, people actually want to allow others to make non-free forks of their software). Other people view the GPL and LGPL as too open, because, for example, they don't require sharing changes that aren't distributed, or because they don't require distinguishing a modified version from an official version. The GPL and LGPL are also rather lengthy. Finally, the GPL doesn't play well with other licenses, even if the other licenses are OSI-approved.

Re:License madness

[tclark]

If Microsoft, or anybody else, wants to release its software under its own license, that's their business. And if the license satisfies the OSI's or the FSF's free/open source definitions, that's great. However, I'm not interested in reading more license texts, so I'm going to pass on the software. There are already enough free software licenses out there to satisfy nearly any reasonable requirements.

Re:License madness

[Anonymous Coward]

Why couldn't you use A.N.Other pre-existing open source license? Taking the MPL and making your own vanity license is a full-time profession these days (take a bow Sun and the CDDL). Just imagine if Microsoft had done it the right way... what a coup.

Re:License madness

[linguae]

Can't we all just use the GPL or LGPL?

No. Less restrictive licenses (like the BSD and MIT licenses) and more restrictive licenses (like the one OpenSolaris has) are needed for different purposes. I, for one, like my BSD-licensed operating system, and many other corporations do, too.

Re:INTELLIGENT DESIGN: THE REAL SCIENCE OPTION?

[$RANDOMLUSER]

Hear, Hear!
I also think we should be teaching Phrenology in our Psychology classrooms; Luminiferous Aether in our physics classrooms; Homeopathy in our Pharmacology classrooms; Phlebotomy in our Surgery classrooms; and of course, Religion(!) in our Science classrooms.

The Next New MS License

[Prototerm]

Microsoft will shortly announce their introduction of the "Burn FLOSS To The Ground And Salt The Earth Beneath It" License, saying it will make the world safer for convicted antitrust violators everywhere!

Embrace...Extend...Extinguish

Re:The Next New MS License

[WilliamSChips]

And Steve Ballmer ends all his speeches with "Ceterum censeo FLOSSem delendam esse"*?
*Translation:Moreover, I advise that FLOSS should be destroyed

rise up in Jihad against slashdot's editors!

[loco_locale]

Hey everybody, jihadi_31337 here again. You may remember me posting from the Internet Measurment Conference earlier this week. I'm on a road trip for the weekened, and I'm at a friend's place. One of my favorite things about going to friends' places is that I can do a bunch of jihad posts and get their IP banned too :)

Ok, here we go. Thanks for reading the intro.

Ever notice the "beat the rush and see it early" link at the top of slashdot when a new story is about to come out?

Sounds good, doesn't it? To be able to view the pages linked to in the article before the tens of thousands of other slashbots click to view them.

Did it ever occur to you that you're taking part in cyber-terrorism?

That's right: Slashdot's editors are cyber-terrorists. They coordinate a DOS against small websites, and they attempt to collect moeny from people who wish to be spared the effects of said DOS. Terrorism, plain and simple.

You can fight this and other crimes by slashdot's editors by joining anti-slash. Anti-slash is committed to forcing the editors to own up to their numerous crimes against the geek community. Until our demands are met, we will relentlessly discredit them as a news service through trolling and other means.

Also, props to poopbot and the alan thicke troll. We remember your accomplishments.

In sacred jihad!

jihadi_31337

| _ __ | |
_) |_|_)__/_| |
(_) o

I thought open source was about choice?

[Anonymous Coward]

The GPL does not protect me from patents (someone can patent a technique, implement it in a GPL program and su people).

This is why I wrote my own license (or rather had someone else write it for me). Other people have different reasons, all of them good.

Why are you against multiple licenses? Everyone is free to choose the terms under which their work is licensed to others.

Re:I thought open source was about choice?

[krunk4ever]

mod parent up!

I agree whole-heartedly with what you said. It's always about choice. Why are there different flavors of linux? If we replace the word license with the word linux in the previous parent's post, you'd get something quite interesting:

Why is it necessary for every podunk company to create their own freakin' 'open source' linux. There are already many to choose from, just use an existing one? Why reinvent the wheel and make it even more confusing for people to use your lame-ass software.

Re:I thought open source was about choice?

[Johann]

Hi,

Good point and I'm not against other licenses. My point was that there are already dozens of open source compliant licenses. Why not use one of those? I personally favor the GPL, but that's just my preference, which is why I added that additional statement.

Re:INTELLIGENT DESIGN: THE REAL SCIENCE OPTION?

[zootm]

Because of insufficient evidence to produce an objective finding, many scientists have realized that much more faith is required for 'Darwinism', than for ID.

Nonsense.

Re:defeat slashdot's editors

[Anonymous Coward]

That is funny and all, but would you please shut-your-freakin' cake-whole? Thank you very much, -LMSJR

the time for jihad has come

[loco_locale]

Hey everybody, jihadi_31337 here again. You may remember me posting from the Internet Measurment Conference earlier this week. I'm on a road trip for the weekened, and I'm at a friend's place. One of my favorite things about going to friends' places is that I can do a bunch of jihad posts and get their IP banned too :)

Ok, here we go. Thanks for reading the intro.

Ever notice the "beat the rush and see it early" link at the top of slashdot when a new story is about to come out?

Sounds good, doesn't it? To be able to view the pages linked to in the article before the tens of thousands of other slashbots click to view them.

Did it ever occur to you that you're taking part in cyber-terrorism?

That's right: Slashdot's editors are cyber-terrorists. They coordinate a DOS against small websites, and they attempt to collect moeny from people who wish to be spared the effects of said DOS. Terrorism, plain and simple.

You can fight this and other crimes by slashdot's editors by joining anti-slash. Anti-slash is committed to forcing the editors to own up to their numerous crimes against the geek community. Until our demands are met, we will relentlessly discredit them as a news service through trolling and other means.

Also, props to poopbot and the alan thicke troll. We remember your accomplishments.

In sacred jihad-

jihadi_31337

| _ __ | |
_) |_|_)__/_| |
(_) o

OSI reducing licenses

[Matt Perry]

Wasn't OSI trying to reduce the number of licenses? If the license is modeled on the BSD license, why not use the BSD license? If it's like the MPL, why not use the MPL?

Re:OSI reducing licenses

[Russ Nelson]

The BSD license doesn't have an explicit patent grant. Lawyers argue that it has an implicit license grant, because no sensible person would give with the copyright hand and take away with the patent hand. THe trouble with implicit terms in a license is that you have to rely on the judge having gotten out on the right side of the bed.

Also, Rishab Ayer Ghosh (an OSI board member) noticed that the Ms-PL requires that source distributions be licensed under the Ms-PL, which the BSD doesn't.

The MPL is a long, complicated license. The Ms-RL is one page. ONE PAGE. IMHO, that's its biggest contribution: an ordinary developer can read it and understand its terms. Can't shake a stick at that. Of course, they also made it not a reusable license, and there may be other problems, so we definitely have more negotiating to do with Microsoft.
-russ

Wow..now

[jkind]

I've been to boring meetings.. But this sounds it would have been quite a boring meeting :) Discussing fine print of GPL and what it does/does not allow you to do.. Must have been a lawyer field day.

Re:Wow..now

[Russ Nelson]

We actually didn't talk that much about the terms of the license. We pointed out that we want reusable licenses (so it should say Licensor instead of Microsoft). We also pointed out that there's huge amounts of hostility to Microsoft simply because they're Microsoft, and that the licenses would be more widely reused if they followed Sun's model of not naming the license after themselves. You can see that Sun learned their lesson between submitting the SISSL and the CDDL.

But yeah, licensing minutia can be painful. I'd rather program in PDP-8 assembly language, but we can't leave this kind of important stuff to lawyers. Not even lawyers who understand coding, e.g. Larry Rosen, Larry Lessig, Mitchell Baker, and Karl Auerbach.
-russ

Re:you can help the /. community through jihad

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you get rubbed the wrong way by being /.ed or something? To care so much to setup your slashdot revolt site and put tiny-little comic relief notes within /. forum posts... I think you got to much free time and not enough sex. Get a life.

The insideous plan

[Anonymous Coward]

Think back to one of the pask blasts as the GPL/FOSS world. The problem MS stated was that there were too many licenses so you didn't know what you were getting yourself into.

Stung by this, OSI and others (E.g. IBM/Sun) removed some redundant licenses.

Now, by getting these five (ish) licenses approved, MS have managed to make this situation worse.

Sheer genious!

And I care why?

[codepunk]

I could not give a darned what license MS uses for anything. I don't even think about them any longer, they have become totally expendable to me.

Re:And I care why?

[Angostura]

And yet, and yet, you read this article and comment on it.

Re:INTELLIGENT DESIGN: THE REAL SCIENCE OPTION?

[Phil246]

(taken from http://abstractfactory.blogspot.com/2005/10/only-d ebate-on-intelligent-design-that.html )
The only debate on Intelligent Design that is worthy of its subject

Moderator: We're here today to debate the hot new topic, evolution versus Intelligent Des---

(Scientist pulls out baseball bat.)

Moderator: Hey, what are you doing?

(Scientist breaks Intelligent Design advocate's kneecap.)

Intelligent Design advocate: YEAAARRRRGGGHHHH! YOU BROKE MY KNEECAP!

Scientist: Perhaps it only appears that I broke your kneecap. Certainly, all the evidence points to the hypothesis I broke your kneecap. For example, your kneecap is broken; it appears to be a fresh wound; and I am holding a baseball bat, which is spattered with your blood. However, a mere preponderance of evidence doesn't mean anything. Perhaps your kneecap was designed that way. Certainly, there are some features of the current situation that are inexplicable according to the "naturalistic" explanation you have just advanced, such as the exact contours of the excruciating pain that you are experiencing right now.

Intelligent Design advocate: AAAAH! THE PAIN!

Scientist: Frankly, I personally find it completely implausible that the random actions of a scientist such as myself could cause pain of this particular kind. I have no precise explanation for why I find this hypothesis implausible --- it just is. Your knee must have been designed that way!

Intelligent Design advocate: YOU BASTARD! YOU KNOW YOU DID IT!

Scientist: I surely do not. How can we know anything for certain? Frankly, I think we should expose people to all points of view. Furthermore, you should really re-examine whether your hypothesis is scientific at all: the breaking of your kneecap happened in the past, so we can't rewind and run it over again, like a laboratory experiment. Even if we could, it wouldn't prove that I broke your kneecap the previous time. Plus, let's not even get into the fact that the entire universe might have just popped into existence right before I said this sentence, with all the evidence of my alleged kneecap-breaking already pre-formed.

Intelligent Design advocate: That's a load of bullshit sophistry! Get me a doctor and a lawyer, not necessarily in that order, and we'll see how that plays in court!

Scientist (turning to audience): And so we see, ladies and gentlemen, when push comes to shove, advocates of Intelligent Design do not actually believe any of the arguments that they profess to believe. When it comes to matters that hit home, they prefer evidence, the scientific method, testable hypotheses, and naturalistic explanations. In fact, they strongly privilege naturalistic explanations over supernatural hocus-pocus or metaphysical wankery. It is only within the reality-distortion field of their ideological crusade that they give credence to the flimsy, ridiculous arguments which we so commonly see on display. I must confess, it kind of felt good, for once, to be the one spouting free-form bullshit; it's so terribly easy and relaxing, compared to marshaling rigorous arguments backed up by empirical evidence. But I fear that if I were to continue, then it would be habit-forming, and bad for my soul. Therefore, I bid you adieu.

Re:INTELLIGENT DESIGN: THE REAL SCIENCE OPTION?

[ettlz]

Oh, no. This looks like the beginning of yet another cut-and-paste troll.

Gone are the good old days of 'Taco porn.

Uh, no.

[Some Random Username]

"pretty much everyone understands "open source" to mean that you can not only see the code, but also (perhaps subject to some restrictions) use the code in your own work."

Pretty much everyone understands "ironic" to mean anything they randomly decide to call ironic for no reason, but that doesn't change the meaning of the word, it just makes them stupid.

I can't use GPL code in my own work, so does that mean its not open source? Trying to classify what arbitrary restrictions can be put on something and have it still be "open source" is a waste of time. There is an infinite number of restrictions, and nobody who can make that call.

So, you end up with people like Russ who try to take advantage of trends by trademarking a term so they can redefine its meaning in the marketing/buzzword world. And then you have people who understand english and know what "open" and "source" mean, and that they don't magically mean something totally different if you put them together.

Maybe need to RTFA better but...

[oztiks]

Does anyone know what applications they are looking at putting under these new licencing models?

Also the other thing that doesnt make sense, isnt microsoft "worried" about secruity and looking at enhancing their systems by making them stronger secruity wise? Will this not mess up that idea?

I wonder how many hackers out there going to rub their hands in glee being able to pry their ways around MS code (if you can actully bring yourself through the pain to do so)...

Or maybe i've lost the plot here .. with ms i just dont know anymore :-/

Re:INTELLIGENT DESIGN: THE REAL SCIENCE OPTION?

[Anonymous Coward]

All points of view?

Perhaps someone should sue for the inclusion of Nazism and Radical Jihad Rhetoric in the curriculum.

The world is flat.

mod parent down

[Anonymous Coward]

Cut-and-paste from last time, and flat-out wrong, in that (a) that's not from any of the MS licenses, and (b) the GPL does require (in clause 2A) notice of changes from the original work.

(For the record, the MS licenses are GPL-incompatible, but because of the stuff about patents.)

Pork Air?

[a_greer2005]

The mile high club is reborn!

No wonder they made money!

Monoculture

[Ellmist]

A software license monoculture is even more dangerous than an operating system monoculture.

Re:INTELLIGENT DESIGN: THE REAL SCIENCE OPTION?

[syncomm]

This is a flamebaiting troll, please mod parent appropriately. Completely off topic

Wait....

[TheNetAvenger]

Doesn't this make Microsoft cool like Apple now?

Both took BSD & other open technology - both are using it - both only gave back what they legallly had to.

Wow, Microsoft is now just as cool as Apple in the Open Source World, so now will we see free ads for Microsoft's products like we do Apple, and a big microsoft.slashdot.com page?

I knew Microsoft would become as cool as Apple by cheating the open source world just like Apple, now lets get behind them like we have Apple...

Woo Hoo - Go Microosft!

Hypocrites...

Re:Wait....

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference between the two is that Apple's software WORKS while Microsoft's SUCKS. It's obvious, based on your comments, that you appear to be a Windows (tm) user and, well, therefor shall get what you deserve. Enjoy.

Re:Wait....

[FST777]

both only gave back what they legallly had to

Apple didn't have to give anything back to *BSD (the nature of the license). They did. Maybe they had to give something back to KHTML / Konqueror. They did and did more.

Re:Wait....

[TheNetAvenger]

Apple didn't have to give anything back to *BSD (the nature of the license). They did. Maybe they had to give something back to KHTML / Konqueror. They did and did more.

And how much intellectual credibility would you be willing to bet on this?

Re:Wait....

[TheNetAvenger]

The difference between the two is that Apple's software WORKS while Microsoft's SUCKS. It's obvious, based on your comments, that you appear to be a Windows (tm) user and, well, therefor shall get what you deserve. Enjoy.

Clever, well probably as clever as "you" can get...

Due to the nature of my work, I probably use more different OSes in one day than you even know exist... Don't paint me with a brush, just because you have an 'everything MS does sucks' bias.

I never even said anything about how good or bad Apple or MS's software was, that is an assumption about me you made.

"Assumption is the intuition of fools" - The Net Avenger

Re:Wait....

[FST777]

quite a lot actually...

The FSF wrote important licenses. Not the OSI.

[Anonymous Coward]

The OSI doesn't actually hold any power or significance. All the OSI does is state their opinion, just like the FSF, they tell people that something agrees with them, hardly a big deal. They don't actually have any authority over what is or isn't open source.

The FSF, unlike the OSI, has written multiple licenses of importance, most notably the GNU General Public License. They wrote the GPL well before the open source movement began (GPLv1 is dated February 1989, GPLv2 June 1991). The upcoming revision of the GPL (version 3) will be the first GPL revision any "open source" movement supporter has had a say in. Other important licenses the FSF wrote include the GNU Lesser General Public License (formerly the GNU Library General Public License), and the the GNU Free Documentation License.

What qualifies as an OSI-approved license is defined by the Open Source Definition. The term "open source" was coined by someone who helped start the open source movement and the Open Source Initiative in February 1998. Trying to reach back before February 1998 and define things that happened before that movement began is ahistorical; an attempt to make "open source" or the OSI come off as more important historically than it actually is. Thus the OSI has considerable claim on what is "open source" and what isn't. That most people don't understand the term "open source" only speaks to their individual (yet shared) confusion of what "open source" means.

GPL incompatibilty is a significant practical problem because the GPL is the most popular free software license (a license which is also OSI-approved).

—jbn-o posting anonymously because I've already moderated in this thread. So, any moderation applied to this post won't accrue to my /. account.

Re:The FSF wrote important licenses. Not the OSI.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well jbn-o, you're a nutter anyways, so your opinion is pretty much moot.

The term open source did not start with some amazing meeting between random people at Netscape's offices in 1998. The term predates the Open Source Inititive, just as free software predates the Free Software Foundation.

If I call software that obligates people to annually suck my penis free software, that doesn't make it the reality, much to my chagrin.

What the Free Software Foundation has written in the past doesn't give them any authority over dictating the meaning of words, just as the Open Source Inititive's complete lack of doing anything gives them no authority over the meanings of words.

Your convoluted statement doesn't give any real backup to your concept of the OSI or the FSF being important, you state that the OSI isn't as important as the FSF but then use the OSI's support of the FSF's work as the reason for the FSF's authority.

And just because something is popular, doesn't mean everything should be compatible with it. OpenSSL is the most popular secure socket layer, why doesn't all this GPL garbage make itself compatible with it?

Experiment tried, lesson learned.

[jbn-o]

Yes, I now realize that my "anonymous" post undid my moderation. Oh well.

Re:INTELLIGENT DESIGN: THE REAL SCIENCE OPTION?

[Anonymous Coward]

it was also countertrolling an offtopic troll rather well
fighting fire with fire as it were

Compelling publication?

[jbn-o]

A software licensed under the GPL does not have to provide notice of any changes made from the original work.

While section 2a of the GNU GPL requires "the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change", this clause (like most of the GPL) only kicks in if you distribute the changed program. Whether you distribute the changed program is entirely optional under the GPL.

"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."

The context in which you quote this makes this quote appear to have come from one or more of the new Microsoft licenses. But I don't see this text in any of the three new Microsoft licenses. Where did it come from?

Re:INTELLIGENT DESIGN: THE REAL SCIENCE OPTION?

[Anonymous Coward]

More power to you Mr/Mrs/Miss/Mz Off-Topic Troll

Who was it who said the path to justice is a river of blood?
Well, anyway hangings too good for him.

Wow, a license to share something...

[merc]

Only the beast in Redmond would introduce a concept -- that you need a *license* to do something, we were all taught since kindergarden, that we should do gratuitously.

Re:INTELLIGENT DESIGN: THE REAL SCIENCE OPTION?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hah, and here was I, sucking socks!

Thank you for the GNU Foundation

[matt me]

Thankfully we have the GNU foundation who understand the concepts of freedom and the idealogy of the movement, not just a group who 'approve' that a license is officially a certain buzzword.