Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft License Goes to OSI But Not From Redmond
An anonymous reader writes "eWeek is reporting that a Microsoft Shared Source license, the Microsoft Community License, was submitted to the Open Source Initiative for official approval, but it wasn't Microsoft who submitted it. The license it appears was submitted by John Cowan, who is a programmer and blogger and who also volunteers for the Chester County InterLink, a non-profit founded in 1993 by former OSI president Eric Raymond and Jordan Seidel. Needless to say, the OSI contacted Microsoft to see if it should evaluate the license anyway, and was told to drop it."
Have you looked at the license. I confess I had not before I read this,but then I check it out at http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/li censingbasics/communitylicense.mspx
The license itself is short and sweet, and easy to understand. Or at least so I deem, but of course IANAL.
I have no idea what software Microsoft has licensed under this license, but a casual read of it looks like the license should be certifiable by OSI. As far as I can tell, the only potentially confusing issue is the patent retaliation clause.
In most other respects, it looks like a simpler version of the GPL, including being viral. I can't imagine why MS wouldn't want it blessed by OSI. Probably they just don't want to be recognized for giving source away even when they do so. Heck, they might be worried that it would scare off investors who consider Microsoft's IP portfolio as a reason for buy MS shares. :-)
Now, it probably is a Good Thing that it isn't blessed, because the last thing we want is another viral license that also happens to be incompatible with GPL. (The patent retaliation makes it GPL-incompatible.) Life is hard enough figuring out Open Source license as it is.
What I was thinking was that the license is a decent license no matter who wrote it, and worth approving *because* of who wrote it. Nelson pointed out a potential issue, and I withdrew my recommendation, but not the judgments it's based on -- I stand by those.
Obi
Osier
Soy
Soil
Oasis
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
That's exactly what it was. John wanted to know if we would approve the licenses, because as far as he could see, they are approvable. Looks like it to me too, yet .... we'd prefer to have the steward submit the license hence my request that he withdraw them.
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Actually, I don't remember asking Microsoft what they thought. Perhaps Bill Hilf is remembering something that didn't happen. According to TFA, he was pretty hazy about John Cowen's name.
Anyway, we certainly would have evaluated them had John not withdrew the approval request. Approval was just not the best of all possible courses of action, which is why we asked him to withdraw.
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
"Open Source" is not a trademark, nor is "open source", for various technical reasons. "OSI Approved" *is* a trademark, and you can slap it on your software if you are 1) making source code available and 2) using a license on OSI's list.
A license doesn't have to be OSI-approved in order to be an open-source license. An OSI-approved license is one that is an open-source license in the judgment of various people, not just the OSI board members.
"Undoubtedly"? *I* doubt it. In fact, it isn't true.
I would never abuse the OSI process by submitting a license for consideration unless I thought that license met the Open Source definition. Life is too short for such machinations.
Well, of course I don't agree that it was a prank. I was quite serious.
I also don't agree that the license "doesn't even start to come close to being OSI compliant." OSI-approved licenses are a subset of OSI-compliant ones.