Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft License Goes to OSI But Not From Redmond

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the heeeey-batter-batter dept.

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."

2 of 142 comments (clear)

  1. Re:And people wonder why ... by sumdumass · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What if this wasn't a stupid prank. What if it was just someone trying to prove to some one else that microsoft's opensource license isn't opensource.

  2. Re:And people wonder why ... by mabhatter654 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    there is probably some provison that the licensor would have to guarantee that the license wouldn't change over it's life... most importantly couldn't change without notice. Things like BSD, GPL, MPL, AFSL all have standardized offical versions and either no change or methods of change defined right in the license. Example: Typical GPL is version 2 dated 1991. We all know exactly what that means. If you make any changes to that you MUST call them out and notice them from the published version. MS has no "standard" license to reuse over and over.

    Microsoft licenses aren't worth the bits on the screen.. they can be changed at will by Microsoft and "paper" versions don't count. MS refuses to version or date their licenses.. it's all a game to them. If OSI was to approve a MS license, MS would have to guarantee that it wouldn't change without notice.. and they flatly refuse to do that!